[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 12 (Tuesday, February 12, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S612-S653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m. today.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:33 p.m., recessed until
2:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer
(Mr. Cleland).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, at 2:50 we will provide an opportunity for
Members to offer amendments. Members have until 3 p.m. to offer their
amendments or there will be no more amendments than those offered. I
ask unanimous consent, regardless of what we are involved in, there be
a period from 2:50 until 3 p.m. that Members have the opportunity to
offer amendments if they so choose and we would lay amendments aside to
allow Senators to offer their amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Amendment No. 2846 to Amendment No. 2471
Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the current amendment
and I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi] proposes an amendment
numbered 2846 to amendment numbered 2471.
Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To authorize the President to establish a pilot emergency
relief program under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance
Act of 1954 to provide live lamb to Afghanistan)
On page 337, strike line 11 and insert the following:
SEC. 309. PILOT EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM TO PROVIDE LIVE LAMB
TO AFGHANISTAN.
Title II of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1721 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 209. PILOT EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM TO PROVIDE LIVE
LAMB TO AFGHANISTAN.
``(a) In General.--The President may establish a pilot
emergency relief program under this title to provide live
lamb to Afghanistan on behalf of the people of the United
States.
``(b) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2004, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that--
``(1)(A) evaluates the success of the program under
subsection (a); or
``(B) if the program has not succeeded or has not been
implemented, explains in detail why the program has not
succeeded or has not been implemented; and
``(2) discusses the feasibility and desirability of
providing assistance in the form of live animals.''.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will refrain from most of my debate until
[[Page S613]]
later. I will give a brief explanation of what the bill does.
It is a pilot project to provide lamb to Afghanistan. Wyoming has the
Air National Guard that has the capability of moving livestock from the
United States to Afghanistan, and there are several other units in the
United States. It provides the USDA, from among current funds, to
purchase a pilot project in lamb and ship it by way of military
transport to Afghanistan.
We have heard the story, give a person a fish, it will feed them for
a day; teach a person to fish, it will feed them for a lifetime. This
is in that category. This is the opportunity to build up their herds.
They do not have much refrigeration. They can use the herd, grow the
herd, and the production from the herd can be used for food, and it can
be butchered at the time they need it, so there is no refrigeration
problem.
We think it will solve a lot of problems. The amendment is wide open
for how extensive the pilot project could be. It does call for a report
in January of 2004 to explain whether it worked or did not work,
whether it was implemented or not, and if it was not implemented, to
explain why it was not implemented.
The idea is very simple. We should ship live lamb to Afghanistan not
only to assist the numerous tribes in rebuilding their flocks of sheep,
but to provide immediate protein to their diets.
My amendment would authorize the President to study the feasibility
of sending live lamb to Afghanistan. My amendment requires the
President to report to Congress on the feasibility of a pilot live lamb
program. The report would include information on the cost and the
logistics of the program. A favorable report could begin a series of
shipments to Afghanistan, while an unfavorable report would lead us to
re-evaluate how the program could succeed. Because this program only
mandates a report, it is budget neutral.
The continued need for food in Afghanistan is great. We are all well-
acquainted with the unique problems facing food aid to Afghanistan. The
country's northern terrain is mountainous. Few roads traverse the area.
The number of roads is even smaller when you consider that food,
typically grain, is hauled in large trucks. These trucks require
passable roads. Lastly, we have to consider the high altitude of
Afghanistan. Much like my own State, winter in Afghanistan shuts down
passage on all mountain roads. The only option is to consider moving
food aid through the gentler southern landscape. After a brief glance
at the countries on Afghanistan's southern border, we know that we
couldn't depend on them as ports of entry to ship food aid to
Afghanistan.
The idea to ship live lamb to Afghanistan originated when I was
considering the great obstacles that prevented trucks from delivering
food aid to the interior of Afghanistan. But, if we couldn't move the
food, why couldn't the food move itself? Live lamb was the natural
answer.
Lamb has been a traditional part of the diet for the people of the
region for many years and has no religious prohibitions. Once the lamb
arrives at the edge or in the region, it can easily be distributed to
the needy area on foot or by truck. Sheep are well known for their
agility and ability to adapt to mountainous regions. Once the lambs are
distributed, the families, themselves, can decide how and when to
slaughter the lambs or even use the lambs to build up their family
stock.
Now here in America, most parents wouldn't be comfortable
slaughtering a lamb in the back yard. Most families in Afghanistan
don't receive their meat on a styrofoam platter in Saran wrap from the
grocery store. They are very comfortable slaughtering their own
livestock for sustenance in very traditional ways.
In an effort to ensure this program would be handled correctly, I did
give USAID, United States Agency for International Development, an
opportunity to view an earlier version of the amendment that mandated
the program. USAID raised a few concerns to the amendment. One concern
is that lamb would not provide the same caloric value per dollar as
grain. In response to this and other concerns, I scaled the amendment
back to a study. I realize the importance of getting as many calories
as possible across the ocean and to the Afghan people today, but
my amendment looks ahead to the future. While we address the immediate
needs of the Afghan people, we cannot ignore the fact that the people
need long-term assistance.
Mr. President, this is a simple idea with a great possibility of
benefits for the Afghan people. Congress, and all Americans, are
working to assist the Afghan people in the development of a stronger
and long-lasting stable government.
As we are all too aware, the people of Afghanistan have suffered over
two decades of turmoil, nearly 4 years of drought, and the oppressive
rule of the Taliban regime. Even before 2001, Afghanistan had the worst
nutrition situation in the world and the highest maternal mortality
rate. Nearly one-fifth of Afghans depend on humanitarian aid for
survival. In the last year, the situation has gotten even worse.
I am pleased that the United States has been a staunch supporter of
the Afghan people and a large contributor of humanitarian aid. In fact,
since 1979 the United States has contributed more than $1 billion in
humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people. The United States has
represented about two-thirds of the total contribution of the
international community. I believe this amendment continues our history
of providing aid where it is needed.
The uniqueness of sending live lamb could open the doors for other
areas of aid as well. My amendment does not require the program to be
carried out, nor does it put additional burdens on the budget, it
simply calls for a study. The study of a program that could have an
impact on so many people should be supported.
I know my colleagues are aware of the amounts of aid we are already
sending to Afghanistan. I am aware that there remain some concerns
about how we can send live lamb half-way around the world. I hope my
colleagues will support this amendment in order to explore new
strategies of providing a long-term aid to the people of Afghanistan.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Amendment No. 2847 to Amendment No. 2471
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
laid aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 2847 to amendment No. 2471.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose. To insert in the environmental quality incentives program
provisions relating to confined livestock feeding operations and insert
a payment limitation)
Beginning on page 217, strike line 12 and all that follows
through page 235, line 6 and insert the following:
(iii) Requirement.--A comprehensive nutrient management
plan shall meet all Federal, State, and local water quality
and public health goals and regulations, and in the case of a
large confined livestock operation (as defined by the
Secretary), shall include all necessary and essential land
treatment practices and determined by the Secretary.
(3) Eligible land.--The term ``eligible land'' means
agriculture land (including cropland, grassland, rangeland,
pasture, private nonindustrial forest land and other land on
which crops or livestock are produced), including
agricultural land that the Secretary determines poses a
serious threat to soil, water, or related resources by reason
of the soil types, terrain, climatic, soil, topographic,
flood, or saline characteristics, or other factors or natural
hazards.
(4) Innovative technology.--The term ``innovative
technology'' means a new conservation technology that, as
determined by the Secretary--
(A) maximizes environmental benefits;
(B) complements agricultural production; and
(C) may be adopted in a practical manner.
(5) Land management practice.--The term ``land management
practice'' means a site-specific nutrient or manure
management, integrated pest management, irrigation
management, tillage or residue management, grazing
management, air quality management, or other land management
practice carried out on eligible land that the Secretary
determines is needed to protect from degradation, in the most
cost-effective manner, water, soil, or related resource.
[[Page S614]]
(6) Livestock.--The term ``livestock'' means dairy cattle,
beef cattle, laying hens, broilers, turkeys, swine, sheep,
and other such animals as are determined by the Secretary.
(7) Managed grazing.--The term ``managed grazing'' means
the application of 1 or more practices that involve the
frequent rotation of animals on grazing land to--
(A) enhance plant health;
(B) limit soil erosion;
(C) protect ground and surface water quality; or
(D) benefit wildlife.
(8) Maximize environmental benefits per dollar expended.--
(A) In general.--The term ``maximize environmental benefits
per dollar expended'' means to maximize environmental
benefits to the extent the Secretary determines is
practicable and appropriate, taking into account the amount
of funding made available to carry out this chapter.
(B) Limitation.--The term ``maximize environmental benefits
per dollar expended'' does not require the Secretary--
(i) to require the adoption of the least cost practice or
technical assistance; or
(ii) to require the development of a plan under section
1240E as part of an application for payments or technical
assistance.
(9) Practice.--The term ``practice'' means 1 or more
structural practices, land management practices, and
comprehensive nutrient management planning practices.
(10) Producer.--
(A) In general.--The term ``producer'' means an owner,
operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper that--
(i) shares in the risk of producing any crop or livestock;
and
(ii) is entitled to share in the crop or livestock
available for marketing from a farm (or would have shared had
the crop or livestock been produced).
(B) Hybrid seed growers.--In determining whether a grower
of hybrid seed is producer, the Secretary shall not take into
consideration the existence of hybrid seed contract.
(11) Program.--The term ``program'' means the environmental
quality incentives program comprised of sections 1240 through
1240J.
(12) Structural practice.--The term ``structural practice''
means--
(A) the establishment on eligible land of a site-specific
animal waste management facility, terrace, grassed waterway,
contour grass strip, filterstrip, tailwater pit, permanent
wildlife habitat, constructed wetland, or other structural
practice that the Secretary determines is needed to protect,
in the most cost effective manner, water, soil, or related
resources from degradation; and
(B) the capping of abandoned wells on eligible land.
SEC. 1240B. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--During each of the 2002 through 2006
fiscal years, the Secretary shall provide technical
assistance, cost-share payments, and incentive payments to
producers that enter into contracts with the Secretary under
the program.
(2) Eligible practices.--
(A) Structural practices.--A producer that implements a
structural practice shall be eligible for any combination of
technical assistance, cost-share payments, and education.
(B) Lands management practices.--A producer that performs a
land management practice shall be eligible for any
combination of technical assistance, incentive payments, and
education.
(C) Comprehensive nutrient management planning.--A producer
that develops a comprehensive nutrient management plan shall
be eligible for any combination of technical assistance,
incentive payments, and education.
(3) Education.--The Secretary may provide conservation
education at national, State, and local levels consistent
with the purposes of the program to--
(A) any producer that is eligible for assistance under the
program; or
(B) any producer that is engaged in the production of an
agricultural commodity.
(b) Application and Term.--With respect to practices
implemented under this program--
(1) a contract between a producer and the Secretary may--
(A) apply to 1 or more structural practices, land
management practices, and comprehensive nutrient management
planning practices; and
(B) have a term of not less than 3, or more than 10 years,
as determined appropriate by the Secretary, depending on the
practice or practices that are the basis of the contract;
(2) a producer may not enter into more than 1 contract for
structural practices involving livestock nutrient management
during the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2006; and
(3) a producer that has an interest in more than 1 large
confined livestock operation, as defined by the Secretary,
may not enter into more than 1 contract for cost-share
payments for a storage or treatment facility, or associated
waste transport or transfer device, to manage manure, process
wastewater, or other animal waste generated by the large
confined livestock feeding operation.
(c) Application and Evaluation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an
application and evaluation process for awarding technical
assistance, cost share payments and incentive payments to a
producer in exchange for the performance of 1 or more
practices that maximize environmental benefits per dollar
expended.
(2) Comparable environmental value.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a process
for selecting applications for technical assistance, cost
share payments, and incentive payments in any case in which
there are numerous applications for assistance for practices
that would provide substantially the same level of
environmental benefits.
(B) Criteria.--The process under subparagraph (A) shall be
based on--
(i) a reasonable estimate of the projected cost of the
proposals described in the applications; and
(ii) the priorities established under the program, and
other factors, that maximize environmental benefits per
dollar expended.
(3) Consent of owner.--If the producer making an offer to
implement a structural practice is a tenant of the land
involved in agricultural production, for the offer to be
acceptable, the producer shall obtain the consent of the
owner of the land with respect to the offer.
(4) Bidding down.--If the Secretary determines that the
environmental values of 2 or more applications for technical
assistance, cost-share payments, or incentive payments are
comparable, the Secretary shall not assign a higher priority
to the application only because it would present the least
cost to the program established under the program.
(d) Cost-Share Payments.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
cost-share payments provided to a producer proposing to
implement 1 or more practices under the program shall be not
more than 75 percent of the cost of the practice, as
determined by the Secretary.
(2) Exceptions.--
(A) Limited resource and beginning farmers.--The Secretary
may increase the amount provided to a producer under
paragraph (1) to not more than 90 percent if the producer is
a limited resource or beginning farmer or rancher, as
determined by the Secretary.
(B) Cost-share assistance from other sources.--Except as
provided in paragraph (3), any cost-share payments received
by a producer from a State or private organization or person
for the implementation of 1 or more practices on eligible
land of the producer shall be in addition to the payments
provided to the producer under paragraph (1).
(3) Other payments.--A producer shall not be eligible for
cost-share payments for practices on eligible land under the
program if the producer receives cost-share payments or other
benefits for the same practice on the same land under chapter
1 and the program.
(e) Incentive Payments.--The Secretary shall make incentive
payments in an amount and at a rate determined by the
Secretary to be necessary to encourage a producer to perform
1 or more practices.
(f) Technical Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall allocate funding under
the program for the provision of technical assistance
according to the purpose and projected cost for which the
technical assistance is provided for a fiscal year.
(2) Amount.--The allocated amount may vary according to--
(A) the type of expertise required;
(B) the quantity of time involved; and
(C) other factors as determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
(3) Limitation.--Funding for technical assistance under the
program shall not exceed the projected cost to the Secretary
of the technical assistance provided for a fiscal year.
(4) Other authorities.--The receipt of technical assistance
under the program shall not affect the eligibility of the
producer to receive technical assistance under other
authorities of law available to the Secretary.
(5) Incentive payments for technical assistance.--
(A) In general.--A producer that is eligible to receive
technical assistance for a practice involving the development
of a comprehensive nutrient management plan may obtain an
incentive payment that can be used to obtain technical
assistance associated with the development of any component
of the comprehensive nutrient management plan.
(B) Purpose.--The purpose of the payment shall be to
provide a producer the option of obtaining technical
assistance for developing any component of a comprehensive
nutrient management plan from a certified provider.
(C) Payment.--The incentive payment shall be--
(i) in addition to cost-share or incentive payments that a
producer would otherwise receive for structural practices and
land management practices;
(ii) used only to procure technical assistance from a
certified provider that is necessary to develop any component
of a comprehensive nutrient management plan; and
(iii) in an amount determined appropriate by the Secretary,
taking into account--
(I) the extent and complexity of the technical assistance
provided;
(II) the costs that the Secretary would have incurred in
providing the technical assistance; and
(III) the costs incurred by the private provider in
providing the technical assistance.
(D) Eligible practices.--The Secretary may determine, on a
case by case basis, whether the development of a
comprehensive nutrient management plan is eligible for an
incentive payment under this paragraph.
(E) Certification by secretary.--
[[Page S615]]
(i) In general.--Only persons that have been certified by
the Secretary under section 1244(f)(3) shall be eligible to
provide technical assistance under this subsection.
(ii) Quality assurance.--The Secretary shall ensure that
certified providers are capable of providing technical
assistance regarding comprehensive nutrient management in a
manner that meets the specifications and guidelines of the
Secretary and that meets the needs of producers under the
program.
(F) Advance payment.--On the determination of the Secretary
that the proposed comprehensive nutrient management of a
producer is eligible for an incentive payment, the producer
may receive a partial advance of the incentive payment in
order to procure the services of a certified provider.
(G) Final payment.--The final installment of the incentive
payment shall be payable to a producer on presentation to the
Secretary of documentation that is satisfactory to the
Secretary and that demonstrates--
(i) completion of the technical assistance; and
(ii) the actual cost of the technical assistance.
(g) Modification or Termination of Contracts.--
(1) Voluntary modification or termination.--The Secretary
may modify or terminate a contract entered into with a
producer under this chapter if--
(A) the producer agrees to the modification or termination;
and
(B) the Secretary determines that the modification or
termination is in the public interest.
(2) Involuntary termination.--The Secretary may terminate a
contract under this chapter if the Secretary determines that
the producer violated the contract.
SEC. 1240C. EVALUATION OF OFFERS AND PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--In evaluating applications for technical
assistance, cost-share payments, and incentive payments, the
Secretary shall accord a higher priority to assistance and
payments that--
(1) maximize environmental benefits per dollar expended;
and
(2)(A) address national conservation priorities,
including--
(i) meeting Federal, State, and local environmental
purposes focused on protecting air and water quality,
including assistance to production systems and practices that
avoid subjecting an operation to Federal, State, or local
environmental regulatory systems;
(ii) applications from livestock producers using managed
grazing systems and other pasture and forage based systems;
(iii) comprehensive nutrient management;
(iv) water quality, particularly in impaired watersheds;
(v) soil erosion;
(vi) air quality; or
(vii) pesticide and herbicide management or reduction;
(B) are provided in conservation priority areas established
under section 1230(c);
(C) are provided in special projects under section
1243(f)(4) with respect to which State or local governments
have provided, or will provide, financial or technical
assistance to producers for the same conservation or
environmental purposes; or
(D) an innovative technology in connection with a
structural practice or land management practice.
SEC. 1240D. DUTIES OF PRODUCERS.
(a) To receive technical assistance, cost-share payments,
or incentive payments under the program, a producer shall
agree--
(1) to implement an environmental quality incentives
program plan that describes conservation and environmental
purposes to be achieved through 1 or more practices that are
approved by the Secretary;
(2) not to conduct any practices on the farm or ranch that
would tend to defeat the purposes of the program;
(3) on the violation of a term or condition of the contract
at any time the producer has control of the land--
(A) if the Secretary determines that the violation warrants
termination of the contract--
(i) to forfeit all rights to receive payments under the
contract; and
(ii) to refund to the Secretary all or a portion of the
payments received by the owner or operator under the
contract, including any interest on the payments, as
determined by the Secretary; or
(B) if the Secretary determines that the violation does not
warrant termination of the contract, to refund to the
Secretary, or accept adjustments to, the payments provided to
the owner or operator, as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate;
(4) on the transfer of the right and interest of the
producer in land subject to the contract, unless the
transferee of the right and interest agrees with the
Secretary to assume all obligations of the contract, to
refund all cost-share payments and incentive payments
received under the program, as determined by the Secretary;
(5) to supply information as required by the Secretary to
determine compliance with the program plan and requirements
of the program;
(6) to comply with such additional provisions as the
Secretary determines are necessary to carry out the program
plan; and
(7) to submit a list of all confined livestock feeding
operations wholly or partially owned or operated by the
applicant.
SEC. 1240E. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM PLAN.
(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive technical
assistance, cost-share payments, or incentive payments under
the program, a producer of a livestock or agricultural
operation shall submit to the Secretary for approval a plan
of operations that specifies practices covered under the
program, and is based on such terms and conditions, as the
Secretary considers necessary to carry out the program,
including a description of the practices to be implemented
and the purposes to be met by the implementation of the plan,
and in the case of confined livestock feeding operations,
development and implementation of a comprehensive nutrient
management plan, and in the case of confined livestock
feeding operations, development and implementation of a
comprehensive nutrient management plan.
(b) Avoidance of Duplication.--The Secretary shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, eliminate duplication of planning
activities under the program and comparable conservation
programs.
SEC. 1240F. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.
(a) To the extent appropriate, the Secretary shall assist a
producer in achieving the conservation and environmental
goals of a program plan by--
(1) providing technical assistance in developing and
implementing the plan;
(2) providing technical assistance, cost-share payments, or
incentive payments for developing and implementing 1 or more
practices, as appropriate;
(3) providing the producer with information, education, and
training to aid in implementation of the plan; and
(4) encouraging the producer to obtain technical
assistance, cost-share payments, or grants from other
Federal, State, local, or private sources.
SEC. 1240G. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the total
amount of cost-share and incentive payments paid to a
producer under this chapter shall not exceed--
(1) $30,000 for any fiscal year, regardless of whether the
producer has more than 1 contract under this chapter for the
fiscal year;
(2) $90,000 for a contract with a term of 3 years;
(3) $120,000 for a contract with a term of 4 years; or
(4) $150,000 for a contract with a term of more than 4
years.
(b) Attribution.--An individual or entity shall not
receive, directly or indirectly, total payments from a single
or multiple contracts this chapter that exceed $30,000 for
any fiscal year.
(c) Exception to Annual Limit.--The Secretary may exceed
the limitation on the annual amount of a payment to a
producer under subsection (a)(1) if the Secretary determines
that a larger payment is--
(1) essential to accomplish the land management practice or
structural practice for which the payment is made to the
producer; and
(2) consistent with the maximization of environmental
benefits per dollar expended and the purposes of this
chapter.
(d) Verification.--The Secretary shall identify individuals
and entities that are eligible for a payment under the
program using social security numbers and taxpayer
identification numbers, respectively.
Mr. WELLSTONE. This amendment is a modified version of the amendment
I offered last week to reform the EQIP program. The central argument
against my amendment last week had to do with a size limitation. What
this amendment does is speak to some of the concerns of my colleagues,
but it still is very much a reform amendment.
No. 1, it would lower the payment limits from $50,000 per year to
$30,000 per year with the EQIP program. Right now, it is only $10,000 a
year. This is very consistent with the vote last week on payment
limitations.
No. 2, it would prevent producers with an interest in more than one
large CAFO from receiving more than one EQIP contract. This is the
whole idea of conglomerates owning many of these CAFOs and receiving
multiple subsidies. Again, we want to try to get support to our midsize
producers, our family farmers.
No. 3, it would require producers receiving the EQIP funds to have a
comprehensive nutrient management plan, environmental plan.
These are simple measures that I think make the EQIP program have
more, if you will, policy integrity. I think it is very consistent with
what we have been doing with the farm bill. The last amendment I
introduced was a close vote. I think there are now Senators who will
support this amendment.
We have the support of, among different organizations, the National
Farmers Union, the Environmental Working Group, the Land Stewardship
Project, Center for Rural Affairs, the Natural Resources Defense
Council, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, U.S. PIRG, and Campaign for
Family Farms and the Environment.
[[Page S616]]
I think this is a good reform amendment, and I will wait for further
debate on the amendment, but I wanted to lay it down now. I ask
unanimous consent the amendment be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2848 To Amendment No. 2471
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. I ask unanimous consent the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendment by number.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Gramm,
proposes an amendment numbered 2848 to amendment No. 2471.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To repeal the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and
Information Act of 2000)
At the appropriate place insert the following:
(1) Title XII of H.R. 5426 of the 106th Congress, as
introduced on October 6, 2000 and as enacted by Public Law
106-387 is hereby repealed.
Mr. LUGAR. The purpose of this amendment is to repeal the Hass
Avocado Promotion Research and Information Act of 2000.
I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside so I may
offer another amendment on behalf of Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2849 To Amendment No. 2471
Mr. LUGAR. I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Gramm,
proposes amendment numbered 2849 to amendment No. 2471.
Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide equity and fairness for the promotion of imported
Hass avocados)
At the appropriate place insert the following:
Section 1205 of the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and
Information Act (contained in H.R. 5426 of the 106th
Congress, as introduced on October 6, 2000 and as enacted by
Public Law 106-387) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (b)(2) by striking subparagraph (A) and
inserting in lieu thereof--
``(A) In general.--The order shall provide that the
Secretary shall appoint the members of the Board, and any
alternates, from among domestic producers and importers of
Hass avocados subject to assessments under the order to
reflect the proportion of domestic production and imports
supplying the United States market, which shall be based on
the Secretary's determination of the average volume of
domestic production of Hass avocados proportionate to the
average volume of imports of Hass avocados in the United
States over the previous three years.'';
(2) in paragraph (b)(2)(B) by striking ``under subparagraph
(A)(iii) on the basis of the amount of assessments collected
from producers and importers over the immediately preceding
three-year period'' and inserting ``under subparagraph (A)'';
(3) in paragraph (h)(1)(C)(iii) by striking everything in
the first sentence following ``by the importer'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``to the respective importers
association, or if there is no such association to the Board,
within such time period after the retail sale of such
avocados in the United States (not to exceed 60 days after
the end of the month in which the sale took place) as is
specified for domestically produced avocados.''; and
(4) in paragraph (9) by inserting at the end the following:
``(D) All importers of avocados from a country associated
with an importers association based on country-of-origin
activities shall be required to be members of such importers
association, and membership in such importers association
shall be open to any foreign avocado exporter or grower who
elects to voluntarily join.''
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to provide
equity and fairness for the promotion of imported Hass avocados.
I am introducing the amendments at this time in recognition of the
fact that we have a deadline of 3 p.m. for introduction of all
amendments. At some point, it is certainly possible that Senator Gramm
will come to the floor and argue in behalf of his amendments, and
others may do so also.
For the moment, I ask the amendment be laid aside, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2850 To Amendment No. 2471
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kyl and Senator
Nickles, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Kyl, for
himself and Mr. Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 2850
to amendment No. 2471.
Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PERMANENT REPEAL OF ESTATE
TAXES.
(a) Findings.--
(1) The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
of 2001 provided substantial relief from federal estate and
gift taxes beginning this year and repealed the federal
estate tax for one year beginning on January 1, 2010, and
(2) The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
of 2001 contains a ``sunset'' provision that reinstates the
federal estate tax at its 2001 level beginning on January 1,
2011.
(3) Sense of the Senate.--Therefore, it is the Sense of the
Senate that the repeal of the estate tax should be made
permanent by eliminating the sunset provision's applicability
to the estate tax.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask the amendment be laid aside, and I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELMS. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that it be
in order for me to make my remarks seated at my desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 2822 To Amendment No. 2471
Mr. HELMS. Mr. 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 North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an
amendment numbered 2822 to amendment No. 2471.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To exclude birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the
genus Mus from the definition of animal under the Animal Welfare Act)
On page 945, strike lines 6 and 7 and insert the following:
SEC. 1024. DEFINITION OF ANIMAL UNDER THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT.
Section 2(g) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132(g))
is amended by striking ``excludes horses not used for
research purposes and'' and inserting the following:
``excludes birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the
genus Mus bred for use in research, horses not used for
research purposes, and''.
SEC. 1025. PENALTIES AND FOREIGN COMMERCE PROVISIONS OF THE
ANIMAL WELFARE ACT.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, my amendment will clarify once and for all
any question about rats, mice and birds used for medical research under
the Animal Welfare Act. Approval of this amendment will make sure that
none of the important work taking place in the medical research
community will be delayed, made more expensive, or be otherwise
compromised by regulatory shenanigans on the part of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
Specifically, this amendment will follow Congressional intent by
excluding rats, mice and birds from the definition of ``animal'' under
the Animal
[[Page S617]]
Welfare Act. This has been the established practice of USDA during the
more than 30 years that the Animal Welfare Act has been the law of the
land during which time scientists and researchers have developed
extensive protocols based on current regulatory procedures based on
that Act.
So, the medical research community was astonished the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, weary and browbeat into submission by numerous lawsuits
and petitions by the so-called ``animal rights'' crowd, gave notice of
its intent to add rats, mice, and birds under the regulatory umbrella.
I hasten to add that 90 percent of the mice, rats, and birds used in
animal research are already being regulated by the NIH Office of
Laboratory Animal Welfare and the Food and Drug Administration.
But that is not enough for the professional activists who delight in
creating mischievous controversies like this. The problem, however, is
that their mischief-making in this case has serious real-life
complications for the life-saving research in laboratories all over
America. The paperwork burden alone is extraordinary: If USDA is
allowed to move forward with their new rules, it is estimated that the
additional reporting requirements and paperwork will cost the
researchers up to $280 million annually.
So instead of searching for cures for breast cancer, cystic fibrosis,
heart disease, and diabetes, USDA will force researchers out of the
laboratory to spend their time filling out countless forms for yet
another federal regulator. This unnecessary paperwork will simply
demonstrate what the federal government already knows: that animal
researchers already treat research animals in a professional and humane
manner.
A rodent could do a lot worse than live out its life span in research
facilities. I was surprised to learn from the Wall Street Journal that
more than 10 times as many rodents are raised and sold as food for
reptiles than are used by the medical research community. But nobody
raises a point about that. I wonder if anyone in the Chamber has ever
seen a hungry python eat a mouse. If you have, then you know it is not
a pretty picture for the mouse. Isn't it far better for the mouse to be
fed and watered in a clean laboratory than to end up as a tiny bulge
being digested inside an enormous snake?
I suspect Mrs. Helms would have a word or two for me if I forgot to
phone the exterminator upon finding evidence that a mouse has taken up
residence in our basement. Alas, extermination remains the fate every
year of hundreds of thousands of rodents that have not found the
relative safety of a research laboratory.
It is anything but a joking matter when regulatory heavy-handedness
prevents researchers who are working diligently to find cures for
deadly diseases. Consider the following recent medical discoveries in
which humane animal research has played a role:
Breast cancer researchers learned recently that laboratory rats that
are fed high-fiber diets develop significantly fewer breast tumors than
rats receiving little or no fiber.
Asthma researchers recently used transgenic mice to isolate a
specific gene that plays a key role in causing human asthma, and have
now developed an animal model to test new asthma treatments.
Scientists are aggressively studying rats to learn more about
recovery of motor skills after spinal cord injuries, and are already
reporting advances in knowledge about the relationship between motor
functions and the nerve cells that send signals to motor neurons.
There are dozens of other such examples of the medical advances made
as a result of animal research, and I feel a sense of outrage,
personally, that a Federal agency would now try to make it more
difficult to accomplish this important work that will benefit humanity.
So, Mr. President, I hope the Senate will resist the extremism of
activists and deliver a richly deserved rebuke to the methods of these
people who are protesting so mightily. It is time to definitively
settle this matter, to end the debate, and to approve the pending
amendment, thereby allowing scientists to return to the laboratory
without the specter of burdensome new Federal regulations to hamstring
their research.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At this time there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, thank you very much. I understand that the
request for the yeas and nays will be made in my absence by the
managers of the bill and others. I have been assured, I assume, we will
have a rollcall vote.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Amendment No. 2851 To Amendment No. 2471
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I send an
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Domenici,
proposes an amendment numbered 2851 to amendment No. 2471.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to make payments to
producers)
Strike section 132 and insert the following:
SEC. 132. NATIONAL DAIRY PROGRAM.
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(as amended by section 772(b) of Public Law 107-76) is
amended by inserting after section 141 (7 U.S.C. 7251) the
following:
``SEC. 142. NATIONAL DAIRY PROGRAM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Dairy farm.--
``(A) In general.--The term `dairy farm' means a dairy farm
that is--
``(i) located within the United States;
``(ii) permitted under a license issued by State or local
agency or the Secretary--
``(I) to market milk for human consumption; or
``(II) to process milk into products for human consumption;
and
``(iii) operated by producers that commercially market milk
during the payment period.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `dairy farm' does not include a
farm that is operated by a successor to a producer.
``(2) Eligible production.--The term `eligible production'
means the quantity of milk that is produced and marketed on a
dairy farm.
``(3) Payment period.--The term `payment period' means--
``(A) the period beginning on December 1, 2001, and ending
on September 30, 2002; and
``(B) each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005.
``(4) Producer.--The term `producer' means the individual
or entity that is the holder of the license described in
paragraph (1)(A)(ii) for the dairy farm.
``(b) Program.--The Secretary shall make payments to
producers.
``(c) Amount.--Subject to subsection (h), payments to
producers on a dairy farm under this section shall be
calculated by multiplying--
``(1) the eligible production during the payment period; by
``(2) the payment rate.
``(d) Payment Rate.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the payment
rate for a payment under this subsection shall be equal to
$0.315 per hundredweight.
``(2) Adjustment.--The Secretary may adjust the payment
rate under paragraph (1) with respect to the last fiscal year
of the payment period if the Secretary determines that there
are insufficient funds made available under subsection (h) to
carry out this section for that fiscal year.
``(e) Application for Payment.--To be eligible for a
payment for a payment period under this section, the
producers on a dairy farm shall submit an application to the
Secretary in such manner as is prescribed by the Secretary.
``(f) Timing of Payments.--Payments under this section
shall be made on an annual basis.
``(g) Adjustments.--The Secretary may provide for the
adjustment of eligible production of a dairy farm under this
section if the production of milk on the dairy farm has been
adversely affected by (as determined by the Secretary)--
``(1) damaging weather or a related condition;
``(2) a criminal act of a person other than the producers
on the dairy farm; or
``(3) any other act or event beyond the control of the
producers on the dairy farm.
``(h) Funding.--The Secretary shall use not more than
$2,000,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to carry out this section.''.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Senator Domenici proposes a different
formula for dairy payments. I will discuss the issue for a few minutes
before laying the amendment aside for further debate.
[[Page S618]]
Some in the Senate have decided to provide $2 billion in payments to
dairy farmers over the next 5 years. However, there is considerable
disparity in the way these payments will be distributed under the
Daschle substitute.
The Daschle substitute establishes different payment rates, different
target prices, and different payments for a handful of States.
The Daschle substitute would provide 25 percent of the producer
payments to producers in States that account for only 18 percent of our
Nation's milk.
There is no sound policy reason for this disparity.
Senator Domenici has asked that we look specifically at New Mexico.
Under the current proposal, New Mexico would average about 6 cents per
hundredweight on milk, while producers in Maine would average almost 90
cents.
A 1,000-cow herd in New Mexico would receive from zero, in a low
market scenario, to $22,000. If this same farm were located in New
York, for example, these numbers could be far higher.
Dairy farmers work in a national market. Dairy farmers not only sell
products nationally, but they buy supplies and services nationally.
Dairy farmers from all over the country go to an auction in Indiana
to buy heifers for their herds. Under the pending bill, a farmer from
Pennsylvania will be able to pay more for heifers than a farmer from
Indiana because of the Federal Government has given the Pennsylvania
farmer a financial advantage in this transaction.
Senator Domenici proposes that we distribute this $2 billion in an
equitable manner under a program that is national in scope. Under his
amendment, every dairy producer, regardless of where they milk, is
treated the same.
Under his proposal, producers in 36 States will receive more than
what they would receive under the Daschle substitute.
The amendment is relatively simple. It would provide producers with
one annual payment over the next 5 years.
Defining a target price and payment rate would also be difficult
under the Daschle procedures. Prices are announced for different
classes for different regions using different tests.
To simplify payments, the Domenici amendment proposes to level out
the payment with one rate, paid annually on all of a producer's milk.
Estimates show 31.5 cents would cover all of the milk nationwide. The
$2 billion cap would force the Secretary to adjust in the final year to
make sure the amount is not exceeded.
A fixed payment is not only more cost effective to administer, but it
will provide predictability in a volatile price market. Producers will
be able to plan. If it is already a ``good year,'' producers can set
the payment aside for future years that may not be so good or pay down
debt to better weather future economic storms.
On behalf of Senator Domenici, I urge my colleagues to carefully
consider the ramifications for dairy farmers in their States and to
vote in favor of the Domenici amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2832, As Modified, To Amendment No. 2471
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I lay an amendment on the desk with
modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Miller], for himself and Mr.
Cleland, proposes an amendment numbered 2832, as modified, to
amendment No. 2471.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To modify the sections providing marketing assistance loans
and quality improvement for peanuts)
On page 112, after line 25, insert the following:
``(6) Loan servicing agent.--If approved by a majority of
historical peanut producers in a State voting in a referendum
conducted by the Secretary, as a condition of the Secretary's
approval of an entity to serve as a loan servicing agent or
to handle or store peanuts for producers that receive any
marketing loan benefits in the State, the entity shall agree
to provide adequate storage (if available) and handling of
peanuts at the commercial rate to other approved loan
servicing agents and marketing associations.
On page 116, strike lines 6 through 15 and insert the
following:
``(h) Area Marketing Association Costs.--If approved by a
majority of historical peanut producers in a State voting in
a referendum conducted by the Secretary, the Secretary shall
include in a marketing assistance loan made to an area
marketing association in a marketing area in the State, at
the option of the marketing association, such costs as the
area marketing association may reasonably incur in carrying
out the responsibilities, operations, and activities of the
association and Commodity Credit Corporation under this
section.
``(i) Definition of Commingle.--In this section and section
158H, the term `commingle', with respect to peanuts, means--
``(1) the mixing of peanuts produced on different farms by
the same or different producers; or
``(2) the mixing of peanuts pledged for marketing
assistance loans with peanuts that are not pledged for
marketing assistance loans, to facilitate storage.
``SEC. 158H. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.
``(a) Official Inspection.--
``(1) In general.--All peanuts placed under a marketing
assistance loan under section 158G or otherwise sold or
marketed shall be officially inspected and graded by a
Federal or State inspector.
``(2) Accounting for commingled peanuts.--If approved by a
majority of historical peanut producers in a State voting in
a referendum conducted by the Secretary, all peanuts stored
commingled with peanuts covered by a marketing assistance
loan in the State shall be graded and exchanged on a dollar
value basis, unless the Secretary determines that the
beneficial interest in the peanuts covered by the marketing
assistance loan have been transferred to other parties prior
to demand for delivery.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms
be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the cosponsor will be
added.
Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, this is an amendment that we believe will help ease
the transition from the peanut quota system to the new market-oriented
program.
This amendment would increase the compensation for quota holders from
10 cents per pound to 11 cents per pound.
This amendment that we offer today--the Cleland-Miller-Helms
amendment--will go a long way to help citizens in more than 15 States
make the transition to the new peanut program.
I may be back later, Mr. President, if further debate is needed on
this amendment.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I applaud the Senators from Georgia for
their advocacy on behalf of some of the people who sent them here:
those who are growers of peanuts. I tell you, the two Senators from
Georgia--Senator Cleland and Senator Miller--have been very determined
advocates on behalf of the farmers they represent.
I just hope the people back home realize how much energy and effort
the two Senators have expended to secure what is needed to help their
people.
Senator Miller, who is a very respected member of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, and Senator Cleland, who had a distinguished
record of service in Washington before he ever came to the Senate and
is respected on both sides of the aisle, have made very clear how
important this is to their constituents.
I salute them for their vigorous efforts.
Mr. President, I rose to speak on another matter, and that is the
fundamental challenge we face with this farm bill.
I see in the press repeated indications that farm assistance is no
longer needed. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What these media critics seem to fail to realize is that our people
are faced with major competition in the world.
Our major competitors are the Europeans. They are providing over $300
an acre of support per year to their producers. We provide $38. We are
being outgunned nearly 10 to 1. On export support, the Europeans
account for 84 percent of all the world's export subsidy; we account
for 3 percent. They are outgunning us nearly 30 to 1.
[[Page S619]]
The fundamental question before this country is whether or not we are
going to fight for our people, whether or not we are going to give them
a fair, fighting chance.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 2:50 having arrived, debate on the
current amendment is suspended to allow other amendments to be called
up.
The Senator from Vermont.
Amendment No. 2834 To Amendment No. 2471
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to offer
amendment No. 2834 which I believe is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment
numbered 2834 to amendment No. 2471.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to
authorize the establishment of a new voluntary organic research and
promotion program. Just over a year ago we finalized the National
Organic Program Rule. As this rule is implemented, it will provide
assurance to the American public that the organic food they buy is
subject to strict and consistent regulation. In addition, this rule
will assist organic producers who want to export their products and
will ensure that imported organic agricultural commodities meet
standards on par with those of the United States.
In the decade that this rule was under development, the organic
industry has experienced tremendous growth rates of more than 20
percent annually--it was estimated that in 2001 sales topped $9
billion.
As this industry continues to develop, it is important to adapt
existing programs to support and enhance organic agriculture, as well
as provide equitable benefits to organic producers. Currently, organic
farmers are required to pay into existing mandatory research and
promotion programs for various commodities. Many organic farmers object
to this because they believe insufficient checkoff program funds are
devoted to promoting or assisting in the development of organic
agriculture. While they would prefer to be exempt from those
assessments entirely, my amendment offers a viable and fair
alternative.
My amendment authorizes a new voluntary organic research and
promotion checkoff program, which will only be established if it is
proposed and approved by a majority of certified organic producers and
handlers.
What distinguishes this from existing checkoff programs is that any
assessments under the order would be voluntary, not mandatory--
individual farmers will have the flexibility to opt-in or opt-out of
this research and promotion program.
To avoid double taxation, producers who choose to contribute to the
organic order would be entitled to a credit against assessments under
another order--which is similar to the credit producers are entitled to
under existing checkoff programs if they contribute to a state or
regional order covering the same commodity.
Additional provisions in the amendment address concerns raised about
existing checkoff programs--representatives on the board must reflect
both the regional distribution and differing scales of organic
production and, at least once every four years, a referendum on the
continuance of the order must be held.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, which simply
gives organic farmers the opportunity to choose how their research and
promotion dollars are spent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Leahy amendment.
Amendment No. 2852 To Amendment No. 2471
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that
amendment be set aside so I may offer two other amendments. The first
amendment I send to the desk on behalf of Senator Kerry and Senator
Snowe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Kerry, for
himself and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment numbered 2852 to
amendment No. 2471.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide emergency disaster assistance for the commercial
fishery failure with respect to Northeast multispecies fisheries)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . COMMERCIAL FISHERIES FAILURE.
(a) In General.--In addition to amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act, there are appropriated
to the Department of Agriculture $10,000,000 for fiscal year
2002, which shall be transferred to the Commodity Credit
Corporation to provide, in consultation with the Secretary of
Commerce, emergency disaster assistance for the commercial
fishery failure under section 308(b)(1) of the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C.
4107(b)(1) with respect to Northeast multispecies fisheries.
(b) Program Requirements.--Amounts made available under
this section shall be used to support a voluntary fishing
capacity reduction program in the Northeast multispecies
fishery that--
(1) is certified by the Secretary of Commerce to be
consistent with section 312(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b));
and
(2) permanently revokes multispecies limited access fishing
permits so as to obtain the maximum sustained reduction in
fishing capability at the least cost and in the minimum
period of time and to prevent the replacement of fishing
capacity removed by the program.
(c) Application of Interim Final Rule.--The program shall
be carried out in accordance with the Interim Final Rule
under part 648 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any corresponding regulation or rule promulgated thereunder.
(d) Sunset.--The authority provided by subsection (a) shall
terminate 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act and
no amount may be made available under this section
thereafter.
Amendment No. 2853 To Amendment No. 2471
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to S. 1731
on my own behalf.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
laid aside, and the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 2853 to amendment No. 2471.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To modify the limits on the types of communities in which
Rural Business Investment Companies may invest)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
Amend Section 602 by adding after the word ``concern'' at
the end of subsection 384I(c)(3)(C) the words ``and not more
than 10 percent of the investments shall be made in an area
containing a city of over 100,000 in the last decennial
Census and the Census Bureau defined urbanized area
containing or adjacent to that city''.
Mr. HARKIN. As I understand the floor situation--I will consult with
my ranking member--with the hour of 3 rapidly approaching, under the
unanimous consent agreement previously entered into, all amendments to
the pending S. 1731 have to be offered prior to 3 o'clock this
afternoon.
Mr. LEAHY. I respond to my colleague that that is our understanding.
Hopefully, this colloquy will serve as an announcement to all of our
colleagues who may be listening to the debate, wherever they may be,
that they should proceed rapidly to the floor. Three o'clock is the
cutoff time for the introduction of amendments. On our side of the
aisle, we have attempted to make that known in many ways. I am hopeful
that at least no one will be under any other illusion. At 3, we will
have an opportunity to survey the amendments that have in fact been
placed before us to try to determine, as I understand, either time
agreements or the ability to accept on both sides of the aisle some of
these amendments.
I see, having said that, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has
arrived just in time.
[[Page S620]]
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. CLELAND. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. CLELAND. I am glad to yield.
Mr. INHOFE. I only have 3 minutes to get under the deadline to offer
an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 2825 to Amendment No. 2471
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2825 to S. 1731
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me explain the amendment very briefly.
I apologize to the Senator from Georgia.
All this does is take the peanut program, which is a dramatically
changed program, and delay its implementation for a period of 1 year.
Here is the problem we have. If we don't do that, we will have the
farmers not knowing, when they go to the bank, what kind of program is
going to be adopted right in the middle of their planting season. By
doing this, I am sure you will be accommodating the farmers as well as
saving some money in this particular year on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 2825 to amendment No. 2471.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to provide marketing
assistance loans and loan deficiency payments for each of the 2003
through 2007 crop of peanuts)
On page 111, lines 14 and 15, strike ``2002 through 2006''
and insert ``2003 through 2007''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CLELAND. If I may continue, I would like to recognize the hard
work of my colleague, Senator Miller, for his amazing transition to an
agriculture policy wizard in less than 2 years. His hard work in the
Agriculture Committee on this farm bill is a testament to his
dedication to Georgia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have need to interrupt the distinguished
Senator. We are under this limit in this final 10 minutes to offer
amendments. If I may have his forbearance, I would like to offer an
amendment at this point.
Mr. CLELAND. Very well.
Amendment No. 2854 to Amendment No. 2471
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McConnell, I send an
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. McConnell,
proposes an amendment numbered 2854 to amendment No. 2471.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To conserve global bear populations by prohibiting the
importation, exportation, and interstate trade of bear viscera and
items, products, or substances containing, or labeled or advertised as
containing, bear viscera, and for other purposes)
On page 984, line 2, strike the period at the end and
insert a period and the following:
SEC. 10____. BEAR PROTECTION.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Bear
Protection Act of 2002''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) all 8 extant species of bear--Asian black bear, brown
bear, polar bear, American black bear, spectacled bear, giant
panda, sun bear, and sloth bear--are listed on Appendix I or
II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249);
(2)(A) Article XIV of CITES provides that Parties to CITES
may adopt stricter domestic measures regarding the conditions
for trade, taking, possession, or transport of species listed
on Appendix I or II; and
(B) the Parties to CITES adopted a resolution in 1997
(Conf. 10.8) urging the Parties to take immediate action to
demonstrably reduce the illegal trade in bear parts;
(3)(A) thousands of bears in Asia are cruelly confined in
small cages to be milked for their bile; and
(B) the wild Asian bear population has declined
significantly in recent years as a result of habitat loss and
poaching due to a strong demand for bear viscera used in
traditional medicines and cosmetics;
(4) Federal and State undercover operations have revealed
that American bears have been poached for their viscera;
(5) while most American black bear populations are
generally stable or increasing, commercial trade could
stimulate poaching and threaten certain populations if the
demand for bear viscera increases; and
(6) prohibitions against the importation into the United
States and exportation from the United States, as well as
prohibitions against the interstate trade, of bear viscera
and products containing, or labeled or advertised as
containing, bear viscera will assist in ensuring that the
United States does not contribute to the decline of any bear
population as a result of the commercial trade in bear
viscera.
(c) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure the
long-term viability of the world's 8 bear species by--
(1) prohibiting interstate and international trade in bear
viscera and products containing, or labeled or advertised as
containing, bear viscera;
(2) encouraging bilateral and multilateral efforts to
eliminate such trade; and
(3) ensuring that adequate Federal legislation exists with
respect to domestic trade in bear viscera and products
containing, or labeled or advertised as containing, bear
viscera.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Bear viscera.--The term ``bear viscera'' means the body
fluids or internal organs, including the gallbladder and its
contents but not including the blood or brains, of a species
of bear.
(2) CITES.--The term ``CITES'' means the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249).
(3) Import.--The term ``import'' means to land on, bring
into, or introduce into any place subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States, regardless of whether the landing,
bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation within
the meaning of the customs laws of the United States.
(4) Person.--The term ``person'' means--
(A) an individual, corporation, partnership, trust,
association, or other private entity;
(B) an officer, employee, agent, department, or
instrumentality of--
(i) the Federal Government;
(ii) any State or political subdivision of a State; or
(iii) any foreign government; and
(C) any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means a State, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, American Samoa, and any other territory,
commonwealth, or possession of the United States.
(7) Transport.--The term ``transport'' means to move,
convey, carry, or ship by any means, or to deliver or receive
for the purpose of movement, conveyance, carriage, or
shipment.
(e) Prohibited Acts.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
person shall not--
(A) import into, or export from, the United States bear
viscera or any product, item, or substance containing, or
labeled or advertised as containing, bear viscera; or
(B) sell or barter, offer to sell or barter, purchase,
possess, transport, deliver, or receive, in interstate or
foreign commerce, bear viscera or any product, item, or
substance containing, or labeled or advertised as containing,
bear viscera.
(2) Exception for wildlife law enforcement purposes.--A
person described in subsection (d)(4)(B) may import into, or
export from, the United States, or transport between States,
bear viscera or any product, item, or substance containing,
or labeled or advertised as containing, bear viscera if the
importation, exportation, or transportation--
(A) is solely for the purpose of enforcing laws relating to
the protection of wildlife; and
(B) is authorized by a valid permit issued under Appendix I
or II of CITES, in any case in which such a permit is
required under CITES.
(f) Penalties and Enforcement.--
(1) Criminal penalties.--A person that knowingly violates
subsection (e) shall be fined under title 18, United States
Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(2) Civil penalties.--
(A) Amount.--A person that knowingly violates subsection
(e) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of not
more than $25,000 for each violation.
(B) Manner of assessment and collection.--A civil penalty
under this paragraph shall be assessed, and may be collected,
in the manner in which a civil penalty under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 may be
[[Page S621]]
assessed and collected under section 11(a) of that Act (16
U.S.C. 1540(a)).
(3) Seizure and forfeiture.--Any bear viscera or any
product, item, or substance imported, exported, sold,
bartered, attempted to be imported, exported, sold, or
bartered, offered for sale or barter, purchased, possessed,
transported, delivered, or received in violation of this
subsection (including any regulation issued under this
subsection) shall be seized and forfeited to the United
States.
(4) Regulations.--After consultation with the Secretary of
the Treasury and the United States Trade Representative, the
Secretary shall issue such regulations as are necessary to
carry out this subsection.
(5) Enforcement.--The Secretary, the Secretary of the
Treasury, and the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating shall enforce this subsection in the
manner in which the Secretaries carry out enforcement
activities under section 11(e) of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1540(e)).
(6) Use of penalty amounts.--Amounts received as penalties,
fines, or forfeiture of property under this subsection shall
be used in accordance with section 6(d) of the Lacey Act
Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3375(d)).
(g) Discussions Concerning Bear Conservation and the Bear
Parts Trade.--In order to seek to establish coordinated
efforts with other countries to protect bears, the Secretary
shall continue discussions concerning trade in bear viscera
with--
(1) the appropriate representatives of Parties to CITES;
and
(2) the appropriate representatives of countries that are
not parties to CITES and that are determined by the Secretary
and the United States Trade Representative to be the leading
importers, exporters, or consumers of bear viscera.
(h) Certain Rights Not Affected.--Except as provided in
subsection (e), nothing in this section affects--
(1) the regulation by any State of the bear population of
the State; or
(2) any hunting of bears that is lawful under applicable
State law (including regulations).
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be
laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is ordered.
The Senator from Georgia.
amendment no. 2832
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am fortunate to hold the seat of one of
this Chamber's giants, Senator Richard B. Russell. Senator Russell
understood the importance of strong agriculture policy and he once
observed: ``when we strengthen American agriculture, we strengthen
America.'' The failure of the Senate to complete a farm bill in 2001
was very disappointment to me. But the good news is that I believe we
will pass a strong farm bill this week.
One of the hottest issues in the farm bill for Georgia is the change
in the current peanut program. Because there are not enough votes to
sustain the quota program in Congress and because trade agreements have
weakened quotas, I reluctantly agree with my colleagues that the system
will be changed.
I visited south Georgia this past weekend where the debate over the
ending the quota program is big news. The proposed peanut program that
originated in the House, bases the new program on acres determined by
peanut producers, rather than by the landowning quota-holders.
This shift in the peanut program, from the landowner to the producer,
has caused a split among neighbors in south Georgia not seen in many
years. Despite this split, I think we should make note of a fact that
Senator Miller has mentioned more than once on this floor: The anti-
peanut program forces have not been out in force this year. You may
know that in 1996, the peanut program survived in the Senate by only
three votes.
I have concerns about small quota-owners, such as widows, veterans,
and minority farmers who depend on quotas for their income. They should
not be forgotten in the rush for a new farm bill. For that reason, I
offer this amendment with Senator Miller to increase the quota buyout
to 12 cents a pound, each year, for 5 years. This is up from the House
buyout of 10 cents per pound and will help ease the transition for
thousands of retired peanut farmers who invested in peanut quota as, in
effect, their pension plan.
I will work to keep the Senate level of support for producers which
is $400 million over the House bill for marketing loan rates and
countercyclical payments. Also, the Senate farm bill contains language
that I have sponsored for years to label the country-of-origin for
peanuts. Because consumers should know where their peanuts are grown.
All in all I believe we will pass a strong farm bill that makes sense
and substantial progress in meeting the needs of family farmers and our
rural communities.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to both Senator Lugar and
Senator Harkin, the two managers of the bill. It has been cleared. I
ask unanimous consent that at 3:05 p.m. today, the Senate resume
consideration of the Feinstein amendment No. 2829; that the time until
3:35, a half hour, be equally divided and controlled by Senators
Feinstein and Breaux, or their designees; that at 3:35, Senator Breaux
be recognized to offer a motion to table, and that no second-degree
amendment be in order prior to the vote in relation to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 2855 to Amendment No. 2842
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kyl, I send an
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Kyl, proposes
an amendment numbered 2855.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that the water conservation program is implemented
in accordance with all applicable laws)
On page 8, line 19, insert the following:
``(12) Implementation.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary shall--
``(A) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the
program does not undermine the implementation of any law in
effect as of the date of enactment of this chapter that
concerns the transfer or acquisition of water or water rights
on a permanent basis;
``(B) implement the program in accordance with the purposes
of such laws described in subparagraph (A) as are applicable;
and
``(C) comply with--
``(i) all interstate compacts, court decrees, and Federal
or State laws (including regulations) that may affect water
or water rights; and
``(ii) all procedural and substantive State water law.
On page 8, line 19, strike ``(12)'' and insert ``(13)''.
On page 9, line 16, strike ``(13)'' and insert ``(14)''.
On page 17, line 20, insert the following:
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section--
On page 17, line 21, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(A)''.
On page 17, line 22, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(B)''.
On page 18, line 1, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 18, line 5, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(D)''.
On page 18, line 7, insert the following:
``(2) Implementation.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary shall--
``(A) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the
program does not undermine the implementation of any law in
effect as of the date of enactment of this chapter that
concerns the transfer or acquisition of water or water rights
on a permanent basis;
``(B) implement the program in accordance with the purposes
of such laws described in subparagraph (A) as are applicable;
and
``(C) comply with--
``(i) all interstate compacts, court decrees, and Federal
or State laws (including regulations) that may affect water
or water rights; and
``(ii) all procedural and substantive State water law.
Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I will not
object, but there comes a point where we say 3 p.m.--well, is it 3 p.m.
or 3:02 or 3:05? I hope we don't have a rush of amendments on either
side coming in.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the comment of my colleague.
He is correct, obviously. I hope there may be some dispensation in that
this request arrived a few seconds after the 3 p.m. time. We have been
attempting to accommodate Senators.
I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S622]]
Mr. REID. Mr. President, because of some confusion, I ask unanimous
consent that Senator Feinstein's time start at 3:10 instead of 3:05.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. It will go until 3:40. She gets 15 minutes and Senator
Breaux gets 15 minutes.
Amendment No. 2829
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank Senator Reid, and I thank Senators Harkin and
Lugar as well.
On Friday, I offered an amendment to the sugar program, which really
is a minor amendment, with one exception. It seems anything that has
anything to do with the sugar program is frozen and can't be changed.
As I noted 6 years ago when I came here, the sugar program works to the
great detriment of America's domestic sugar refineries.
The largest of those domestic sugar refineries happens to be in
California. It is C&H Sugar. C&H got most of its sugar from Hawaii, and
they used to have ads as I grew up: C&H pure cane sugar from Hawaii. It
is a plant that can employ about 1,300 people. It can refine about
800,000 pounds of sugar. It is a union plant. It is the only source of
employment, the major source of employment, in a small town in the East
Bay known as Crockett. You drive over the Carquinez Bridge and you see
this big old plant, and that is from where this wonderful sugar comes.
The problem has been, year after year, C&H cannot buy enough sugar to
refine. Why? Because the allotments in the sugar program were more than
two decades ago. They do not adequately reflect who is buying and who
is selling sugar at the time.
The amendment I have offered would simply reallocate the unfilled
portion of a country's quota when that country does not fulfill its
quota. That is all it does. This is less than 3 percent of the sugar.
About 3 percent of the sugar on the world market that is provided for
in the allocation quota does not get allocated. So on a first-come-
first-served basis, a company that wanted to buy sugar would be able to
because the unused allocation of one country would go to another
country that is exporting sugar, and on a first-come-first-served basis
the refineries of our country would have an opportunity to buy their
sugar.
This amendment is supported by C&H Sugar; Colonial Sugar Gramercy,
LA; Savannah Foods in Port Wentworth, GA; and Imperial Sugar in Sugar
Land, TX.
I ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed in the Record in
support of the amendment, one from the Coalition for Sugar Reform and
the other from Citizens Against Government Waste.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Coalition for Sugar Reform,
Washington, DC, February 6, 2002.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the Coalition for Sugar Reform,
I urge you to vote for an amendment that Sen. Dianne
Feinstein will offer to ensure that when the United States
announces an import quota for sugar, we actually import all
that quota.
Each year, a few countries fail to fully utilize, or fill,
their quotas to sell sugar to the United States. Generally,
these amounts go unused: Because of the highly restrictive
import policy that the United States maintains for sugar,
other sugar-producing countries have no opportunity to
satisfy the unmet market need represented by the unfilled
quota. The Feinstein amendment will require that by June 1
each year, any unused quota be reallocated among qualified
supplying countries on a first-come, first-served basis.
This amendment does not increase import quotas. It merely
says that when we announce an import quota, we will allow the
full amount of that quota to be imported.
This amendment honors our multilateral trade commitments by
allowing the full import quota to enter the United States. By
setting an example of more efficient and transparent TRQ
administration, the amendment advances explicit trade policy
goals of the United States. Please support and vote for the
Feinstein amendment.
Sincerely,
Lawrence T. Graham,
Steering Committee Coordinator.
____
Council for Citizens
Against Government Waste,
Washington, DC, February 11, 2002.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Feinstein: On behalf of the more than one
million members and supporters of the Council for Citizens
Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I am writing to inform you
of our support for your amendment to S. 1731, the Farm Bill,
which would ensure that when the United States announces an
import quota for sugar, all of that quota will actually be
imported.
When countries fail to fully utilize their quotas to sell
sugar to the United States, those quotas usually end up being
unused. Other sugar-producing countries have no opportunity
to satisfy the unmet market need represented by the unfilled
quota, as a result of the highly restricted import policy
that the United States maintains for sugar.
It is our understanding that your amendment will require
that by June 1 of each year, any unused quota be reallocated
among qualified supplying countries on a first-come first-
served basis. While we also understand that your amendment
does not increase import quotas, it will at least ensure that
the full amount of the quota be imported.
Athough CCAGW would still prefer the complete elimination
of the archaic sugar program, we believe your amendment will
at least provide for modest improvement of one of its glaring
deficiencies. Thus, CCAGW will consider a vote on your
amendment in the 2002 Congressional Ratings.
Sincerely,
Tom Schatz,
President.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The fact of the matter is, this has been done. The
Secretary can do this. As a matter of fact, in 1995 I implored
Secretary Glickman to do just this, and he did it. The problem, I say
to those opposed to this amendment, is that every year you have to go
and lobby; every year you have to try to see that this company and
others similar to it are able to get enough sugar. That is not right.
Sugar programs should not operate this way.
Awhile ago, we asked GAO to take a look at the sugar program. The GAO
came up with exactly what we are proposing today. Let me read a couple
of things. Some of the 40 designated countries have been provided an
export allocation when they no longer export sugar. According to the
GAO, on average, from 1993 to 1998, 10 out of the 40 countries were net
importers of sugar. These countries are not exporting sugar because
clearly they are importing sugar.
Some countries have similar allocations under the quota despite
dramatically different levels of sugar exports. For example, Brazil and
the Philippines are both allowed to export around 14 percent of the
total quota, but Brazil exports 21 times more sugar than the
Philippines worldwide.
In my view, it is unacceptable that sugar quota allocations have not
been revised for two decades, despite dramatic changes in the ability
of many countries to produce and export sugar.
Is there a way to update the sugar export amounts allowed into the
United States without adversely impacting domestic growers? I believe
there is, and the amendment I have offered would provide this change.
Incidentally, I would like the Record to reflect that Senator Gregg
is a cosponsor of this amendment, if I may.
The United States has imported on average, as I said, about 3 percent
less sugar than the quota allowed from 1996 through 1998 because some
countries did not fill their allocations.
Now the question was asked in the caucus today by the distinguished
Senator from Louisiana, What would happen to price if this amendment
were passed?
Let me again quote the GAO:
USTR's current process for allocating the sugar tariff-rate
quota does not ensure that all of the sugar allowed under the
quota reaches the U.S. market.
The current allocation has resulted in fewer sugar imports
than allowed under the tariff-rate quota. From 1996 through
1998, US raw sugar imports averaged about 75,000 tons less
annually than the amount USDA allowed USTR to allocate under
the tariff-rate quota.
The final quote from the GAO is this:
Because the shortfalls in the tariff-rate quota reduced US
sugar supplies by less than 1 percent, they had a minimal
effect on the domestic price of sugar.
So what I am saying is you can have a system that allows domestic
refineries to buy sugar that they need from countries that are not
using their allocated quota, and this will have a very slight, if any,
mark on the domestic price of sugar. What is dreadfully unfair is to
have a situation where domestic refineries, hiring men and women who
live in this country, that want to refine sugar are prevented from
doing so by a bill where the allocations and the quotas have not been
revised in two decades.
So I am asking the Senate to please permit this small change in the
sugar program.
[[Page S623]]
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Louisiana for 5 minutes.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me assure my colleagues who might be
listening to this rather arcane and complicated debate, I have the
utmost respect for the Senator from California to the point of
disagreeing with her on the fact that this is a minor amendment. I
think that nothing my colleague from California does is minor. It is
always a major effort, and she is to be commended for what she is
attempting to do for one refinery in California.
I point out that over the last 10 years, in my own State of
Louisiana, we have lost 24 sugar mills. We did not try to change the
sugar program to accommodate each one of those mills but, rather, tried
to work in a cooperative fashion to have a national program.
The Senator is absolutely correct that about 40 countries around the
world have allocations to be able to export approximately 1.25 million
tons of sugar into the United States to make sure we have enough sugar
for domestic consumption. If a country does not use all of their
allocation, it can be reallocated by the Secretary. It does not have to
be. The Secretary makes a determination on what amount of sugar we need
to fulfill the mandates of the program. If we do need more sugar, and
countries have not used their allocation, the Secretary can give to a
country an additional allocation.
The difference at this point between what the Senator from California
wants to do and the existing program is that they have to reallocate it
and bring it into the United States under the terms of the program. It
cannot be said to one country that they are going to be the only
country in the world that is going to be able to bring sugar in to the
United States with an allocation that does not comply with the terms of
the sugar program. All of the 40 countries that send sugar to the
United States have to come in under the terms of the program, and that
is at a price that equals about 18 cents a pound. If there is 50 pounds
of unallocated sugar and it is said to any country in the world, come
in and bid for the right to send that sugar to the United States, they
can bid the price down to a point that would have a substantial effect
on the market.
This amendment, if it went into effect, and large amounts of sugar
were brought in outside of the program, could ultimately result in a
large cost to the taxpayer. If it drives down the average price of
sugar below the market loan rate, sugar will be forfeited to the
Federal Government and taxpayers will be picking up sugar--because the
price has gone below the marketing loan--at about 18 cents a pound.
I don't think I have any problem giving the Secretary the right to
reallocate sugar, which they now have when there is a shortfall, but
not to do it outside of the program. Not to say to all of the countries
that participate, you have to do it one way, but other countries, when
we reallocate, you can do it without having to meet the terms of the
loan itself. The Department does not have to reallocate; they do it if
there is a need for the sugar.
The amendment of the Senator from California mandates they
reallocate, although it is not required in order to meet our domestic
needs. In addition, she would mandate they allow it come in outside the
program.
We cannot design a national program for one refinery. I point out the
refineries that make sugar are very divided on this issue. For those
who do support our amendment, there is an equal number or more who do
not. The Domino Sugar refinery in New York opposes it; the Domino
refinery in Brooklyn, NY, opposes it; the Domino refinery in Baltimore,
MD, opposes it, as well as the refinery in Chalmette, LA.
The problem is there is a national program. The reason one refinery
in one State does not have enough sugar is because their principal
market has been Hawaii. As the Senator has correctly said, Hawaii is
moving out of the sugar program. They have reduced their production of
sugar, and that refinery does not find itself with a sufficient amount
of sugar. But you cannot redesign the entire national program for one
particular refinery and say we are going to let sugar come in to this
one refinery outside of the program, with no price protection whatever,
and put the entire program in jeopardy, with potential costs to the
U.S. taxpayers. If it has the effect of driving the price below the
loan level, sugar will be forfeited.
It is very important to note that the program is operated at no cost
to the taxpayer. We have no forfeited sugar. We do not want to be in a
position of forfeiting sugar. If this amendment were to pass and we
mandated that the Secretary reallocate sugar imported into this country
outside the program, which is what it does, on a first-come-first-
served basis, would not have to meet the terms of the program. So a
company could bid and bring in sugar at 5 cents a pound if they wanted
to dump in this market. That is what the amendment allows.
I don't mind having it come in under the terms of the program, but to
allow sugar to come in and be reallocated outside the terms of the
program with regard to price potentially destroys the program and would
be at a cost to the American taxpayer.
At the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to table the
amendment. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. Our intent in drafting the
amendment was that the sugar that comes in is within the program, not
outside the program. But only 40 countries now covered by the program
are eligible to participate. If there is an inadvertent error, we will
be happy to correct it.
The intent is that it be within the program. Then, from a country
that is in the program but is not using its allocation, and sold on a
first-come-first-served basis, so if the price is going to be changed,
there will not be a buyer for the sugar.
Mr. BREAUX. Let me respond to the Senator. When she uses the term
``comes in on a first-come-first-served basis,'' that is a legal term,
a term of art that clearly indicates that it can come in out of the
program at a price below the market loan level of 18 cents a pound.
That is the No. 2 problem with the amendment. It would come in
outside the terms of the program. It can come in at a price much lower
than the 18-cent loan level, which runs the risk of reducing the price
of sugar throughout the United States. That is the No. 1 problem.
The second problem is that it mandates it be done. In the past it has
always been at the discretion of the Secretary. As the Senator has
said, the Secretaries in the past, when they saw a need, have, in fact,
allowed it to be reallocated. They can still continue to do that, but
it can only be done within the terms of the program.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask the distinguished Senator a question. Would the
Senator support the amendment if we amended it to make it clear, in
simple English, that the proposal is within the confines of the
existing sugar program?
Mr. BREAUX. I respond to the Senator's question by saying that the
two things I have a problem with, and I think most of the people who
support the program have a problem with, are, No. 1, it is mandatory.
The second point is that it would allow on a first-come-first-served
basis the sugar to come to the country outside of the program at a
price below the loan level.
If that part were corrected, I am fine, but I cannot support it being
mandatory. We ought to have the flexibility to allow it, and it has to
be brought in under the terms of the program.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Provided we could produce those amendments, would the
Senator then support that?
Mr. BREAUX. I think more work certainly needs to be done. I think
certainly an appropriate and proper discussion--and I have had this
discussion with the distinguished chairman--could be during the
conference.
I make very clear the two problems I have: No. 1, it is mandatory on
the reallocation; and No. 2, that allocation could allow the sugar to
come in outside the program, the sugar program at below the marketing
loan level which I think would destroy the program. Those are the two
concerns that I think most Members have.
[[Page S624]]
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, is it appropriate to set aside this
amendment to see if we cannot work out some language with Senator
Breaux?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will take unanimous consent to vitiate the
current agreement.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Senator Breaux mentioned two things which were our
intent, in any event, that would cause him to withdraw his disapproval
of the language. I ask it be set aside for a few moments or we suggest
the absence of a quorum to work out the differences and add the
necessary words.
Mr. BREAUX. I cannot control this, but I am certainly willing to work
with the Senator from California. I have stated the two problems.
I am always willing to talk to see if we can work something out.
Mr. REID. The vote is not scheduled for 12 minutes. How about 12
minutes?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I take it.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, Senators
Feinstein and Breaux are in the process of working on their amendment.
It will not, at a later time, require a vote. It will be worked out in
some other manner. So Members should be notified there will not be a
vote on this amendment. It was scheduled, as you know, for 3:40 this
afternoon. We have been in a quorum call since then, anticipating there
would be a vote. There will not be a vote on the Breaux motion to table
the Feinstein amendment.
I also announce that I have spoken to the two managers, Senator Lugar
and Senator Harkin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator asking for unanimous consent to
vitiate that agreement?
Mr. REID. You took the words right out of my mouth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also indicate that Senators Harkin and
Lugar are in the process, with their staffs, of working through these
amendments. We have, I think, 18 amendments. There are a number of
them, I have been told, that will be accepted. We expect to have a
unanimous consent agreement in the immediate future to handle about six
of these amendments.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the
amendments proposed to S. 1731 in the order in which they were offered,
beginning with the Santorum amendment No. 2542, as modified, and ending
with the Wellstone amendment No. 2847; that there be a time limitation
of 20 minutes for debate with respect to each amendment, with the time
equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that any second-
degree amendments be accorded the same time limitations as the first-
degree amendment--Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent
that the unanimous consent proposal I just made be withdrawn. I will
offer another one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
consider the amendments proposed to S. 1731 in the order in which they
were offered, beginning with the Santorum amendment No. 2542, as
modified, and ending with the Wellstone amendment No. 2847; that there
be a time limitation of 20 minutes for debate with respect to each
amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual
form; that if there is a second-degree amendment offered, the first-
degree amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that it be
in order for the managers to have a stacked sequence of votes beginning
at a time agreed upon by the managers and the leaders or their
designees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I state, Mr. President, as I did earlier, we are trying to
work out an agreement to work through the rest of these amendments so
that there will be definite times on them. We are in the process of
doing that now.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--Senator Enzi is not in the
Chamber--that Senator Wellstone, who is in the Chamber, be allowed to
begin his 20 minutes at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Amendment No. 2847
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to start speaking on the
amendment. We may or may not make one change.
This amendment is a modified version of an amendment I offered last
week. It is a reform amendment to the EQIP program.
The argument against the amendment I offered last week--which I think
was an important amendment for our independent producers and an
important amendment for the environment--was that the size limitation
meant that midsized farmers could not expand. I actually thought that
an operation with over 5,000 hogs was a pretty large operation in the
first place.
But what I am going to do this time is make some changes, which will,
hopefully, give us the vote to go over the top.
What this amendment does is comparable to what we have done with crop
assistance in the commodity program. Now we have a reasonable payment
limit. What we have is a payment limit with the commodity program and,
in addition, restrictions on multiple payments and compliance with
environmental laws. This amendment would have a reasonable payment
limit on EQIP funds. It would restrict producers from receiving
multiple EQIP payments. In other words, right now these conglomerates
own multiple CAFOs and then get government money for each one of them.
It becomes a subsidy in inverse relation to need. And this amendment
would require that producers who receive EQIP funds have an
environmental plan.
At the moment, the direction in which this amendment goes is as
follows: It would lower the payment limits from $50,000 per year to
$30,000 per year. Right now, the limit is $10,000. Some farmers don't
do multiple-year contracts.
My point is, just as we had payment limits on an earlier vote with
the Dorgan amendment, it seems to me we ought to also have payment
limits with the EQIP program, if this environmental program is to have
the policy integrity, and if we are not to be giving these payments to
some of the largest operations that don't need them.
Secondly, it prevents producers with an interest in more than one
large CAFO from receiving more than one EQIP contract, which makes all
the sense in the world from the point of view of reform. And, again, we
are talking about an amendment that has some payment limitation.
Finally, it requires the producers receiving the EQIP funds to have a
comprehensive nutrient management plan which is an environmental plan.
It is a reform amendment. I think we have done a lot of good work on
this bill. The vote earlier today on the packer ownership amendment was
extremely important. We passed the crop payment limitation by a 66-to-
31 vote, which was an historic vote.
If my colleagues are in support of payment limitations, they should
support this amendment. This amendment puts some reasonable payment
limitations back into the Environmental Quality Incentive Program.
Current law caps it at $10,000 per year. The underlying legislation
increases the cap to $50,000 a year. That is a fivefold increase.
This amendment recognizes the problem we have with the environmental
pollution that comes from these large livestock operations, but it
places a reasonable payment limit on the program: $30,000 per year up
to $150,000 over 5 years.
If we don't put some reasonable payment limits on the program, the
flow of benefits is going to be just as we have seen with the
commodities: huge payments to huge producers; in this case large
livestock conglomerates that over the years have been squeezing
independent producers out of existence.
That is what this amendment is all about. Again, let me be crystal
clear. This amendment now deals with the argument that some colleagues
made
[[Page S625]]
that it is not going to let the midsize operations expand. This
amendment is consistent with what we have done on payment limits. It is
a reform amendment. This amendment plugs a big loophole with multiple
CAFOs which is a huge problem when these conglomerates buy up a lot of
these confinement operations and then get a subsidy for each one of
them.
Finally, this amendment calls for a sound environmental plan, which
makes all the sense in world, a comprehensive nutrient management plan.
It is a modest amendment. It is a good reform amendment. It is a good
environmental amendment. Frankly, it is a good amendment for our
independent producers.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Who yields time?
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I don't know who controls any time on the
opposite side. We have examined the amendment on this side and, quite
frankly, I think the Senator from Minnesota has made constructive
changes to the EQIP program, which I think will inure to the benefit of
our livestock producers all over America. On this side, we are prepared
to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me respond to the distinguished
Senator. I personally favor the amendment. I will ask for 3 more
minutes for the hotline on our side to ascertain whether all of us are
in agreement. I am hopeful that is the case. If I may have the
indulgence of Senators, I will ask for a quorum call for about 3
minutes of time. It would be my hope we could accept the amendment at
that point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if I could say a couple of words while we are
waiting. That moves us right along.
Before the Senator from Iowa leaves, let me say this for the record:
I hope there will be support. I certainly would be pleased to not have
a recorded vote. I know we are trying to move things along. I ask the
Senator from Iowa in a bit of a colloquy here for his support in
conference committee to keep this in because my experience has been all
too often, when there is not a recorded vote and there is a voice vote,
then the amendments get tossed aside. I know my colleague supports this
amendment. I certainly ask for his support as the chair in the
conference committee.
I assume when he nods his head, it means yes.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Minnesota, my neighbor to the
north, he is a very valuable member of our committee. When this bill is
done and I go on to conference, it is my intention as chair to fight
for all of the amendments that we in the Senate have adopted on this
bill because it will be the Senate's position.
Certainly in this area on the EQIP program, I believe the Senator's
amendment improves what we have done in the underlying bill, and
certainly I will do everything I can to make sure we keep those
provisions.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with the
time to be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will stay here and wait patiently for
our 3-minute limit, and my colleagues can let me know.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Wellstone
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2\1/2\ minutes that remain to the
proponents; 8 minutes remain in opposition.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to reserve the
remainder of the time, the 2 minutes and the 8 minutes, and now proceed
to recognize Senator Enzi who had two amendments offered which are
going to be accepted on this side. I don't know if the Senator wanted
any time at all, but to move the process along, I see the Senator from
Wyoming is on the floor.
I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the time be reserved
and that we now go to the two Enzi amendments. I ask unanimous consent
if we could just take 5 minutes on the Enzi amendment and then return
to the Wellstone amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Wyoming.
Amendment No. 2843
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank everybody who has been working with
me on these two very important issues. One of them is an accounting
issue. That is to do with an authorization to have some drought
assistance for livestock. We have had a livestock assistance program.
It has been kind of a last-minute, put-it-on-the-budget effort every
year. But the amount of money that gets spent on it every year is a
very consistent amount, a good amount. It calls for us to recognize
that upfront, provide for it upfront, and give our ranchers some
assurance that they are going to have some help.
This morning we passed a very important measure, and that actually
provides for last year's drought assistance for livestock payments.
People have been through last year's drought. They know they were
already heard. One of the fascinating things about this is, it doesn't
pay them for their losses. It pays them so they can buy a little feed
so they can keep their base stock alive until they can produce again
and have a crop. I know that Wyoming's portion of that turns out to be
about $15 million. That comes to about $8,000 per rancher, and $8,000
doesn't even buy much feed. But it will get some people through the
winter. So I appreciate the concern of everybody and their willingness
to accept it.
Amendment No. 2846
Mr. President, the other amendment, of course, is a pet pilot project
which will put lamb in Afghanistan and will solve a problem there. It
is so small a project that it can be nonexistent. I know the Department
of Agriculture will look at it, and I think it will be one of the
things that will solve some problems for people who grow lambs in the
West and will build up a herd in Afghanistan so they can be self-
sufficient. It is the old story--and I have heard a variation--give a
man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and he will buy
an ugly hat.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have examined both amendments on this
side. They are valuable additions to the farm bill. I think they both
have tremendous merit to them. We are pleased to accept them on this
side.
Amendment No. 2847
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me, first of all, make an announcement
before I comment on the amendments of the Senator. There has been an
objection on our side to having a voice vote on the Wellstone
amendment. Therefore, we will need to have a rollcall vote. Because of
the thoughtfulness of the Senator from Iowa, there will be some further
time to debate the amendment. I believe there are 8 minutes for the
opposition. For all those listening to the debate, if there is
opposition to the Wellstone amendment, that time remains. At the end of
that time, the Wellstone amendment will be in the stack for votes and
disposition after the unanimous consent on the other amendments has
been run through, which is to simply say we are going to have a vote, a
rollcall, and it will come at the end of the stack that the Senator
from Nevada offered a while back.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question? I missed the
first part. There is now a call for a rollcall vote?
Mr. LUGAR. That is correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment Nos. 2846 and 2843
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will return now to the amendments of the
Senator from Wyoming. I had an opportunity to visit with the Senator
and to appreciate the depth of his understanding and research with
regard to both of these amendments. On our side,
[[Page S626]]
we are pleased to accept them and, hopefully, we will have a unanimous
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 2843 is
pending.
Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2843) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider that vote.
Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2846
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 2846 is now
pending.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2846) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
statement of the Senator from Indiana, there be no amendments in order
prior to the vote on the Wellstone amendment No. 2847.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the
time being charged to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if other Senators are coming down with
amendments, I will stop speaking. Otherwise, I will take about 5
minutes now if we have the time.
Mr. REID. We are on the Senator's time anyway.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes as in morning
business.
Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Wyoming
has arrived and may wish to speak on the Wellstone amendment. How much
time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes in opposition.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me be very clear that we made a
modification from the original amendment to deal with some of the
problems my colleagues had about expansion. We are doing two things:
Lowering the payment limits from $50,000 per year to $30,000 per year,
though it can be $30,000 per year over 5 years. This is consistent with
the vote we have made on payment limitations. There is no reason for
Government subsidies going to the largest of the largest. Second is to
prevent producers with an interest in more than one large CAFO to
receive multiple EQIP contracts. This is consistent as a reform
amendment. Why should conglomerates get payments for multiple CAFOs?
Finally, making sure there is a comprehensive management plan which
goes to the producers, which is good, sound environmental practice. As
I said, this has the support of a lot of farm organizations and many
environmental organizations. It is a good reform vote. I hope we will
get a majority vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me make a couple of comments. I have
been very involved in this program over time. The Senator brought it up
before. It seems to me there are some issues here about which we ought
to talk. We didn't talk about it at all in committee. EQIP, in my view,
and I think pretty much under the law, is designed to give technical
assistance to do good for the environment. They are not tied to
nutrients particularly or to any particular kind of action. They ought
to be available to people who want take some action, whether it is
changing a ditch to make it more workable for the environment, or
whatever.
Constantly we keep trying to limit it to certain sizes and you have
to report the number of animals that you own. That is not part of the
proposition. This idea of nuance was an idea that came up in the
Clinton administration. It was never put in as a rule, and now we are
going to put it into law. It seems to me that it is an unnecessary
amount of detail and is singly trying to target certain areas when
really the opportunity is broad.
I was out in my home this weekend and was talking about this--in
fact, I guess it was in Denver at the Cattlemen's--and people said: We
need more money for EQIP, but we do not want to have more and more
rules where every time we try to do something we invite EPA to be here
on top of us, and all these other things.
I feel fairly strongly about it. However, I do recognize we need to
move forward, and I withdraw my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his cooperation. I am saying
that when you put up a facility there has to be a plan of what you are
going to do with the waste. That is all I am really saying.
If I heard the Senator from Wyoming correctly, he is not objecting.
Are we still going to go forward with a recorded vote or not? I will do
it either way, but it sounds as if we could move forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. My understanding is that a recorded vote would occur at
the expiration of the time of this amendment and the expiration of the
time of whatever amendments that were in the original unanimous consent
request. In other words, a list of, I think, four amendments needed to
be disposed of. So after we have completed work on all of those, there
would then be rollcall votes therefore required, and this would be one
of those instances.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, is it possible to ask unanimous consent
that the rollcall vote on this issue be vitiated?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there further debate on the amendment? If not, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 2847.
The amendment (No. 2847) was agreed to.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2845
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the McConnell
amendment No. 2845 is now pending.
Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time being
charged to both sides.
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 the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are now on
the McConnell amendment, No. 2845. Is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin
be allowed to offer a second-degree amendment to amendment No. 2845;
that the time between now and 5 o'clock be equally divided between
Senator Harkin and Senator McConnell or their designees, and that at
5:45 we vote on the Harkin second-degree amendment and that at 5
o'clock this matter be set aside.
I would say for the information of all Senators, there is a
leadership meeting at 5 o'clock. I think it is bicameral. I don't know
what it is; I am not attending. We will stay here on the floor and try
to work out some other things during that 45-minute period.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. To make it clear, we are going to debate now for about 20
[[Page S627]]
minutes on my substitute and the underlying McConnell amendment. That
will be set aside. The vote will then occur on my second-degree
amendment at 5:45.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. There may be intervening business between now and then,
but there will be no votes until 5:45; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Amendment No. 2856 to Amendment No. 2845
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment. I send
it to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 2856 to amendment No. 2845.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'']
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, please clarify, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what we have in front of us is the
McConnell amendment, which reduces loan rates by less than a quarter of
a percent. He takes that money and basically puts it into nutrition
programs.
Frankly, my history in both the House and Senate in the Agriculture
Committee for 27 years is one of very strong support for nutrition
programs.
Let's look at the record. The House of Representatives, in their farm
bill, has $3.6 billion over baseline for nutrition programs for 10
years--$3.6 billion. The Senate bill, as we reported it from committee,
had $6.2 billion, almost twice as much for nutrition programs over the
same period of time.
Due to certain amendments that have been offered and agreed to
already on the Senate floor, the amount of money for nutrition now in
the pending farm bill is $8.4 billion. That is well over twice what the
House has. Could it be more? Yes. We could always do more, of course.
But we have tried to keep a well-balanced bill. I submit we have done a
lot to address the underlying concerns of accessibility, of assets--of
a lot of things--for people who need food stamps and other nutrition
programs.
The McConnell amendment, if you divide it all up, would put about $49
million a year additional into a program that already is spending $20
billion a year. Now, $49 million is a lot of money, but compared to $20
billion? I submit this will have almost no effect on the underlying
nutrition programs. Really, the way I see this amendment, it is an
attempt to take some more money out of commodity programs by reducing
the loan rate, which is important as an income support for farmers in
my part of the country and, in fact, all over America.
What my amendment does is it says: OK, if you are going to nick the
loan rates by a quarter of a percent, let's then leave it as an income
support for farmers--one way or the other.
Last Saturday in Denver, CO, President Bush said one of the things he
wanted to see in a farm bill was farm savings accounts. He said that. I
think the distinguished ranking member has proposed this in the past.
Senator Grassley, my colleague from Iowa, has supported this proposal
in the past. Others have supported farm savings accounts. We plan to
propose a pilot program in the underlying manager's amendment. It
provides $36 million for a pilot program. It is not very much, but at
least it was there to try to test the idea to see if it was acceptable
and see if it would work. Some said that is not enough money.
My second-degree amendment basically says we will take the less than
quarter percent cut out of loan rates, but we will take that money,
which is about $510 million, and we will put that into the farm savings
account as a pilot program in 10 States. With that much money, perhaps
we could really find out whether or not this program would work.
The President said he has wanted it. Other people have been
supporting it. I have some reservations about the idea, but there are
plenty of people on the other side of the aisle, and the President, who
have supported this idea. So in the spirit of bipartisanship I would
like to include this pilot program so we can all find out exactly how
it works and give the USDA some time to work out the details.
Again, the President has requested this program. The pilot program
will include 10 States. It will run from 2003 to 2006. To make the
program viable, we will ramp up funding to $200 million by 2006.
The pilot program allows the farmer to set up a savings account. The
Secretary of Agriculture will then match the producer's contribution. A
producer's contribution is limited to $5,000 a year. The farmer can
then withdraw from the account when his farm income from that year is
less than 90 percent of his farm income averaged over the last 5 years.
Again, we have a strong nutrition title here. We have gone from $3.6
billion in the House to $8.4 billion here. But if we want to have the
farm savings accounts, then Senators will have a choice. We have
already done a lot for nutrition. I take a back seat to no one in my
support for strong nutrition programs. But if the will is to nick the
loan rates a little bit--and I guess this is what this is all about--at
least let's leave it with some income support for farmers. I am willing
to give the benefit of the doubt to my friends on the other side of the
aisle. Let's try this farm savings account. Let's see how it works.
Maybe I will be proven wrong. I don't know that it will work, but it is
probably worth a try. And I know the President wants it.
The President keeps saying he wants bipartisanship. This is
bipartisanship. I reach out a hand to those on the other side of the
aisle and say fine, let's try the farm savings accounts.
Let me point out one other thing. I mentioned the House had $3.6
billion in nutrition. We are at $8.4 billion. President Bush, in the
budget he sent down, has $4.2 billion increases for nutrition programs
over the next 10 years. So, as I said, I think we can be proud of what
we have done for nutrition in the Senate bill.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. The underlying McConnell amendment which would be
wiped out by the second-degree Harkin amendment is for the benefit of
disabled people and working families with children. It would simply
allocate $50 million over the next 10 years, per year, and pay for it
with a thirteen-hundredths-of-1-percent lowering of loan rates, a
thirteen-hundredths-of-1-percent reduction in loan rates over 10 years,
which is a minuscule reduction in loan rates, to benefit the disabled
and working families with children.
That is what the underlying amendment is about. I had hoped the
Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the committee, would accept this
amendment. It seems to me it is pretty simple. There is not a farmer in
America who is going to notice a thirteen-hundredths-of-1-percent
reduction in loan rates over 10 years. No farmer is going to recognize
that. But a lot of disabled people and working families will recognize
the $16-a-month difference that it will make for them.
On this amendment, I speak not only for myself but I speak for the
following groups: The Children's Defense Fund, the Kentucky Task Force
on Hunger, the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, the National Council of La Raza, the Food Research and
Action Center, America's Second Harvest, Bread for the World, and the
Western Regional Antihunger Coalition, which includes the Food Bank of
Alaska, the Association of Arizona Food Banks, the California Food
Policy Advocates, the California Association of Food Banks, the Idaho
Community Action Network, the Montana Food Network, Montana Hunger
Coalition, the Oregon Hunger Relief Tax Force, the Oregon Food Bank,
the Utahns Against Hunger, the Children's Alliance of Washington, the
Washington Association of Churches, and the Washington Food Coalition.
All of these groups are interested in helping provide sustenance for
the disabled and working families with children. And the only sacrifice
that the McConnell amendment envisions farmers making is a thirteen-
hundredths-of-
[[Page S628]]
1-percent reduction in loan rates over 10 years.
I don't think there is a need to further explain the underlying
amendment. I had hoped Senator Harkin would accept it. Since he has not
chosen to do that, I hope the Harkin second-degree amendment will be
defeated and that the underlying amendment supported by all of these
groups interested in feeding hungry people and disabled people will be
agreed to.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes in support of the
McConnell amendment.
The distinguished Senator from Kentucky has stated the case well. In
earlier debates, both of us pointed out that the McConnell amendment is
essential to bringing justice to all Americans who are recipients of
food stamps--in this case, among those who are most vulnerable in our
society. It does so at a minimal change with regard to payments to
farmers. I suspect most farmers recognize that and would commend the
intent.
In fairness, my distinguished colleague, the chairman of our
committee, does not argue about the intent. Indeed, the Senate bill is
much more generous than the House bill in regard to nutrition programs
and food stamps in particular and is much more generous than
administration proposals. At the same time, we have spent the time in
committee attempting to explore equity. This seems to me to be an
amendment that rounds this out, and that brings completion to our
argument in a very satisfying way.
The savings account idea is a good one, but to introduce it at this
point seems to me to be inappropriate. I am most hopeful that Senators
who support the McConnell amendment will think through, once again, an
opportunity that we have in a humane way to help those who are
vulnerable in our society through satisfying nutrition programs.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes twenty-two seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, frankly, I think it is quite appropriate.
We plan to propose a pilot program in the manager's amendment. This
just expands it.
I am trying to do something that reaches across the aisle in a
bipartisan atmosphere, something that friends on the other side of the
aisle and the President have called for in doing something about these
farm savings accounts. I don't really know whether they will work or
not, but I am willing to let them try to put some money in the pilot
program.
On the other hand, on nutrition programs, there is $49 million a
year. Every dollar helps. When you are spending $20 billion a year and
say we are going to put in another $49 million, you could look at it
and say that doesn't do much. The Senator from Kentucky says we are not
taking much out of farmers. You are not taking much out of farmers but
you are not doing much to help poor people, either.
If you are going to do that--if you are going to nick the farmers a
little bit--rather than holding out false hopes to poor people that
somehow you are really going to boost nutrition programs, which you
really aren't with this amendment, then at least try to do something
that might be meaningful to help farm income in the future.
Quite frankly, $50 million used in the farm savings accounts could be
the underpinnings to help farm income in the future. That could be
meaningful. But $49 million, or $50 million, on $20 billion for food
stamps is, as I said, holding out false hopes to poor people that
somehow you have done something.
I suggest to my friend from Kentucky that perhaps he might want to
tell the President not to send the budget down here that has $4.2
billion in increases in nutrition programs when we are already at $8.4
billion. I had hoped the President would have sent down a budget that
said, no, we need to put more money in nutrition, and we need $8
billion or $10 billion, as the ranking member was trying to do in
committee with $10 billion more for nutrition.
On the other hand, that amount of money going into farm savings
accounts could be quite significant to a number of farmers.
I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will not need to use the whole 5
minutes. Let me restate what this is about. This is about working
families with children and disabled people who are eligible for food
stamps. It has been suggested by my friend and colleague from Iowa that
the amount involved for those people would not be noticed. I would
respectfully suggest that $16 a month for a family of four will be
noticed and that the loss of thirteen-hundredths of 1 percent on the
loan rate will not be noticed by the farmers.
This is an amendment that ought to be approved. As I said earlier, it
is supported by a vast array of groups led by the Children's Defense
Fund that believes it is necessary to bring this program up to the
level that it ought to achieve when looking into the future.
I hope that the Harkin second-degree amendment will be defeated and
that the underlying McConnell amendment, supported by the Children's
Defense Fund and an array of different organizations, which I listed a
few moments ago, will be approved.
Again, this is about $16 a month for working families with children
and the disabled, paid for by a thirteen-hundredths of 1 percent
reduction in loan rates.
I think this is a tradeoff that every farmer in America would
understand. I consider myself a friend of farmers as well. I will bet
there is not a farmer in Kentucky who wouldn't think this is an
appropriate step to take.
Is the Senator from Iowa out of time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 18 seconds
remaining.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am happy to yield back my time if the
Senator from Iowa wants to yield back his 18 seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Amendment No. 2822
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me ask the distinguished chairman of
our committee for his attention to the Helms amendment No. 2822 dealing
with animal welfare. I wanted to inquire of the Senator with regard to
the Helms amendment No. 2822 on animal welfare. It is my understanding
that on both sides of the aisle we are prepared to accept that
amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. It is a good amendment.
Mr. LUGAR. Will the Chair turn our attention to the Helms amendment
No. 2822 and proceed with the regular order with that amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending. The question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2822) was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Nevada.
Amendment No. 2829
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn
to amendment No. 2829.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is now the
pending question.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senators Breaux and Feinstein have worked on
this amendment now for the past hour or thereabouts.
Amendment No. 2829, As Modified
On their behalf, I send a modification to the desk and ask unanimous
consent the amendment be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Strike the period at the end of section 143 and insert a
period and the following:
[[Page S629]]
SEC. 144. REALLOCATION OF SUGAR QUOTA.
Subtitle B of title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act
of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``PART VIII--REALLOCATING SUGAR QUOTA IMPORT SHORTFALLS
``SEC. 360. REALLOCATING CERTAIN SUGAR QUOTAS.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, on or after June 1 of each year, the United States Trade
Representative, in consultation with the Secretary, shall
determine the amount of the quota of cane sugar used by each
qualified supplying country for that fiscal year, and may
reallocate the unused quota for that fiscal year among
qualified supplying countries.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Qualified supplying country.--The term `qualified
supplying country' means one of the following 40 foreign
countries that is allowed to export cane sugar to the United
States under an agreement or any other country with which the
United States has an agreement relating to the importation of
cane sugar:
Argentina
Australia
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Fiji
Gabon
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
India
Ivory Coast
Jamaica
Madagascar
Malawi
Mauritius
Mexico
Mozambique
Nicaragua
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
St. Kitts and Nevis
South Africa
Swaziland
Taiwan
Thailand
Trinidad-Tobago
Uruguay
Zimbabwe.
``(2) Cane sugar.--The term `cane sugar' has the same
meaning as the term has under part VII.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment, as
modified?
If not, the time is yielded back. The question is on agreeing to
amendment No. 2829, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2829), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Amendment No. 2854
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn
to the McConnell amendment No. 2854.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is now the
pending question.
Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2854.
The amendment (No. 2854) was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate is not in a quorum call; is that
right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Amendment No. 2855
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn
to amendment No. 2855, Senator Kyl's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is now the
pending question.
Amendment No. 2855, As Modified
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk, which has
been signed off on by Senator Kyl, Senator Lugar, and Senator Harkin. I
ask unanimous consent the amendment be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 9, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
``(12) Implementation.--In carrying out this subsection,
the Secretary shall comply with--
``(A) all interstate compacts, court decrees, and Federal
and State laws (including regulations) that may affect water
or water rights; and
``(B) all procedural and substantive State water law.
On page 10, line 1, strike ``(13)'' and insert ``(14)''.
On page 11, line 9, strike ``(14)'' and insert ``(15)''.
On page 10, line 14, strike ``(15)'' and insert ``(16)''.
On page 10, line 22, strike ``(16)'' and insert ``(17)''.
On page 20, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
``(j) Implementation.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall comply with--
``(1) all interstate compacts, court decrees, and Federal
and State laws (including regulations) that may affect water
or water rights; and
``(2) all procedural and substantive State water law.
On page 20, line 11, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(k)''.
On page 20, line 22, strike ``(k)'' and insert ``(l)''.
On page 21, line 4, strike ``(l)'' and insert ``(m)''.
On page 21, line 9, strike ``(m)'' and insert ``(n)''.
On page 21, line 12, strike ``(n)'' and insert ``(o)''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 2855, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2855), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2542, As Further Modified
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask the that Chair consider an amendment
by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, No. 2542.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending. Is there further
debate?
Mr. LUGAR. I ask clarification from the Chair. On the copy of the
amendment I am looking at, it identifies it as amendment No. 2639. Can
the Chair help illuminate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. As soon as the Chair has been illuminated, the
Chair will illuminate.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment No. 2542 was modified
with the text of the amendment the Senator has just referenced.
Mr. HARKIN. It has been modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It has been modified.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair for that information. I ask that the
Chair proceed to consideration of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is momentarily in doubt.
The pending question is amendment No. 2542 as previously modified and
with the proposed modification that is now at the desk.
Is there objection to the second modification?
Without objection, the amendment is further modified.
The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:
Beginning on page 2, strike line 11 and all that follows
through page 4, line 21, and insert the following:
``(C) for the socialization of dogs intended for sale as
pets with other dogs and people, through compliance with a
performance standard developed by the Secretary based on the
recommendations of veterinarians and animal welfare and
behavior experts that--
``(i) identifies actions that dealers and inspectors shall
take to ensure adequate socialization; and
``(ii) identifies a set of behavioral measures that
inspectors shall use to evaluate adequate socialization; and
``(D) for addressing the initiation and frequency of
breeding of female dogs so that a female dog is not--
``(i) bred before the female dog has reached at least 1
year of age; and
``(ii) whelped more frequently than 3 times in any 24-month
period.''.
(b) Suspension or Revocation of License, Civil Penalties,
Judicial Review, and Criminal Penalties.--Section 19 of the
Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149) is amended--
[[Page S630]]
(1) by striking ``Sec. 19. (a) If the Secretary'' and
inserting the following:
``SEC. 19. SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE, CIVIL
PENALTIES, JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND CRIMINAL
PENALTIES.
``(a) Suspension or Revocation of License.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1) (as designated by paragraph (1)), by
striking ``if such violation'' and all that follows and
inserting ``if the Secretary determines that 1 or more
violations have occurred.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) License revocation.--If the Secretary finds that any
person licensed as a dealer, exhibitor, or operator of an
auction sale subject to section 12, has committed a serious
violation (as determined by the Secretary) of any rule,
regulation, or standard governing the humane handling,
transportation, veterinary care, housing, breeding,
socialization, feeding, watering, or other humane treatment
of dogs under section 12 or 13 on 3 or more separate
inspections within any 8-year period, the Secretary shall--
``(A) suspend the license of the person for 21 days; and
``(B) after providing notice and a hearing not more than 30
days after the third violation is noted on an inspection
report, revoke the license of the person unless the Secretary
makes a written finding that revocation is unwarranted
because of extraordinary extenuating circumstances.''
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President this amendment is a continuation of my
interest in the protection and humane treatment of animals,
specifically, dogs and puppies. This amendment will crack down on
breeders who do not abide by existing requirements for the humane
treatment and care of dogs bred for the pet trade. It will also fill
some gaps in the law that involve important humane concerns.
There has been extensive coverage of the improper care, abuse, and
mistreatment common at ``puppy mills'' across America. Unsuspecting
consumers who purchase these puppies find out that they have latent
physical and behavioral problems because of the poor care they received
in the important early stage of their lives. This can lead to safety
concerns, tremendous expense and heartbreak for families. And for the
dogs, it often means they end up taken to shelters where they must be
euthanized because they're too aggressive or sickly to be adopted.
My amendment enjoys the support of 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, as
well as 861 humane organizations, shelters, and animals control
associations. I ask unanimous consent that a listing of these
organizations, by State, be printed to the Record. Also let the Record
reflect that my own State of Pennsylvania has 14 organizations on this
list ranging from the Western Pennsylvania Westie Rescue Committee, the
Humane Society of Lackawanna County and the York County SPCA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. SANTORUM. There are at least 3,000 commercial dog breeding
facilities licensed to operate by the United States Department of
Agriculture. These facilities are required to comply with the rules and
regulations of the Animal Welfare Act, AWA, that sets forth minimal
standards for humane handling and treatment. Inspections, to oversee
compliance with AWA standards, are performed by the USDA.
There are serious inadequacies with the current system that demand
our attention and our action. One problem has been insufficient
resources for the USDA to perform timely and routine inspections.
Second, inspectors have too few tools to make the assessment of proper
care that they must. I have worked for several years on strategies to
solve these problems through congressional and agency action.
I was very pleased to be joined last year by one-third of my Senate
colleagues in seeking an increased appropriation for USDA to enforce
the Animal Welfare Act. USDA has approximately 80 inspectors to inspect
nearly 10,000 USDA federally-licensed facilities involving millions of
animals. Increases in USDA's enforcement budget will certainly help the
agency fulfill its responsibility to ensure compliance with the AWA.
Counting Fiscal Year 2002, Congress has appropriated an additional
$13 million since 1999 to enable USDA to track down more unlicensed
facilities, conduct more inspections, and improve follow-up enforcement
efforts.
And 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.
That is why I introduced the Puppy Protection Act, along with my
colleague Senator Durbin, to address these additional areas requiring
our attention.
Today's amendment is based on that bill, S. 1478, which we introduced
on October 1, 2001. The Puppy Protection Act, and our amendment today,
will make three very important and needed changes to the Animal Welfare
Act's oversight of commercial dog breeding operations.
First, legislation addresses the need for breeding females to be
given time to recover between litters and to be protected from breeding
in their first year of life.
Second, it requires that dogs receive adequate interaction with other
dogs and with people to help prevent behavioral problems in the future.
Third, it encourages swift and strong enforcement against repeat
offenders by creating a ``three strikes and you're out'' system for
chronic violators.
The science is clear that dogs who are raised without adequate
contact with other dogs and with people are likely to have behavioral
problems throughout their lives.
This amendment recognizes the critical importance of the early weeks
of a dog's life. The Animal Welfare Act does currently recognize this
need.
Our amendment also addresses the issue of breeding and its
correlation to an animals's welfare. Sometimes a life of intensive
breeding can begin at 6 months of age, well before a dog is mature
enough to mother a litter of puppies and still remain healthy.
Relentless overbreeding can cause severe nutritional deficiencies and
impairs a dog's immune system, leading to 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.
Finally, our amendment addresses the problem of commercial dog
breeders who repeatedly violate the requirements of the Animal Welfare
Act, but continue to operate.
This carefully-crafted provision will help USDA take action against
the genuinely bad actors while allowing for the rights of all
individuals in the breeding business. I am deeply concerned about small
business and the protection of private property rights, so I have
worked with many interested parties to ensure this provision strikes
the right balance.
When families decide to buy or adopt a dog, they are taking in a new
family member. When they find, after weeks or months of sharing their
home with this dog, that their pet has behavioral problems or some
latent disease, they often do everything in their power to help their
dog with veterinarian care or behavioral training.
Unfortunately, dogs that are maltreated early in life and that have
been denied the early contacts that allow them to form solid bonds with
people and other animals, may bite or lash out. Families that face
these problems will often go to great lengths, and spare no expense, to
find a cure for a problem that could easily have been prevented.
Our legislation should not be controversial. It is about protecting
animals from mistreatment. It is about preventing heartbreak and loss
to families. And it is about doing what is responsible.
Please support the Santorum-Durbin amendment for puppy protection.
Exhibit 1
Endorsement List for Puppy Protection Act
(861 Endorsements--Updated 11/27/01)
Arkansas
Anchorage Animal Control
Gastineau Humane Society (Juneau)
Sitka Animal Shelter (Sitka)
Alabama
The Animal Shelter (Anniston)
Barbour County Humane Society Inc. (Eufaula)
BJC Animal Control Services, Inc. (Birmingham)
Central Alabama Animal Shelter (Selma)
[[Page S631]]
Circle of Friends (Montrose)
City of Irondale Animal Control (Irondale)
Dekalb County SPCA (Fort Payne)
Greater Birmingham Humane Society
Humane Society of Elmore County (Wetumpka)
Humane Society of Etowah County (Gadsden)
Humane Society of Chilton County (Clanton)
Humane Society of Pike County (Troy)
Mobile SPCA (Mobile)
Monroe County Humane Society (Monroeville)
Montgomery Humane Society (Montgomery)
St. Clair Animal Shelter (Pell City)
Tuscaloosa Metro Animal Shelter (Tuscaloosa)
Walker County Humane Society (Jasper)
Arizona
Berryville Animal Care and Control (Berryville)
Hot Springs Village Animal Welfare League (HPV)
Paragould Animal Welfare Society (Paragould)
Sherwood Animal Services (Sherwood)
Arizona
Animal Defense League of Arizona (Tucson)
Arizona Animal Welfare League (Phoenix)
Coconino Humane Association (Flagstaff)
Hacienda De Los Milagros, Inc. (Chino Valley)
Holbrook Police Department (Holbrook)
Humane Society of Sedona (Sedona)
Humane Society of Southern Arizona (Tucson)
Long Lake Animal Shelter/Fort Mojave Ranger Department
(Mohave Valley)
Payson Humane Society, Inc. (Payson)
California
Actors and Others for Animal (North Hollywood)
All for Animals (Santa Barbara)
Animal Friends of the Valley/LEAF (Lake Elsinore)
Animal Protection Institute (Sacramento)
Animal Care Services Division, City of Sacramento
(Sacramento)
Animal Place (Vacaville)
Antioch Animal Services (Antioch)
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (Davis)
Benicia/Vallejo Humane Society (Vallejo)
Berkeley Animal Care Services (Berkeley)
California Animal Care (Pam Desert)
California Animal Defense and Anti-Vivisection League, Inc.
(Carson)
City of Perris Animal Control (Perris)
City of Sacramento Animal Care Services Division
(Sacramento)
City of Santa Barbara Police Department--Animal Control
(Santa Barbara)
Contra Costa Humane Society (Pleasant Hill)
Costa Mesa Animal Control (Costa Mesa)
Desert Hot Springs Animal Control (Desert Hot Springs)
Divsiion (Santa Barbara)
Dog Obedience Club of Torrance, CA (Torrance)
Earth Island Institute (San Francisco)
Eileen Hawthorne Fund Inc. (Fort Bragg)
Escondido Humane Society (Escondido)
Friends for Pets Foundation (Sun Valley)
Friends of the Fairmont Animal Shelter (San Leandro)
Friends of Solano County (Fairfield)
Haven Humane Society, Inc. (Redding)
The Healdsburg Animal Shelter (Healdsburg)
Helen Woodward Animal Center (Rancho Santa Fe)
Hollister Animal Shelter (Hollister)
Humane Education Network (Menlo Park)
Humane Society of Imperial County (El Centre)
Humane Society of Tuolumne County (Jamestown)
Kings SPCA (Hanford)
Lake Tahoe Humane Society/SPCA (South Lake Tahoe)
Lawndale Municipal Services, Animal Control Division
(Lawndale)
The Marin Humane Society (Novato)
Orange County People for Animals (Irvine)
Orange County SPCA (Huntington Beach)
Pasadena Humane Society and SPCA (Pasadena)
Pet Adoption League (Grass Valley)
Petaluma Animal Services (Petaluma)
Placer County Animal Services (Auburn)
Placer County Animal Services (Kings Beach/Tahoe Vista)
Pleasanton Police Department--Animal Services (Pleasanton)
Rancho Coastal Humane Society (Leucadia)
Reedley Police Department (Reedley)
Retired Greyhound Rescue (Yuba City)
Sacramento County Animal Care and Regulation (Sacramento)
Sacramento SPCA (Sacramento)
Santa Cruz SPCA (Santa Cruz)
Seal Beach Animal Care Center (Seal Beach)
Siskiyou County Animal Control (Yreka)
Solano County Animal Control (Fairfield)
Southeast Area Animal Control Authority (Downey)
Spay Neuter Associates (Ben Lomond)
The SPCA of Monterey County (Monterey)
Stanislaus County Animal Services (Modesto)
State Humane Association of California (Sacramento)
Town and Country Humane Society (Orland)
Town of Truckee Animal Control (Truckee)
Tracy Animal Shelter (Tracy)
Tri-City Animal Shelter (Fremont)
Tulare County Animal Control Shelter (Visalia)
United Animal Nations/Emergency Rescue Service (Santa
Barbara)
Valley Humane Society (Pleasanton)
Woods Humane Society (San Luis Obispo)
Yuba Sutter SPCA (Yuba City)
Yucaipa Animal Placement Society (Yucaipa)
colorado
Adams County Animal Control (Commerce City)
Barnwater Cats Rescue Organization (Denver)
Cat Care Society (Lakewood)
Cherry Hills Village Animal Control (Cherry Hills Village)
Delta County Humane Society (Delta)
Denver Animal Control and Shelter (Denver)
The Dreampower Foundation/P.A.A.L.S. (Castle Rock)
Dumb Friends League (Denver)
Good Samaritan Pet Center (Denver)
Humane Society of Boulder Valley (Boulder)
Intermountain Humane Society (Conifer)
Larimer Humane Society (Fort Collins)
Lone Rock Veterinary Clinic (Bailey)
Longmont Humane Society (Longmont)
Montrose Animal Protection Agency (Montrose)
Rangely Animal Shelter (Rangely)
Rocky Mountain Animal Defense (Boulder)
Table Mountain Animal Center (Golden)
Thornton Animal Control (Thornton)
connecticut
Animal Welfare Associates, Inc. (Stamford)
Connecticut Humane Society (Newington)
Enfield Police Department-Animal Control (Enfield)
Forgotten Felines, Inc. (Clinton)
The Greater New Haven Cat Project, Inc. (New Haven)
Hamilton Sundstrand (West Locks)
Kitty Angels of Connecticut (Coventry)
Meriden Humane Society (Meriden)
Milford Animal Control (Milford)
Per Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) (Norwalk)
Quinebaug Valley Animal Welfare Service (Dayville)
Valley Shore Animal Welfare League (Westbrook)
delaware
Delaware SPCA (Georgetown)
Delaware SPCA (Stanton)
florida
Alachua County Humane Society (Gainesville)
Animal Rights Foundation of Florida (Pompano Beach)
Animal Welfare League of Charlotte County (Port Charlotte)
Arni Foundation (Daytona Beach)
Baker County Animal Control (Macclenny)
Central Brevard Humane Society-Central (Cocoa)
Central Brevard Humane Society-South (Melbourne)
Citizens for Humane Animal Treatment (Crawfordville)
Clay County Animal Control (Green Cove Springs)
Coral Springs Humane Unit (Coral Springs)
First Coast Humane Society/Nassau County Animal Control
(Yulee)
Flayler County Humane Society (Palm Coast)
Halifax Humane Society (Daytona Beach)
Humane Society of Broward County (Fort Lauderdale)
Humane Society of Collier County, Inc. (Naples)
Humane Society of Lake County (Eustis)
Humane Society of Lee County, Inc. (Fort Myers)
Humane Society of Manatee County (Bradenton)
Humane Society of North Pinellas (Clearwater)
Humane Society of St. Lucie County (Fort Pierce)
Humane Society of Tampa Bay (Tampa)
Humane Society of the Treasure Coast, Inc. (Palm City)
Jacksonville Humane Society
Jefferson County Humane Society (Monticello)
Lake City Animal Shelter (Lake City)
Leon County Humane Society (Tallahassee)
Marion County Animal Center (Ocala)
Okaloosa County Animal Services (Fort Walton Beach)
Panhandle Animal Welfare Society (Fort Walton Beach)
Play Acres, Inc. (Wildwood)
Prayer Alliance for Animals (Jupiter)
Putnam County Humane Society (Hollister)
Safe Animal Shelter of Orange Park (Orange Park)
Safe Harbor Animal Rescue and Clinic (Juniper)
South Lake Animal League, Inc. (Clermont)
Southeast Volusia Humane Society (New Smyrna Beach)
SPCA of Hernando County, Inc. (Brooksville)
SPCA of Pinellas County (Largo)
SPCA of West Pasco (New Port Richey)
Suncoast Basset Rescue, Inc. (Gainesville)
Suwannee County Humane Society (Live Oak)
[[Page S632]]
Volusia County Animal Services (Daytona)
Wings of Mercy Animal Rescue (Panama County Beach)
georgia
Animal Rescue Foundation, Inc. (Milledgeville)
Atlanta Humane Society and SPCA, Inc. (Atlanta)
Basset Hound Rescue of Georgia, Inc. (Kennesaw)
Big Canoe Animal Rescue (Big Canoe)
Catoosa County Animal Control (Ringgold)
Charles Smithgall Humane Society, Inc. (Cleveland)
Cherokee County Humane Society (Woodstock)
Clayton County Humane Society (Jonesboro)
Collie Rescue of Metro Atlanta, Inc. (Atlanta)
Coweta County Animal Control Department (Newman)
Crawfordville Shelter (Crawfordville)
Douglas County Humane Society (Douglasville)
Dublin-Laurens Humane Association (Dublin)
Fayette County Animal Shelter (Fayetteville)
Fitzgerald-Ben Hill Humane Society (Fitzgerald)
Forsyth County Humane Society (Cumming)
Georgia Labrador Rescue (Canton)
Glynn County Animal Services (Brunswick)
Golden Retriever Rescue of Atlanta (Peachtree City)
The Good Shepard Humane Society (Sharpsburg)
Homeward Bound Pet Rescue, Inc. (Ellijay)
Humane Services of Middle Georgia (Macon)
Humane Society of Camden County (Kingsland)
Humane Society of Griffin-Spalding County (Experiment)
Humane Society's Mountain Shelter (Blairsville)
Humane Society of Moultrie-Colquitt County (Moultrie)
Humane Society of Northwest Georgia (Dalton)
Lookout Mountain Animal Resources, Inc. (Menlo
Lowndes County Animal Welfare (Valdosta)
Okefenokee Humane Society (Waycross)
Pet Partners of Habersham, Inc. (Cornelia)
Pound Puppies N Kittens (Oxford)
Rescuing Animals in Need, Inc. (Buford)
Rockdale County Animal Care and Control (Conyers)
Small Dog Rescue/Adoption (Cumming)
Society of Human Friends of Georgia, Inc. (Lawrenceville)
Toccoa-Stephens County Animal Shelter (Tocco)
Town of Chester (Chester)
Vidalia Animal Control (Vidalia)
Washington-Wilkes Animal Shelter (Washington)
hawaii
Hawaii Island Humane Society (Kailua-Kona)
Hawaii Island Humane Society (Keaau)
Hawaiian Humane Society (Honolulu)
Hauai Humane Society (Lihue)
The Maui Humane Society (Puunene)
West Hawaii Humane Society (Kailua-Kona)
iowa
Animal Control (Creston)
Animal Lifeline of Iowa, Inc. (Carlisle)
Animal Protection Society of Iowa (Des Moines)
Animal Rescue League of Iowa (Des Moines)
Appanoose County Animal Lifeline, Inc. (Centerville)
Boone Area Humane Society (Boone)
Cedar Bend Humane Society (Waterloo)
Cedar Rapids Animal Control (Ely)
Cedar Valley Humane Society (Cedar Rapids)
City of Atlantic Animal Shelter (Atlantic)
Creston Animal Rescue Effort (Creston)
Friends of the Animals of jasper County (Newton)
Humane Society of Northwest Iowa (Milford)
Humane Society of Scott County (Davenport)
Iowa City Animal Car and Control (Iowa City)
Iowa Federation of Humane Societies (Des Moines)
Jasper County Animal Rescue league and Humane Society
(Newton)
Keokuk Humane Society (Keokuk)
Montgomery County Animal Rescue (Red Oak)
Muscatine Humane Society (Muscatine)
Northeast Iowa People for Animal Welfare (Decorah)
Raccoon Valley Humane Society (Adel)
Siouxland Humane Society (Sioux City)
Solution to Over-Population of Pets (Burlington)
Spay Neuter Assistance for Pets (SNAP) (Muscatine)
Vinton Animal Shelter (Vinton)
idaho
Animal Ark (Grangeville)
Animal Shelter of Wood River Valley (Hailey)
Bannock Humane Society (Pocatello)
Ferret haven Shelter/Rescue of Boise, Inc. (Boise)
Humane Society of the Palouse (Moscow)
Idaho Humane Society (Boise)
Kootenai Humane Society (Hayden)
Pocatello Animal Control (Pocatello)
Second Chance Animal Shelter (Payette)
Twin Falls Humane Society (Twin Falls)
illinois
Alton Area Animal Aid Associaton (Godfrey)
Anderson Animla Shelter (South Elgin)
The Anti-Cruelty Society (Chicago)
Chicago Animal Care and Controll (Chicago)
Community Animal Rescue Effort (Evanston)
Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control
(Bridgeview)
Friends Forever Humane Society (Freeport)
Hindsdale Humane Society (Hinsdale)
Homes for Endangered and Lost Pets (St. Charles)
Humane Society of Winnebago County (Rockford)
Illinois Federation of Humane Society (Urbana)
Illinois Humane Political Action Committee (Mahomet)
Kankakee County Humane Society (Kankalee)
Metro East Humane Society (Edwardsville)
Naperville Animal Control (Naperville)
Peoria Animal Welfare Shelter (Peoria)
Peoria Humane Society (Poeria)
PetEd Humane Education (Hinsdale)
Quincy Humane Society (Quincy)
South Suburban Humane Society (Chicago Heights)
Tazewell Animal Protective Society (Pekin)
West Suburban Humane Society (Downers Grove)
Winnebago County Animal Services (Rockford)
indiana
Allen County SPCA (Fort Wayne)
Cass County Humane Society (Logansport)
Dubois County Humane Society (Jasper)
Elkhart City Police Department-Animal Control Division
(Elkhart)
Fort Wayne Animal Care and Control (Ft. Wayne)
Greene County Humane Society (Linton)
Greenfields, Hancock County Animal Control (Greenfield)
Hammond Animal Control (Hammond)
Hendricks County Humane Society (Brownsburg)
Home for Friendless Animals Inc. (Indianapolis)
Humane Society Calumet Area, Inc. (Munster)
Humane Society of Elkhart County (Elkhart)
Humane Society for Hamilton County (Noblesville)
Humane Society of Hobart (Hobart)
Humane Society of Indianapolis (Indianapolis)
Humane Society of Perry County (Tell City)
Johnson County Animal Shelter (Franklin)
La Porte County Animal Control (La Porte)
Madison County SPCA and Humane Society, Inc. (Anderson)
Martin County Humane Society (Loogootee)
Michiana Humane Society (Michigan City)
Monroe County Humane Association (Bloomington)
Morgan County Humane Society (Martinsville)
New Albany/Floyd County Animal Shelter/Control (New Albany)
Owen County Humane Society (Spencer)
Salem Department of Animal Control (Salem)
Scott County Animal Control and Humane Investigations
(Scottsburg)
Sellersburg Animal Control (Sellersburg)
Shelbyville/Shelby County Animal Shelter (Shelbyville)
South Bend Animal Care and Control (South Bend)
St. Joseph County Humane Society (Mishawaka)
Starke County Humane Society (North Judson)
Steuben County Humane Society, Inc. (Angola)
Tippecanoe County Humane Society (Lafayette)
Vanderburgh Humane Society, Inc. (Evansville)
Wells County Humane Society, Inc. (Bluffton)
kansas
Animal Heaven (Merriam)
Arma Animal Shelter (Arma)
Caring Hands Humane Society (Newton)
Chanute Animal Control Department (Chanute)
City of Kinsley Animal Shelter (Kinsley)
Finney County Humane Society (Garden City)
Ford County Humane Society (Dodge City)
Heart of America Humane Society (Overland Park)
Hutchinson Humane Society (Hutchinson)
Kansas Humane Society of Wichita (Wichita)
Lawrence Humane Society (Lawrence)
Leavenworth Animal Society (Leavenworth)
Medicine Lodge Animal Shelter (Medicine Lodge)
Neosho County Sheriff's Office (Erie)
Salina Animal Shelter (Salina)
S.E.K. Humane Society (Pittsburg)
Southeast Kansas Humane Society (Pittsburg)
[[Page S633]]
kentucky
Boone County Animal Control (Burlington)
Friends of the Shelter/SPCA Kentucky (Florence)
Humane Society of Nelson County (Bardstown)
Jefferson County Animal Control and Protection (Louisville)
Kentucky Coalition for Animal Protection, Inc. (Lexington)
Lexington Humane Society (Lexington)
Marion County Humane Society Inc. (Lebanon)
McCracken County Humane Society, Inc. (Paducah)
Muhlenberg County Humane Society (Greenville)
Woodford Humane Society (Versailles)
louisiana
Calcasieu Parish Animal Control and Protection Department
(Lake Charles)
Cat Haven, Inc. (Baton Rouge)
City of Bossier Animal Control (Bossier City)
Coalition of Louisiana Advocates (Pineville)
Don't Be Cruel Sanctuary (Albany)
East Baton Rouge Parish Animal Control Center (Baton Rouge)
Humane Society Adoption Center (Monroe)
Iberia Humane Society (New Iberia)
Jefferson Parish Animal Shelters (Jefferson)
Jefferson SPCA (Jefferson)
League in Support of Animals (New Orleans)
Louisiana SPCA (New Orleans)
Natchitoches Humane Animal Shelter (Natchitoches)
Spay Mart, Inc. (New Orleans)
St. Bernard Parish Animal Control (Chalmette)
St. Charles Humane Society (Destrehan)
St. Tammany Humane Society (Covington)
massachusetts
Alliance for Animals (Boston)
Animal Shelter Inc. (Sterling)
Baypath Humane Society of Hopkinton, Inc. (Hopkinton)
The Buddy Dog Humane Society, Inc. (Sudbury)
CEASE (Somerville)
Faces Inc. Dog Rescue and Adoption (West Springfield)
Faxon Animal Rescue League (Fall River)
Lowell Humane Society (Lowell)
MSPCA (Boston)
New England Animal Action, Inc. (Amherst)
North Attleboro Animal Control/Shelter (N. Attleboro)
North Shore Feline Rescue (Middleton)
South Shore Humane Society, Inc. (Braintree)
maryland
Animal Advocates of Howard County (Ellicott City)
Bethany Centennial Animal Hospital (Ellicott City)
Caroline County Humane Society (Ridgely)
Charles County Animal Control Services (La Plata)
Harford County Animal Control (Bel Air)
Humane Society of Baltimore County (Reistertown)
Humane Society of Carroll County, Inc. (Westminister)
The Humane Society of Charles County (Waldorf)
The Humane Society of Dorchester County, Inc. (Cambridge)
The Humane Society of Harford County (Fallston)
Humane Society of Southern Maryland (Temple Hills)
Humane Society of Washington County (Maugansville)
Labrador Retriever Rescue, Inc. (Clinton)
Prince George's County Animal Welfare League (Forestville)
Shady Spring Kennels and Camp for Dogs (Woodbine)
St. Mary's Animal Welfare League, Inc. (Hollywood)
MAINE
The Ark Animal Shelter (Cherryfield)
Boothbay Region Humane Society (Boothbay Harbor)
Bucksport Animal Shelter (Bucksport)
Greater Androscoggiin Humane Society (Auburn)
Houlton Humane Society (Houlton)
Humane Society-Waterville Area (Waterville)
Kennebec Valley Humane Society (Augusta)
Maine Friends of Animals (Falmouth)
Penobscot Valley Humane Society (Lincoln)
MICHIGAN
Adopt-A-Pet (Allegan)
Animal Placement Bureau (Lansing)
Capital Area Humane Society (Lansing)
The Cat Connection (Berkley)
Concern for Criters (Battle Creek)
Friends for Felines Inc. (Lansing)
Grosse Point Animal Adoption Society (Grosse Pointe Farms)
Humane Society of Bay County, Inc. (Bay City)
Humane Society of Huron Valley (Ann Arbor)
Humane Society of Kent County (Walker)
Humane Society of Southwest Michigan (Benton Harbor)
Inkster Animal Control (Inkster)
Iosco County Animal Control (Taws City)
Kalamazoo Humane Society
Lenawee Humane Society (Adrian)
Menominee Animal Shelter (Menominee)
Michigan Animal Adoption Network (Livonia)
Michigan Animal Rescue League (Pontiac)
Michigan Humane Society (Westland)
Michigan Humane Society (Rochester Hills)
Midland County Animal Control (Midland)
Mid-Michigan Animal Welfare League (Standish)
Ottawa Shores Humane Society (West Olive)
Pet Connection Humane Society (Reed City)
Roscommon County Animal Shelter (Roscommon)
The Safe Harbor Haven Inc./Rottweiler Hope (Grand Ledge)
St. Clair Shores Emergency Dispatchers (St. Clair Shores)
St. Joseph County Animal Control (Centreville)
WAG Animal Rescue (Wyandotte)
Wonderful Humane Society (Cadillac)
Minnesota
Almost Home Shelter (Mora)
Animal Allies Humane Society (Duluth)
Beltrami Humane Society (Bemidji)
Bernese Mountain Dog Club of the Greater Twin Cities (St.
Paul)
Brown County Humane Society (New Ulm)
Carver-Scott Humane Society (Chaska)
Clearwater County Humane Society (Bagley)
Doberman Rescue Minnesota (Prior Lake)
Friends of Animal Humane Society of Carlton County, Inc.
(Cloquet)
Hibbing Animal Shelter (Hibbing)
Humane Society of Otter Tail County (Fergus Falls)
Humane Society of Polk County, Inc. (Crookston)
The Humane Society of Wright County (Buffalo)
Isanti County Humane Society (Cambridge)
Minnesota Valley Humane Society (Burnsville)
Second Chance Animal Rescue (White Bear Lake)
Waseca County Humane Society (Waseca)
MISSOURI
Afton Veterinary Clinic (St. Louis)
The Alliance for the Welfare of Animals (Springfield)
Animal House Veterinary Hospital (Arnold)
Animal Protective Association of Missouri (St. Louis)
Audrain Humane Society (Mexico)
Boonville Animal Control Shelter (Boonville)
Callaway Hills Animal Shelter (New Bloomfield)
Caruthersville Humane Society (Caruthersville)
Columbia Lowndes Humane Society (Columbus)
Dent County Animal Welfare Society (Salem)
Dogwood Animal Shelter (Camdenton)
Humane Society of Missouri (St. Louis)
Humane Society of the Ozarks (Farmington)
Humane Society of Southeast Missouri (Cape Girardeau)
Jefferson County Animal Control (Barnhart)
Lebanon Humane Society (Lebanon)
Lee's Summit Municipal Animal Shelter (Lee's Summit)
Marshall Animal Shelter (Marshall)
Northeast Missouri Humane Society (Hannibal)
Olde Towne Fenton Veterinary Hospital (Fenton)
Open Door Animal Sanctuary (House Springs)
Pound Pals (St. Louis)
Saline Animal League (Marshall)
Sikeston Bootheel Humane Society (Sikeston)
St. Charles Humane Society (St. Charles)
St. Joseph Animal Control and rescue (St. Joseph)
St. Louis Animal Rights Team (St. Louis)
St. Peters Animal Control (St. Peters)
Wayside Waifs (Kansas City)
MISSISSIPPI
Cedarhill Animal Sanctuary, Inc. (Caledonia)
Forest County Humane Society (Hattiesburg)
Humane Society of South Mississippi (Gulfport)
Mississippi Animal Rescue League (Jackson)
montana
Anaconda Police Department-Animal Control
Animal Welfare League of Montana (Billings)
Bitter Root Humane Association (Hamilton)
Bright Eyes Care and Rehab Center, Inc. (Choteau)
Humane Society of Cascade County (Great Falls)
Humane Society of Park County (Livingston)
Mission Valley Animal Shelter (Polson)
Montana Spay/Neuter Taskforce (Victor)
Missoula Humane Society (Missoula)
PAWHS (Deerlodge)
north carolina
Animal Protection Society of Orange County (Chapel Hill)
Carolina Animal Protection Society of Onslow county, Inc.
(Jacksonville)
Carteret County Humane Society, Inc. (Morehead City)
[[Page S634]]
Charlotte/Mecklenburg Animal Control Bureau (Charlotte)
Forsyth County Animal Control (Winston-Salem)
Henderson County Humane Society (Hendersonville)
Humane Society of Rowan County (Salisbury)
Justice For Animals, Inc. (Raleigh)
Moore Humane Society (Southern Pines)
North Carolina Animal/Rabies Control Association (Raleigh)
SPCA of Wake County (Garner)
Wake County Animal Control (Raleigh)
Watauga Humane Society (Blowing Rock)
north dakota
Central Dakota Humane Society (Mandan)
James River Humane Society (Jamestown)
Souris Valley Humane Society (Minot)
nebraska
Animal Rescue Society, Inc. (Lincoln)
Capital Humane Society (Lincoln)
Care Seekers (Omaha)
Central Nebraska Humane Society (Grand Island)
Coalition for Animal Protection, Inc. (Omaha)
Dodge County Humane Society (Fremont)
Hearts United for Animals (Auburn)
McCook Humane Society (McCook)
Nebraska Border Collie Rescue (Bellevue)
Nebraska Humane Society (Omaha)
Panhandle Humane Society (Scottsbluff)
White Rose Sanctuary (Gordon)
new hampshire
Animal Rescue League of New Hampshire (Bedford)
Cocheco Valley Humane Society (Dover)
Collage (Nashua)
Concord-Merrimack County SPCA (Concord)]
Conway Area Humane Society (Center Conway)
Greater Derry Humane Society, Inc. (East Derry)
Humane Society of Greater Nashua (Nashua)
Manchester Animal Shelter (Manchester)
Monadnock Humane Society (W. Swanzey)
New Hampshire Animal Rights League, Inc. (Concord)
The New Hampshire Doberman Rescue League, Inc. (Rochester)
New Hampshire Humane Society (Laconia)
New Hampshire SPCA (Stratham)
Salem Animal Rescue League (North Salem)
Solutions to Overpopulation of Pets, Inc. (Concord)
Sullivan County Humane Society (Claremont)
White Mountain Animal League (Franconia)
new jersey
Animal Welfare Federation of New Jersey (Montclair)
Associated Humane Societies (Newark)
Cumberland County SPCA (Vineland)
Humane Society of Atlantic County (Atlantic County)
Hunterdon County SPCA (Milford)
Monmouth County SPCA (Eatontown)
Parsippany Animal Shelter (Parsippany)
Paws for a Cause (Brick)
new mexico
Animal Aid Association of Cibola County (Milan)
Cimarron Police Animal Control (Cimarron)
Deminig/Luna County Humane Society (Derming)
Dona Ana County Humane Society (Las Cruces)
Homeless Animal Rescue Team, Inc. (Los Lunas)
Peoples' Anti-Cruelty Association (Albuquerque)
Rio Grand Animal Humane Association, Inc. (Los Lunas)
Roswell Humane Society (Roswell)
San Juan Animal League (Farmington)
Santa Fe Animal Shelter and Humane Society
nevada
Carson/Eagle Valley Humane Society (Carson City)
Nevada Humane Society (Sparks)
new york
Animal Rights Advocates of Western New York (Amherst)
The Caring Corps, Inc. (New York)
Chautauqua County Humane Society (Jamestown)
Chenango County SPCA (Norwich)
Columbia-Greene Humane Society (Hudson)
Elmore SPCA (Peru)
Finger Lakes SPCA of Central New York (Auburn)
The Fund for Animals (New York)
Humane Society of Rome (Rome)
New York State Animal Control Association (Oswego)
New York State Humane Association (Kingston)
People for Animal Rights, Inc. (Syracuse)
SPCA of Catt County (Olean)
St. Francis Animal Shelter, Inc. (Buffalo)
ohio
Angles for Animals (Greenford)
Animal Adoption Foundation (Hamilton)
Animal Charity (Youngstown)
Animal Control of Brook Park (Brook Park)
Animal Control-City of Middleburg Heights (Middleburg
Heights)
Animal Protection Guild (Canton)
Animal Protective League (Cleveland)
The Animal Shelter Society, Inc. (Zanesville)
Alter Pet Inc. (Sharon Center)
Ashtabula County Humane Society (Jefferson)
Athens County Humane Society (Athens)
Belmont County Animal Shelter (St. Clairsville)
Brown County Animal Shelter (Georgetown)
Canine Therapy Companions (Wooster)
Capital Area Humane Society (Hilliard)
Carroll County Humane Society (Carrollton)
City of Cleveland Dog Kennels (Cleveland)
Crawford County Humane Society (Bucyrus)
Darke County Animal Shelter (Greenville)
Erie County Dog Pound (Sandusky)
Euclid Animal Shelter (Euclid)
Gallia County Animal Welfare League (Gallipolis)
Harrison County Dog Warden (Codiz)
Hearts and Paws (Canal Fulton)
Henry County Humane Society (Napoleon)
Humane Association of Butler County (Trenton)
Humane Association of Warren County (Lebanon)
Humane Society of Delaware County (Delaware)
Humane Society of Erie County (Sandusky)
Humane Society of Greater Dayton (Dayton)
Humane Society of Guernsey County (Cambridge)
Humane Society of the Ohio Valley (Marietta)
The Humane Society of Ottawa County (Port Clinton)
Humane Society of Preble County (Eaton)
Humane Society of Sandusky County (Fremont)
Lake County Dog Shelter (Painesville)
Lake County Humane Society, Inc. (Mentor)
Marion County Humane Society (Marion)
Maumee Valley Save-A-Pet (Waterville)
Medina County Animal Shelter (Medina)
Miami County Animal Shelter (Troy)
Monroe County Humane Society (Woodsfield)
Montgomery County Animal Shelter (Dayton)
Morrow County Humane Society (Mt. Gilead)
North Central Ohio Nature Preservation League (Mansfield)
North Coast Humane Society (Cleveland)
Ohio County Dog Wardens' Association (Delaware)
Ohioans for Animal Rights (Eastlake)
PAWS (Middletown)
Paws and Prayers Per Rescue (Akron)
Pet Birth Control Clinics (Cleveland)
Pet-Guards Shelter (Cuyahoga Falls)
Portage County Animal Protective League (Ravenna)
Portage County Dog Warden (Ravenna)
Rescue, Rehabilitation and Release Wildlife Center (New
Philadelphia)
Sandusky County Dog Warden (Fremont)
The Scratching Post (Cincinnati)
Society for the Improvement of Conditions for Stray Animals
(Kettering)
SPCA Cincinnati (Cincinnati)
Stark County Humane Society (Louisville)
Their Caretakers (DeGraff)
Toledo Area Humane Society (Maumee)
Tuscarawas County Dog Pound (New Philadelphia)
Wayne County Humane Society (Wooster)
Wester Reserve Humane Society (Euclid)
Wood County Humane Society (Bowling Green)
Wyandot County Humane Society, Inc. (Sandusky)
oklahoma
Animal Aid of Tulsa, Inc. (Tulsa)
Enid SPCA (Enid)
Home at Last Organization (Tulsa)
Humane Society of Cherokee County (Tahlequah)
Oklahoma Humane Federation (Oklahoma City)
Partners for Animal Welfare Society (McAlester)
PAWS (Muskogee)
Petfinders Animal Welfare Society, Inc. (Moore)
Promoting Animal Welfare Society, Inc. (Muskogee)
Stephens County Humane Society (Duncan)
Volunteers for Animal Welfare, Inc. (Oklahoma City)
oregon
Hood River County Sheriff's Department (Hood River)
Humane Society of Allen County (Lima)
Humane Society of Central Oregon (Bend)
Humane Society of Williamette Valley (Salem)
Jackson County Animal Shelter (Phoenix)
Lakeview Police Department (Lakeview)
Multnomah County Animal Control (Troutdale)
Oregon Humane Society (Portland)
South Coast Humane Society (Brookings)
Wallowa County Humane Society (Enterprise)
pennsylvania
Antietam Humane Society, Inc. (Waynesboro)
Beaver County Humane Society (Monaca)
Bradford County Humane Society (Ulster)
Chester County SPCA (West Chester)
Cumberland Valley Animal Shelter (Chambersburg)
[[Page S635]]
Humane Society at Lackawanna County (Clarks Summit)
Lehigh Valley Animal Rights Coalition (Allentown)
The Pennsylvania SPCA (Philadelphia)
The Pennsylvania SPCA (Stroudsburg)
Ruth Stein Memorial SPCA (Pottsville)
SPCA of Luzerne County (Wilkes Barre)
Western Pennsylvania Westie Rescue Committee (New Castle)
Women's Humane Society (Bensalem)
York County SPCA (Thomasville)
rhode island
Animal Rescue League of SRI (Wakefield)
Potter League for Animals (Newport)
Providence Animal Control Center (Providence)
Warren Animal Shelter (Warren)
south carolina
The Animal Mission (Columbia)
Animal Protection League of South Carolina (Hopkins)
Beaufort County Animal Shelter and Control (Beaufort)
Blue Ridge Animal Fund (Travelers Rest)
City of Aiken Animal Control (Aiken)
Columbia Animal Shelter (Columbia)
Concerned Citizens for Animals (Simpsonville)
Grand Strand Humane Society (Myrtle Beach)
The Greenville Humane Society (Greenville)
Hanahan Animal Control Office/Animal Shelter (Hanahan)
Hilton Head Humane Association (Hilton Head Island)
Humane Society of Marion County (Marion)
Humane Society of the Midlands (Columbia)
The Humane Society of North Myrtle Beach (North Myrtle
Beach)
Kershaw County Humane Society (Camden)
Lancaster County Animal Control (Kershaw)
Lexington Animal Services (Lexington)
Nutritional Medicine Center (North Charleston)
South Carolina Animal Care and Control Association
(Columbia)
The Spay/Neuter Association, Inc. (Columbia)
St. Francis Humane Society (Georgetown)
Walter Crowe Animal Shelter (Camden)
South Dakota
Aberdeen Area Humane Society (Aberdeen)
Beadle County Humane Society (Huron)
Humane Society of the Black Hills (Rapid City)
tennessee
Animal Protection Association (Memphis)
Companion Animal Support Services (Nashville)
Fayette County Animal Rescue (Rossville)
Greenville-Greene County Humane Society (Greenville)
Hardin County Humane Society (Savannah)
Hickman Humane Society (Centerville)
Humane Society of Cumberland County (Crossville)
Humane Society of Dickson County (Dickson)
Humane Society of Dover-Stewart County (Dover)
Nashville Humane Association (Nashville)
North Central Tennessee Spay and Neuter (West Lafayette)
Tennessee Humane Association (Knoxville)
texas
Animal Adoption Center (Garland)
Animal Connection of Texas (Dallas)
Animal Defense League (San Antonio)
Animal Shelter and Adoption Center of Galveston Island,
Inc. (Galveston)
Affordable Companion Animal Neutering (Austin)
Canyon Lake Animal Shelter Society (Canyon Lake)
Central Texas SPCA (Cedar Park)
Citizens for Animal Protection (Houston)
City of Brownsville-Animal Control (Brownsville)
City of Hurst Animal Services (Hurst)
City Nacogdoches Animal Shelter (Houston)
City of West University Place (Houston)
Doggiemom Rescue (Dallas)
Find-A-Pet (Dallas)
Guadalupe County Humane Society (Sequin)
Harker Heights Animal Control (Harker Heights)
Homeless Pet Placement League (Houston)
H.O.R.S.E.S. in Texas (Chico)
Houston Dachshund Rescue (Spring)
Houston Humane Society (Houston)
Houston SPCA (Houston)
Humane Society of El Paso (El Paso)
Humane Society of Greater Dallas (Dallas)
Humane Society of Harlingen (Harlingen)
Humane Society of Montgomery County (Conroe)
Humane Society of Navarro County (Corsicana)
Humane Society of North Texas (Fort Worth)
Humane Society of Tom Green County (San Angelo)
Jasper Animal Rescue (Jasper)
Lubbock Animal Services (Lubbock)
Metroport Humane Society (Roanoke)
North Central Texas Animal Shelter Coalition (Fort Worth)
Operation Kindness Animal Shelter (Carrollton)
Paws Shelter for Animals (Kyle)
SPCA of Texas (Dallas)
Texas Federation of Humane Society (Austin)
Waco Humane Society and Animal Shelter (Waco)
virginia
Animal Assistance League (Chesapeake)
Animal Welfare League of Alexandria (Alexandria)
Caring for Creatures (Palmyra)
Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA (Charlottesville)
Danville Area Humane Society (Danville)
For the Love of Animals in Goochland (Manakin-Sabot)
Henrico Humane Society (Richmond)
Heritage Humane Society (Williamsburg)
Humane Society Montgomery County (Blacksburg)
Humane Society/SPCA of Nelson County (Arrington)
Isle of Wight County Humane Society (Smithfield)
Lynchburg Humane Society Inc. (Lynchburg)
Madison County Humane Society (Madison)
The National Humane Education Society (Leesburg)
New Kent Sherrif's Department (New Kent)
Page County Animal Shelter (Stanley)
Peninsula SPCA (Newport News)
Portsmouth Police Animal Control (Portsmouth)
Potomac Animal Allies, Inc. (Woodbridge)
Prevent a Litter Coalition, Inc. (Reston)
Smyth County Humane Society (Marion)
SPCA of Northern Virginia (Arlington)
SPCA of Martinsville-Henry County (Martinsville)
SPCA of Winchester, Frederick and Clarke Counties
(Winchester)
Suffolk Animal Control Shelter (Suffolk)
Tazewell County Animal Shelter (Tazewell)
Vinton Police Department--Animal Control (Vinton)
Virginia Beach SPCA (Virginia Beach)
Wildlife Center of Virginia (Waynesboro)
Williamsburg-James City County Animal Control
(Williamsburg)
VERMONT
Addison County Humane Society (Middlebury)
Caledonia Animal Rescue (St. Johnsbury)
Central Vermont Humane Society (Montpelier)
Collie Rescue League of New England (Bradford)
Elizabeth H. Brown Humane Society, Inc. (St. Johnsbury),
Endtrap (White River Junction)
Green Mountain Animal Defenders (Burlington)
Humane Society of Chittenden County (South Burlington)
The Nature Network (North Pomfret)
Rutland County Humane Society (Pittsford)
Rutland Police Department-Animal Control (Rutland)
Second Chance Animal Center (Shaffsbury)
Vermont Volunteer Services for Animals (Woodstock)
Windham County Humane Society (Brattleboro)
WASHINGTON
Animal Protection Society (Friday Harbor)
City of Hoquiam's Animal Control
Ellensburg Animal Shelter (Ellensburg)
Humane Society of Central Washington (Yakima)
The Humane Society of Seattle/King County (Bellevue)
Humane Society of Skagit Valley (Burlington)
Kindred Spirits Animal Sanctuary (Suquamish)
NOAH (Stanwood)
Progressive Animal Welfare Society (Lynnwood)
SpokAnimal C.A.R.E. (Spokane)
Wenatchee Valley Humane Society (Wenatchee)
Whatcom Humane Society (Bellingham)
WISCONSIN
Alliance for Animals (Madison)
Bay Area Humane Society and Animal Shelter, Inc. (Green
Bay)
Cats International (Cedarburg)
Chippewa County Humane Association (Chippewa Falls)
Clark County Humane Society (Neillsville)
Coulee Region Humane Society, Inc. (LaCrosse)
Dane County Humane Society (Madison)
Eastshore Humane Association (Chilton)
Eau Claire County Humane Association (Eau Claire)
Elm Brook Humane Society (Brookfield)
Fox Valley Humane Association Ltd (Appleton)
Humane Society of Marathon County (Wausan)
Lincoln County Humane Society Inc. (Merrill)
Northwoods Humane Society (Hayward)
Ozaukee Humane Society (Grafton)
The Pepin County Humane Society (Durand)
Rock County Humane Society (Janesville)
Rusk County Animal Shelter (Ladysmith)
Shawano County Humane Society (Shawano)
Washburn County Area Humane Society (Spooner)
Washington County Humane Society (Slinger)
Wisconsin Humane Society (Milwaukee)
[[Page S636]]
WEST VIRGINIA
Brooke County Animal Welfare League (Wellsburg)
Federation of Humane Organizations of West Virginia
(Mineral Wells)
Hampshire County Pet Adoption Program (Paw Paw)
Hancock County Animal Shelter New Cumberland)
Humane Society of Harrison County (Shinnston)
Humane Society of Morgan County (Berkeley Springs)
Humane Society of Parkersburg (Parkersburg)
the Humane Society of Pocahontas County (Hillsboro)
Humane Society of Raleigh County (Beckley)
Jackson County Humane Society/Jackson County Animal Shelter
(Cottageville)
Jefferson County Animal Control (Keaneysville)
Kanawha/Charleston Humane Association (Charleston)
Marshall County Animal Rescue League (Glen Dale)
Monroe County Animal League, Inc. (Union)
Morgantown Animal Control (Morgantown)
Ohio County animal Shelter (Triadelphia)
Ohio County SPCA (Triadelphia)
Ohio County SPCA (Wheeling)
Putnam County Humane Society, Inc. (Scott Depot)
TLC Animal Sanctuary (Clendenin)
Upshur County Humane Society (Buckhannon)
Wetzel County Humane Society (New Martinsville)
WYOMING
Animal Care Center (Laramie)
Caring for Powell Animals (Powell)
Cheyenne Animal Shelter
Dare to Care Animal League (Riverton)
Humane Society of Park County (Cody)
Lander Pet Connection, Inc. (Lander)
Laramie Animal Shelter (Laramie)
PAWS of Jackson Hole (Jackson)
Wyoming Advocates for Animals (Cheyenne)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment as further modified.
The amendment (No. 2542), as further modified, was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
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.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to bring us to
consideration of the Gramm amendment No. 2849.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is now pending.
The Senator from Texas.
Amendment No. 2849, as Modified
Mr. GRAMM. I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so
modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide equity and fairness for the promotion of imported
Hass avocados)
At the appropriate place insert the following:
Section 1205 of the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and
Information Act (contained in H.R. 5426 of the 106th
Congress, as introduced on October 6, 2000 and as enacted by
Public Law 106-387) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (b)(2) strike subparagraph (C) and insert
in lieu thereof:
(C)Future allocation.--After five years, the USDA has
discretion to revisit the issue of seat allocation on the
board.
(2) in paragraph (h)(1)(C)(iii) by striking everything in
the first sentence following ``shall'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``be paid not less than 30 days after the avocado
clears customs, unless deemed not feasible as determined by
the Commissioner of Customs in consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture.''
Mr. GRAMM. This is a very simple amendment that tries to bring equity
to Mexican producers of avocados by collecting the fee in the same way
on imported avocados as we do on domestically grown avocados. It also
gives the Department of Agriculture an opportunity in 5 years to look
at the representation on the board that spends the money to promote
avocados.
I thank the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, for working with
me. I commend it to my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2849), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. GRAMM. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2856
Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: What now is before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2856, offered by the Senator
from Iowa.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from
Utah (Mr. Bennett) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 17, nays 80, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]
YEAS--17
Akaka
Brownback
Carnahan
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Kohl
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Reid
Roberts
Voinovich
Wyden
NAYS--80
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--3
Bennett
Domenici
Sessions
The amendment (No. 2856) was rejected.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2845
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the underlying
amendment No. 2845.
The amendment (No. 2845) was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia.
Amendment No. 2832, As Further Modified
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to further modify
amendment No. 2832, offered by Senator Cleland and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:
On page 120, line 3, strike ``$0.10'' and insert ``$0.11''.
On page 112, strike lines 20 through 25 and insert the
following:
[[Page S637]]
``(A) a designated marketing association of peanut
producers that is approved by the Secretary, which may own or
construct necessary storage facilities. In the Southeast and
Southwest areas, such designated marketing association shall
be operated primarily on behalf of peanut producers. The
designated area marketing association shall be allowed to
form marketing pools for peanuts by type and quality,
including the creation of a separate pool for Valencia
peanuts in New Mexico;
(B) the Farm Service Agency; or
(C) a loan servicing agent approved by the Secretary.
On page 112, after line 25, insert the following:
``(6) Loan servicing agent.--If approved by a majority of
historical peanut producers in a State voting in a referendum
conducted by the Secretary, as a condition of the Secretary's
approval of an entity to serve as a loan servicing agent or
to handle or store peanuts for producers that receive any
marketing loan benefits in the State, the entity shall agree
to provide adequate storage (if available) and handling of
peanuts at the commercial rate to other approved loan
servicing agents and marketing associations.
On page 116, strike lines 6 through 15 and insert the
following:
``(h) Area Marketing Association Costs.--If approved by a
majority of historical peanut producers in a State voting in
a referendum conducted by the Secretary, the Secretary shall
deduct in a marketing assistance loan made to an area
marketing association in a marketing area in the State such
costs as the area marketing association may reasonably incur
in carrying out the responsibilities, operations, and
activities of the association and Commodity Credit
Corporation under this section.
``(i) Definition of Commingle.--In this section and section
158H, the term `commingle', with respect to peanuts, means--
``(1) the mixing of peanuts produced on different farms by
the same or different producers; or
``(2) the mixing of peanuts pledged for marketing
assistance loans with peanuts that are not pledged for
marketing assistance loans, to facilitate storage.
``SEC. 158H. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.
``(a) Official Inspection.--
``(1) In general.--All peanuts placed under a marketing
assistance loan under section 158G or otherwise sold or
marketed shall be officially inspected and graded by a
Federal or State inspector.
``(2) Accounting for commingled peanuts.--If approved by a
majority of historical peanut producers in a State voting in
a referendum conducted by the Secretary, all peanuts stored
commingled with peanuts covered by a marketing assistance
loan in the State shall be graded and exchanged on a dollar
value basis, unless the Secretary determines that the
beneficial interest in the peanuts covered by the marketing
assistance loan have been transferred to other parties prior
to demand for delivery.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Edwards, Warner, Allen, and Sessions be added as cosponsors and that
the amendment, as further modified, be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2832, as further
modified.
The amendment (No. 2832), as further modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Amendment No. 2848 Withdrawn
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
2848, offered by Senator Gramm of Texas, be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the matter now before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 2825, offered by the Senator from
Oklahoma. The Senator from Iowa.
Amendment No. 2853
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside and that the Harkin amendment No. 2853 be
called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment deals with a change, and
that has to do with the equity portion of a part of the farm bill that
just changes the mix a little bit to cover cities up to 100,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2853.
The amendment (No. 2853) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2850
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order. Might I
inquire exactly what the regular order now is before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is amendment No. 2850
offered on behalf of Senators Kyl and Nickles.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand that the pending amendment
before the Senate is the Kyl amendment No. 2850 that deals with a sense
of the Senate on estate taxes; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, we are getting close to the end
here. We only have a few amendments left that I have on my list. Most
of them have been worked out. I thank all Senators for helping to work
out the amendments. I think we have basically the pending amendment, as
I understand it. We have an amendment No. 2851 offered by Senator
Domenici dealing with dairy. We have the Leahy amendment No. 2834
dealing with organics. We have a Kerry-Snowe amendment No. 2852 dealing
with commercial fisheries, and we have an Inhofe amendment No. 2825
dealing with peanuts. That is all I have on my list. I ask Senator
Lugar if he has anything else.
Mr. LUGAR. That is my understanding. I believe, in addition, another
amendment will be offered in relation to the Kyl-Nickles amendment on
estate taxes.
Mr. HARKIN. A second degree?
Mr. LUGAR. A second-degree amendment. But there will be votes on both
of those; that is, they will be side by side in the debate.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are now on the Kyl amendment No. 2850.
I ask the assistant majority leader if we could enter into a time
agreement to bring this to a close.
Mr. REID. If I could respond to the manager of the bill for the
majority, we attempted to get a time agreement. We could not do that.
We agreed to having 30 minutes equally divided. This matter has been
debated endlessly for the past several weeks. I think we have heard
about all there is to hear. I would hope that those people who are in
favor of this legislation would speak, and those opposed to it. Senator
Conrad is going to speak. He has an alternative. The proposal is, we
would vote on his and, following that vote, on the underlying Kyl
amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask the leader, could we move to that and debate that?
Mr. REID. Senator Conrad has been on the floor for more than an hour.
He is here someplace. He will be here momentarily. But what he did say
is he would appreciate it if those who are proposing this legislation
would move forward and then, when they have completed their statement,
he would offer the second degree, and we would go from there.
Senator Kyl is here.
Mr. HARKIN. Senator Kyl is here. Wonderful. Now we can move ahead.
Get the Senator a podium.
Mr. REID. I inquire through the Chair to my friend, the Senator from
Arizona--he is going to speak--are there others who wish to speak?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in response to the assistant majority leader,
the answer is, yes. Senator Gramm is prepared to speak. I think Senator
Hutchison was here a moment ago. Senator Nickles will be back in about
a half hour. So until we know exactly how many people want to speak, I
am reluctant to enter into a time agreement. I don't want to take all
night, but I don't want to limit it at this point.
If I could further propound an inquiry, it is my understanding we
will have separate votes on both the second-degree amendment and on the
Kyl-Nickles amendment. What I am unclear of is the effect of the Conrad
[[Page S638]]
amendment and whether it would obviate the Kyl amendment. It is a
little unclear by virtue of the language. I have only seen a
handwritten copy of it. It would be helpful if we knew what the effect
of that is before we proceed.
Mr. REID. If I may respond to my friend from Arizona, if the Conrad
second-degree amendment passes, then his amendment is gone. If it
doesn't pass, then we would come back and vote on his amendment.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I had understood earlier, the idea would
be to have a separate up-or-down vote on both. I thought that is what
the agreement was. Am I incorrect?
Mr. REID. I think the Senator from Arizona is correct. The Senator
from North Dakota has decided he wanted to file a second-degree
amendment. I would only say to my friend from Arizona, if you and those
who have spoken on behalf of this legislative measure for several weeks
now have confidence it has been elaborated upon several times, you
should be OK and have a vote on yours.
Mr. KYL. I am sorry. If the suggestion was that we should have a
vote, I think there are folks who would like to talk about this.
Mr. REID. I am sorry to interrupt. If we could have some time
agreement from the proponents of this legislation, we would work out a
side-by-side.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think at 7 o'clock we should revisit this
question of a time agreement. We perhaps could enter into it. I want to
wait until Senator Nickles returns.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry on that issue?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. I would inquire, for purposes of scheduling this evening,
I understand the Senator's point that someone is now gone for a half an
hour and you might want to talk at 7 o'clock about scheduling. Is there
any way we might get some notion of whether we will have votes, whether
you are intending to accept the time agreement, so that if we are going
to have votes later this evening we could get a sense of when that
might be?
Mr. REID. If I could respond to my friend, the majority leader wants
to finish this bill tonight. We have indicated that the estate tax
debate is going to take a little bit of time. Earlier today, we agreed
on half an hour evenly divided.
But I say about the amendments pending, Domenici 2851, Leahy, Kerry-
Snowe, and Inhofe, if that is still available, if they are not here, I
am going to move to table those amendments. We are not going to wait
around for people to come by at their convenience and offer their
amendments. That is a very good question. We have been on this bill for
weeks. We have made tremendous progress today with the help of the
managers of this bill. I see no reason we can't finish it tonight. I
think we should finish it tonight.
Mr. GRAMM. If the Senator will yield, I thought we had something
worked out where the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, would have a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution on making the repeal of the death tax
permanent and that the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, would
have a parallel measure with a sense of the Senate about the Social
Security trust fund, and that we would have an opportunity to vote on
each so it would be technically possible that both could go into the
bill.
If, on the other hand, the Conrad amendment is a substitute for the
Kyl amendment and would, in the process of being adopted, kill it, then
what we want is an up-or-down vote on the Kyl amendment. We certainly
don't object to an up-or-down vote on the Conrad amendment. We don't
think it is relevant because 9 years from now, when this would go into
effect, we will have a surplus far larger than the repeal of the death
tax. But if we could do it where they are parallel, as I understood we
were going to do it, I think we can get a time limit and finish our
business.
If the Conrad amendment is a substitute so that we are not going to
get to vote on a sense of the Senate to repeal the death tax, I don't
think we will get an agreement.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we had an agreement earlier today that was
not effectuated with the consent of the Chair. We thought we had an
agreement on 30 minutes equally divided on the first- and second-degree
amendments and there would be side-by-side votes. The time agreements
have broken down.
We acknowledge that this issue has been debated considerably. We are
willing to give you an up-or-down vote. But even though it is not
relevant to the farm bill, we believe there should be a vote, it should
transpire. But we want a time agreement. Otherwise, we are faced with
an all-night session here, and it is not necessary. The Senator from
Arizona has told me in 25 minutes he would agree to a time agreement.
So I think we should all cool our jets for a few minutes and see if we
can work our way through this.
Mr. LUGAR. If I may respond to my colleague, shortly, I will offer a
motion that the Inhofe amendment be withdrawn. That means there will be
only three amendments other than the debate on the estate tax. I
inquire if we might get a time agreement of 20 minutes on each of those
three amendments.
Mr. REID. To interrupt my friend--and I hope he accepts this--that
would be Domenici, Leahy, and Kerry-Snowe.
Mr. LUGAR. Yes. And then perhaps work out time agreements so that
there are up-and-down votes on the two estate tax amendments.
Mr. REID. In fact, we could get one of the amendments out of the way
before 7 p.m. I think that is appropriate. I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2825, Withdrawn
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move that the Inhofe amendment No. 2825
be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. 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. KYL. 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. 2850
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I anticipate a unanimous-consent request to
be delivered momentarily which will set the stage for the debate on the
Kyl-Nickles amendment which I believe is the pending business. But we
do not need to waste time prior to that. We can actually begin this
discussion and lock that in and proceed. With that understanding--and I
have spoken to Senator Conrad about this--I propose we begin the
discussion on this amendment, and when the agreement is ready, we can
propound it to the body.
Let me say by way of introduction, and then I will yield to the
Senator from Texas for some remarks, that the Kyl-Nickles amendment is
a sense of the Senate. We should finish the job we started last year
and make the repeal of the death tax permanent.
As my colleagues will recall, because the tax bill was considered
under the reconciliation procedure, it could only last 10 years. That
means that even though we repealed the death tax in that 10th year,
after that, the bill sunsets and we go right back to the position of
the death tax as it existed last year, with a 60-percent higher rate
and a $675,000 exemption. That is very unfair, it is very poor tax
policy, and if we really meant to repeal the death tax, as we voted to
do, then we should finish the job we started.
This amendment simply puts us on record as committing to that
proposition so that when the appropriate bill comes along, we can
accomplish the result. Clearly, this farm bill is an appropriate
vehicle for us to discuss this issue as a sense-of-the-Senate issue
because there are an awful lot of owners of family farms who would like
to see the death tax repealed so they do not have to worry about the
burden of it.
To further discuss this proposition, I yield now to the Senator from
Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much what Senator
Kyl and Senator Nickles are doing because most people think we are on a
[[Page S639]]
glidepath to eliminating the death tax. We have taken that vote.
The worst situation we could possibly have is not knowing. Can you
imagine how debilitating it would be to plan for a family business or a
family farm to think that you would have 9 years at lower inheritance
taxes and then in the 10th year, unless you happened to die in the one
year we have repealed, you would end up going back to 3 years ago? That
just does not make sense.
The best tax policy is one that is stable, that people can count on;
that when it is passed, people can plan according to that tax law or
policy.
What we have now is the absolute opposite. We have a situation where
people cannot plan. They do not know when they are going to die, so
they do not know what the inheritance tax is going to be, and they do
not know if it really will be repealed because Congress keeps talking
back and forth about not repealing something we have already repealed.
That is not consistent, and it is not good tax policy.
Family-owned farms and small businesses are the hardest hit because
they have assets that are valued greater than the income they can
produce. When someone who is the head of a small business or a family
farm dies, many times the value of that farm or small business is very
high and the family does not have the cashflow to pay the taxes. So
what do they do? They sell the family business or family farm to pay
the taxes.
This is not money that has never been taxed. No, it is money that was
taxed when it was earned, and taxed every year that it has been
invested. The money has already had its fair share of taxes taken out.
We have to make a decision in this Congress if we want small
businesses to survive. I do. Small family-owned businesses are the
basis of our country. Sometimes they grow and prosper and become big
businesses. Sometimes they are passed to their children and create
livelihoods for children.
Lost in a lot of this debate are the employees of these small
businesses and family-owned farms, the people who own nothing but work
for these small businesses. What happens when a business has to be sold
to pay taxes? All the people relying on that business lose their job.
We have heard story after story of a small family business that was the
most important business in town and had to be sold. The people working
there were out of jobs, in a very small community where one does not
just walk across the street and get another job. We have heard that
time and again.
I will never forget the letter I saw written by a man who happened to
have a farm that his parents had worked very hard to buy, about 100
acres in a beautiful part of Texas, but it was a part of Texas in the
old days that was just a farming area. It was not very expensive, not
very well known. It was pretty and nice but not that big a deal. Today
it is called the hill country, and it is the most expensive land in
rural Texas.
When the parents died, the children inherited that farm, but they had
to sell their own homes to pay the taxes on that farm because it had
escalated to such a great value. They sold their homes and moved into
an apartment to keep the family farm.
The bottom line is, going into the third generation, the man said: My
children could not possibly get enough cash to pay the taxes for us to
pass this farm to them in the third generation. The land is going for
$6,000, $7,000 an acre, and the farm will eventually have to be sold.
Mr. President, who gains? Who gains from selling that farm? Who gains
from a small business having to be sold to pay taxes? The employees who
work for that business lose. They lose their jobs and their livelihoods
in the community in which they want to live. Certainly not the family,
not the patriarch and the matriarch who worked hard to put that
business together. Certainly not the children who may have worked or
wanted to be in the family business, who wanted to continue the
tradition. They lose.
One might say Uncle Sam gains. But is it really a gain when you tear
something out of our economy that is a thriving small business? It is a
minuscule amount. It is an amount that has already had taxes paid on
it. In fact, the only reason one would ever want to tax an inheritance
is to level society, and America was not built on society leveling.
America was built on the concept that one could come to this country,
work hard, and make as good a living as they could make by the sweat of
their brow, and pass on what they have to their children, if that is
what they decide to do.
We are not a country that is entrepreneurial, that has a spirit that
is looking at society leveling. What good does it do for us to tax at
death and disrupt family businesses, family farms, family ranches,
families? It does not make sense.
I hope we will pass the amendment offered by Senator Kyl and Senator
Nickles that puts the Senate on record we are going to make permanent
this tax cut. We have done it once. The Congress has voted for it and
the President has signed the bill, but because of a process, it goes
out of existence in 10 years and that is not stabilizing, it is
destabilizing, and we need to correct it and do the right thing.
So I applaud Senator Kyl and Senator Nickles. I support them fully,
and I hope Congress will speak once again. We passed it once; we can do
it again. This time let us do it right, and let us do it within a
process that says we are doing this and we really mean it; not we are
doing this but because of a process that nobody cares about it is going
out of existence in 10 years. Let us do it right so people can count on
it, so they can plan and so these small businesses can continue to
create jobs and be a part of our economy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I will offer a
second-degree amendment that says this: Since both political parties
have pledged not to use Social Security surplus funds by spending them
for other purposes, and since under the administration's 2003 budget
the Federal Government is projected to spend the Social Security
surplus for other purposes in each of the next 10 years, and since
permanent extension of the inheritance tax repeal would cost, according
to the administration's own estimate, approximately $104 billion over
the next 10 years and $800 billion in the next 10 years, all of which
would further reduce the Social Security surplus, therefore it is the
sense of the Senate that no Social Security surplus funds should be
used to make currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful
spending.
The situation we face as a nation is last year when we were
addressing the budget, the President and the Congressional Budget
Office told us we were going to have $5.6 trillion of surpluses over
the next decade. Under the President's budget, that is down to $600
billion. The truth is there are no surpluses left. Let me repeat that.
There are no surpluses left, not a dime. Every penny of money that is
still available is Social Security money, every dime. There are no
surpluses left.
This chart shows it very clearly. This chart shows from 1992 until
2012 the fiscal condition of the country. We were in deep deficit in
1992. Then we started to pull out of it with the 1993 plan that we
passed, I might add, without a single vote on the other side of the
aisle, not a single vote, and we started moving out of deficit.
In 1997, we passed an additional plan. That one was on a bipartisan
basis, and it finished the job. We moved into budget surpluses. We
stopped using Social Security trust funds. This chart shows in specific
detail what has happened since 1996. In 1996, we were using 100 percent
of the Social Security trust funds for other purposes. The same was
true in 1997. In 1998, we reduced it so we were only using 30 percent
of Social Security money for other purposes.
In 1999 and 2000, we stopped using Social Security money entirely.
These were the good days. These were the responsible days. In 2001, we
started backsliding. Under the President's budget, President Bush's
budget, every year we are going to be using 100 percent of the Social
Security money for other purposes.
Let us go back to what we confront. We are headed for deficits this
year, fiscal year 2002, 2003, every year through the rest of this
decade. Making tax cuts that were previously scheduled permanent means
every dime of it is coming out of Social Security.
[[Page S640]]
Where did the money go? The Congressional Budget Office came before
the Budget Committee and told us that in the near term the biggest
reason was the recession, but over the 10 years of the President's
plan, the biggest reason of the tax cuts the President proposed and
pushed through Congress last year, 42 percent of the reduction in the
surplus and the return to deficits is from the tax cut. Twenty-three
percent is from the recession. Eighteen percent of the additional
expense is caused by the attack on the United States. Seventeen percent
is caused by certain technical changes, largely the underestimation of
the cost of Medicare and Social Security.
Last year, we were told there was in the non-trust-fund side of the
Federal accounts a $2.7 trillion surplus. That is from where the tax
cuts came. But you know what. There is no $2.7 trillion of non-trust-
fund money anymore. The Congressional Budget Office tells us, instead
of surpluses, there are massive deficits, $2.2 trillion of deficits.
What the good Senator from Arizona is saying is do not worry about it.
Let us just pile on some more. Let us have some more tax cuts. Let us
dig the hole deeper.
What he is saying is, let us not only have the estate tax reductions
that are already scheduled, which are significant--and I would correct
those who say there is a death tax. There is no death tax in America.
Ninety-eight percent of the estates in America pay nothing, zero. They
pay no estate tax. That is what we have in America, not a death tax; it
is an estate tax. If one has an estate over a certain value, they start
to pay something. Why? Because we have determined that is a fair way to
distribute tax burden.
The Senator from Texas says this is not part of American history. I
beg to disagree. It is a fundamental part of American history. Go back
and read what the Founding Fathers had to say on this question. They
did not want America to be a land of inherited aristocracy. No, no, no.
They wanted this to be a land where people rose and fell on the basis
of their own hard work and their own skills and their own talent, not
because they inherited from grandpa, not because they inherited from
great grandpa. That was not the point of America, and that is why
fundamentally we have had an estate tax because our Founding Fathers
came from Europe and they saw what inherited aristocracy led to, the
concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and ultimately
instability and political chaos. They did not want that for us.
So the reality is, 2 percent of estates in this country pay any
estate tax. We are scheduled to raise the exemption to $3.5 million per
person. Only three-tenths of 1 percent of estates are at that level.
This would mean that one could transfer $7 million and not pay a dime
of tax. The Senator from Arizona is not satisfied with that. He wants
anybody to be able to pass any amount to their heirs.
The cost in this decade of the Senator's proposal is $104 billion.
The cost in the next decade is $800 billion. At the time the baby
boomers start to retire, they will take it all out of Social Security
funds. That is from where it is coming from.
Here is what we confront at the very time they are talking about
adding $800 billion of additional tax cuts: Social Security and
Medicare trust funds go cash negative at the very time they are talking
about another $800 billion of tax cuts, all of it out of Social
Security.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget came before the
Senate Budget Committee and said:
Put more starkly, Mr. Chairman, the extremes of what will
be required to address our retirement are these: We'll have
to increase borrowing by very large, likely, unsustainable
amounts; raise taxes to 30 percent of GDP, obviously
unprecedented in our history; [we are at 19 percent of GDP
now in taxes. Anybody think we will go to 30 percent of GDP?
If we do not, they will have to be massive cuts in benefits]
or eliminate most of the rest of government as we know it.
That's the dilemma that faces us in the long run, Mr.
Chairman, and these next 10 years will only be the beginning.
I cannot think of an amendment that is more fiscally irresponsible
than the one before this body now. The President last year in his State
of the Union promised not to use Social Security trust funds for any
other purpose. That is the pledge he made. I quote:
To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors
are not diverted to any other program, my budget protects all
$2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social
Security and for Social Security alone.
That is what he said last year.
Now, in reading his budget, we see he will take $2.2 trillion of
Social Security and Medicare trust fund money and use it for tax cuts
and other expenses of Government.
The Senator from Arizona says that is not enough, let's take even
more money from Social Security--let's take it all and not protect any
of Social Security.
I don't think so. Those who vote to take it are going to be mighty
surprised by the reaction of the American people when they find out we
are already on course to eliminate taxes for a couple that would not
pay any taxes--not a dime--on $7 million. Now the Senator proposes no
limits forever--and take every dime out of the Social Security trust
fund.
This reversal in our financial fortune has meant that over the next
decade, instead of being virtually debt free by 2008, which is what
they told us last year, we now find by 2008 there will be $3 trillion
of debt. The result of that is we will be paying as a country $1
trillion more in interest over the next decade. Instead of $600 billion
in interest, we will pay $1.6 trillion in interest payments. We ought
to quit digging the hole deeper.
This amendment takes more money out of the trust funds to have a tax
cut that goes to a fraction of 1 percent of the American people.
The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas earlier argued
this is a question of fairness. I agree. It is a question of fairness.
Where should the money come from to restore the integrity of the trust
funds? Where should it come from? One of the first places we would look
is the wealthiest among us, for us to say, if you die and have an
estate of over $7 million, maybe you ought to be part of solving this
extraordinary problem we now face. I don't think that is unreasonable.
We have had some of the wealthiest people in America before the
Finance Committee saying they did not think it was unreasonable for
them to make some contribution to restoring the integrity of the trust
funds of Social Security and Medicare.
For those who say this money has already been taxed over and over and
over, it is not true. Much of this money has never been taxed because
it has been locked up in long-term capital gains and people never paid
taxes at all.
This is a fundamental question before the Senate, the most basic of
questions about priorities, about fiscal responsibility, about paying
our bills, about keeping the promise that this President and Members of
this Chamber made on the question of not looting or raiding the Social
Security trust fund to pay for other things. Now before the Senate is
an amendment that says we will take Social Security money and use it to
give a tax reduction to the very wealthiest. What a perversion of
fairness. Those are not the values of the people I represent. I don't
believe those are the values of the American people. I hope when the
vote is called tomorrow we will have a chance to vote for the
substitute amendment and to defeat the amendment of the Senator from
Arizona.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I agree with every word Senator Conrad
said. Senator Conrad laments that we are not keeping our promises of
not raiding the Social Security trust fund. In fact, in his resolution
he talks about not using it for tax cuts or spending.
I remind my colleagues, only a few hours ago on rollcall vote No. 25,
we waived the Budget Act to steal $2.4 billion out of the Social
Security trust fund. If people look at that vote--I voted against it,
the Senator from Arizona voted against it--the Senator from North
Dakota voted for the budget waiver that did exactly what he laments
today. In the same day we talk about not spending the Social Security
trust fund on making the death tax repeal permanent, we waive the
Budget Act to take $2.4 billion of it to pay subsidies while we
continue to talk about the poor versus the rich. Where did the
subsidies go? A select group of people, generally very high income
people.
[[Page S641]]
It is very instructive to note that while the assault on making the
repeal of the death tax permanent is an assault that is claimed to be
protecting Social Security, this very day those who have launched the
assault voted to raid the Social Security trust fund when we have a
deficit where we are spending Social Security trust fund money and
borrowing money. That did not prevent the Senate from spending another
$2.4 billion this very single day. That shows how this whole amendment
rings hollow.
It does not end there. Let me read this language of the Conrad
amendment:
Therefore it is the Sense of the Senate that no Social
Security surplus funds should be used to pay for making
currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful
spending.
Who gets to define ``wasteful''? Does that mean every effort to make
the death tax repeal permanent is equivalent to wasteful spending? In
fact, was adding $2.4 billion to an already bloated farm bill less or
more wasteful than making the death tax repeal permanent so that
farmers and ranchers will not lose their farms and ranches when they
die?
A final point before I turn to the amendment I am for. Senator Conrad
acts as if the passage of the Kyl amendment--and we are just doing a
sense of the Senate--would spend Social Security trust fund money. Not
so. In fact, the Kyl amendment goes into effect 9 years from now. Nine
years from now, in the year 2011--in fact, Conrad refers to the
administration's estimate. Let me tell you what that estimate is.
Nine years from now, when the Kyl amendment would go into effect, by
making the tax cut that would be fully implemented permanent, we will
have a surplus, according to OMB, of $350 billion. The Social Security
surplus will be $290 billion, which is $60 billion less than the
surplus we are projected to have.
The repeal of the death tax costs $4 billion. So, in fact, if the
death tax repeal were made permanent, if we were voting on, not a
sense-of-the-Senate resolution but law today--and we are going to get
an opportunity to do that, probably on the so-called energy bill--but
if we were voting on it today, this permanency goes into effect in 9
years, in 2011, the projected surplus from the administration--contrary
to what the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that Senator Conrad is
offering says--is $350 billion, the Social Security surplus is $290
billion, giving us an on-budget surplus of $60 billion. Repealing the
death tax costs $4.249 billion. So even if we were repealing the death
tax and making that repeal permanent, we will not spend a penny of
Social Security surplus in the year 2011.
Let me also say something about the idea that we are going to have
social unrest because we don't make people pay 55 cents out of every
dollar they earned in their life to the Government when they die; I
think it is stretching someone's conception of social unrest beyond the
breaking point. I am opposed to the death tax. None of my people have
ever paid a death tax. The only thing I have ever been bequeathed in my
life is a cardboard suitcase that my great uncle Bill, my grandmother's
brother, left me, full of yellow sports clippings, but I am opposed to
the death tax because it is wrong. It is rotten. It is absolutely
outrageous that people work a lifetime, they save, skimp, sacrifice,
they build up a business, they build up a farm, they build up assets,
and then when they die their children have to sell their life's work to
give the Government another 55 cents on the dollar tax.
I remind my colleagues that the Kyl provision requires people to pay
capital gains tax. If you have untaxed income, you are going to have to
pay it. But what it does not have is double taxation.
I believe the American people understand this issue, and I can
honestly say, in speaking in my State and around the country, in white-
collar crowds or blue-collar crowds, when I talk about killing the
death tax, when I talk about not making people sell their business or
sell their farm, people always applaud--whether they expect to pay the
tax or not.
I think if we view things politically as to who gains and who loses,
we often lose in terms of not understanding our own country. This is a
question of right and wrong. The death tax is wrong. And the final
absurdity is that on the floor of the Senate we claim to be repealing
the death tax, Democrats and Republicans voted to repeal it, and yet
because of a quirk in the Budget Act we are phasing down the death tax
to zero, 9 years from now. So if you die 9 years from now, your
children can keep what you have earned, but if you die 10 years from
now they have to pay 55 cents out of every dollar of your life's work
to the Government.
I think that is wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote for this sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. We should be making the repeal of the death
tax permanent.
I don't have any concern about committing ourselves to not spend the
Social Security surplus in repealing the death tax. The repeal doesn't
go into effect until 2011, at which point we simply make what the tax
is on that day permanent. By 2011 we are going to have a surplus that
far exceeds the Social Security surplus, unless we do what we did
today, which is waive the Budget Act to spend it.
I am hopeful that those who vote for the Conrad amendment, tomorrow
when we vote on another budget waiver, will vote not to waive the
Budget Act. But I hope people will not say to us, ``We are really
worried, we are worried we are going to use the Social Security surplus
to make tax cuts permanent and to make the repeal of the death tax
permanent,'' and at the same time in the same day to take $2.4 billion
out of the Social Security trust fund.
I do not understand. If you are concerned about the trust fund for
repealing the death tax, how come you are not concerned about it when
you are spending money on a bloated agriculture bill? I do not think
you can have it both ways.
I think, in the end, people who vote for this resolution, when we
vote on another budget waiver to spend more money, I hope they will
say: Look, I voted for the Conrad resolution which said I wouldn't
spend Social Security trust funds. So while I would love to spend this
money, I cannot vote for the waiver.
I bet that many people will vote for this sense-of-the-Senate
resolution, then vote not to make the repeal of the death tax
permanent, and then the first time we have a vote on busting the budget
and spending more Social Security trust fund, they will vote for it.
Maybe that sells where you are from. That doesn't sell where I am
from. I am for repealing the death tax. I am for making it permanent.
The good news is that everyone should know that by doing that we are
not raiding the Social Security trust fund. We raided it today when we
waived the budget point of order on $2.4 billion. We stole that money
right out of the Social Security trust fund, and everybody who voted
for that waiver voted to steal that money out of the Social Security
trust fund.
I am proud I did not.
But when we make the death tax repeal permanent, it costs $4 billion
in the year 2011, which is when the permanency would kick in. At that
point we will have a $60 billion non-Social Security surplus, according
to the administration's numbers, if we quit spending money.
I urge my colleagues, however you vote on the Conrad amendment, just
be sure you read it before you vote and you are ready to live up to it.
I am ready to live up to the sense of the Senate to repeal the death
tax. I am ready to live up to the sense of the Senate on the Conrad
amendment.
I would strike out ``wasteful'' because, as we all know, every
program you are for is not wasteful. So I thank our dear colleague from
Arizona for his leadership. I urge my colleagues to vote for this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate those remarks of the Senator
from Texas. The Senator from Alabama, I know, and the Senator from
Oklahoma, as well, want to speak. I just wanted to make a couple of
points.
No. 1, President Bush wants us to do this. His budget for this next
fiscal year has in it the permanent repeal of the death tax. So he
wants us to go forward with it. As the Senator from Texas said, we will
have a Social Security surplus at the time when we make
[[Page S642]]
this death tax repeal permanent. So we are not raiding the Social
Security trust fund, as the Conrad amendment would suggest. In fact,
because we are injecting more money into our economy, one could expect
there will be additional Federal revenues, not less Federal revenues.
One of the experts on this subject, Dr. William Steger, has estimated
that immediate repeal of the death tax would provide a $40 billion
automatic stimulus to the economy. He is president of Consad Research
Corporation and an adjunct professor of policy sciences at Carnegie
Mellon University. So it is a $40 billion automatic stimulus to the
economy--not taking the Social Security trust fund.
I will have a lot more to say about this after we enter into our
unanimous consent agreement, but I think both the Senator from Alabama
and the Senator from Oklahoma would like to speak, and I will yield the
floor to them at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his
hard work and leadership on this. I appreciate the remarks of the
Senator from Texas. He is eloquent, as always, and is effective in the
points he makes.
First of all, I would like to say why I think it is appropriate that
we have this sense-of-the-Senate amendment on the farm bill. It is
because it is one of the most significant issues for farmers in
America. I speak to farmers frequently. When I first began to campaign
for the Senate, they told me right upfront that one of their top
priorities was the elimination of the death tax. It threatens
everything they do.
I was shocked and really surprised to hear the Senator from North
Dakota say he is not worried about people passing on their farms to
their children. I thought that was what the farm bill was all about. I
thought it was all about trying to preserve a family farm. What good
does it do to preserve the farm, have a living wage for farmers, and
then make them pay 50 or 55 percent of the value of the farm to the
Government every generation?
Eliminating the death tax is about preservation of the farm. I think
it is appropriate that we are considering it. It is certainly one of
the highest priorities of every agricultural organization of which I
know.
Second, let me say why I think this thing is bad economics for
America, why it is hurting our economy, and why we need to eliminate
it.
First of all, the death tax is extraordinarily difficult to compute
and collect by the Federal Government. It produces a lower return based
on how much money the taxpayer has to pay than almost any other tax we
pay. It is an extraordinarily complex thing. It causes individuals to
go through the most intricate gyrations and causes them to make
financial decisions they would never make otherwise except to attempt
to avoid being decimated or having their heirs decimated by the death
tax.
Let me tell you what I am really concerned about. This is an issue
that I feel has not been talked about enough. There are a lot of
different ideas that people have about why this tax is bad. I would
like to talk about a purely economic argument that strikes me as a
great unfairness about the death tax.
Let us say International Paper Company, or the Weyerhaeuser Company,
owns 1,000 acres of land, and an individual owns 1,000 acres of land
and saves some money and manages it well. Then the individual dies.
They have to pay an estate tax. But Weyerhaeuser or International
Paper, which may own 600,000 acres of land, or maybe multimillion acres
of land, never pays a death tax. Big corporations, large stock-held
corporations, never have their corporate work--Mr. President, I believe
there is a little noise here. Even I can't think very well when it is
going on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
So these large corporations are never impacted by estate taxes, but
they are competing with smaller farmers, smaller timber producers, and
smaller landowners. Whenever a family member in one of those privately
held companies dies, they get whacked by the Federal Government with a
tax. It makes them less competitive.
In my State of Alabama, we have seen an extraordinary number of banks
go out of business by selling out to larger banks. Small, closely held
banks no longer exist today. One of the main reasons is that the family
sits around the table and wrestles with what they are going to do about
the future. They get an offer from a big holding company to buy them
out. They consider how much in taxes they are going to have to pay and
how they are going to keep the bank going while paying 55 percent tax
on it. They end up selling out, and then we get bigger and larger
corporations with more and more concentrations of wealth and less
competitiveness in the American economy.
We need and desire more smaller motel companies. We need more small
entrepreneurs. We need more stores selling material, like Home Depot or
Wal-Mart. But those stores, if they are closely held, end up getting
whacked in each generation by an estate tax.
I talked to a young man and his father. They had four motels. He told
me they were paying $5,000 a month for insurance on the father's life,
trying to make sure that if he were to die, they wouldn't lose their
investment.
That is the reality of America. This tax is favoring large
corporations in their competitiveness against small corporations and
companies and closely held companies. It is not fair. It is not healthy
for the economy. We can do better.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my friend from
Alabama, Senator Sessions, for his speech, as well as the Senator from
Arizona, Mr. Kyl, and the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, because they
have laid it out very plainly and very clearly to the American people.
When we repealed this tax, it was temporary. Some people asked, Why?
We did it under a reconciliation instruction. Most Americans don't have
a clue what that means. Basically, that instruction was given to
Congress, saying you can pass a bill for 10 years. In other words, it
had a sunset. We passed the bill that increased the exemption basically
from about $750,000 up to about $4 million. It took 9 years to do that.
On the 10 years, we said we will just eliminate the tax which is
unfair. It is unfair to have a tax on death. It is unfair for the
Federal Government to say: When somebody dies, we want half of their
estate. We don't care if they built up a big business. Maybe they built
up Microsoft, or maybe they built up a series of restaurants, or maybe
they built up a manufacturing facility, or maybe they have a large
ranch or a large farm which they have had in their family for two or
three generations.
We said even if you are fairly large, we don't think the Federal
Government should come in and take half of it because you happen to
pass away. So we changed it. We said the taxable event will not be
death; it will be when the property is sold. That is what we passed.
So the taxable rate, when and if that property is sold, will be at
the capital gains rate. It will be at 20 percent, which is plenty of
tax, and the taxable event will be figured when the property is sold,
when there is money available to pay that tax. That made good, eminent
sense.
The bad news is it will be sunset. Presently, we take the exemption
of last year. This year, because of the tax changes we made last year,
the exemption is $1 million. There is no death tax by the Federal
Government if you pass away this year and the taxable estate is less
than $1 million. That is an improvement.
We gradually increased that over a period of time. For 2009, we go up
to a $3.5 million exemption. We gradually reduce the rate, which is
presently 50 percent--last year it was 55--to 45 percent by the year
2009, and there is a $3.5 million exemption. For the year 2010, we said
we are going to eliminate it. There will be no taxable event on death.
The taxable event will be when the property is sold. The tax rate will
be at the capital gains rate, which is 20 percent, instead of the rate
of 45 percent. It makes good sense. It is good sense.
Unfortunately, because of the sunset in the year 2011, bingo, nothing
happens. So we revert back to last year's
[[Page S643]]
law. Instead of having a $3.5 million exemption, we have an exemption
of about $1 million. Instead of having the rate at 45 percent, we are
going to go back to the rate of 55 or 60 percent. But there was a
little 5-percent kicker rate for estates that were between $10 million
and $17 million. We go back to a maximum rate in the year 2011 of 60
percent. That is absurd.
A lot of us said we should make the death tax repeal permanent. That
is what the sense of the Senate is. Somebody asked, Why isn't this
real? We tried to do it on the tax bill we had pending before the
Senate--the so-called stimulus package. Senator Daschle pulled that
bill down. He didn't want a vote on the amendment of my colleague from
Arizona and me. Maybe it is because we are going to win. Maybe it is
because we are going to change the tax law and do some real good so
people can count on it. We didn't get a vote on it.
That is the reason we are here today. We are on the farm bill. We
voted on a lot of amendments dealing with agriculture, none of which is
as strongly supported as this amendment we are going to vote on
tomorrow.
I have spoken to my fair share of agricultural groups--ones that want
very little Government involvement and ones that want a lot more than I
want. But they are unanimous. When you ask them if they want to repeal
the tax, they are in support because they realize that the so-called
death tax is one of the most punitive things you can do to American
agriculture.
That is telling somebody, who in many cases is asset rich and cash
poor: We want half your assets. So they may be trying to pass their
farm or ranch on to their kids or to their grandkids, but Uncle Sam
says: No, you can't do that because the value of your estate is over $1
million. And you don't have to have a very big farm or ranch for that
to happen where the Federal Government wants half.
The Federal Government is entitled to take half? That is going to be
the law unless we make repeal permanent. So that is why this is
important to agriculture. That is why it is important that the
amendment be adopted.
What about the underlying amendment or the ``let's confuse the
American public'' amendment that was offered by our friends on the
Democratic side. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I don't have a
problem with the conclusion. It says:
Therefore it is the Sense of the Senate that no Social
Security surplus funds should be used to pay to make
currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful
spending.
I do not want them to be used for wasteful spending.
And ``permanent tax cuts,'' let's see, do we do that in our
amendment? The answer is no. So I guess I could support the
``therefore,'' which is the only thing people really read in these
resolutions.
If you read the sentence above that, it is just factually incorrect.
It says:
Since permanent extension of the inheritance tax repeal
would cost, according to the Administration's estimate,
approximately $104 billion over the next 10 years, all of
which would further reduce the Social Security surplus. . ..
That is factually incorrect. I am a stickler for facts. I think
people are entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to
their own facts.
If you use the administration's estimate, they estimate that the
surplus will exceed Social Security by about $51 billion in the year
2010, $99 billion in the year 2011--the first year this would have real
impact--$199 billion in the year 2012, and $395 billion--these are
surpluses over and above Social Security. In other words, they are
enormous surpluses in the outyears.
You may say this does not really have an impact until the years 2011,
2012, and 2013 because that is when the death tax is repealed, and
those are years we have enormous surpluses, including Social Security.
So the amendment is trying to confuse people and bring in Social
Security, and so on. Maybe it is confusing, but it is not accurate. It
is factually inaccurate. I want people to know that. I do not care how
you vote on it. It doesn't mean anything. The sense of Senate says we
are not going to use Social Security to pay for permanent tax cuts.
This amendment that Senator Kyl and I and Senator Gramm and Senator
Sessions have offered does not do that. Are we for wasteful spending?
No.
It is interesting to note that people start drawing out Social
Security every time we have a tax cut that is real or a tax cut that is
proposed as real. But they couldn't care less about spending.
Evidently, it is OK to spend money--Social Security money--on anything
and everything, and, oh, we will waive the Budget Act to do so, but,
oh, in the outyears, when we have enormous surpluses far exceeding
Social Security, don't you dare do it. We are going to waive the Social
Security flag. It is a false flag. It is false cover. Maybe it makes
people feel good. I can care less how people vote on that amendment.
I hope people will vote in favor of the sense of the Senate that says
we should make the repeal of the death tax permanent. We should do it.
We can afford it. We must do it.
It makes no sense, whatsoever, to have a death tax where the Federal
Government is coming in and taking a significant portion of somebody's
farm or ranch or business, saying: Oh, we want to take it and use it to
pay for other programs, and so on. That does not make sense.
So I compliment my colleagues from Arizona and Texas and Alabama for
their work on this amendment. I am happy to cosponsor this amendment.
I urge my colleagues, tomorrow morning, to vote in favor of this
sense-of-the-Senate amendment to permanently repeal the death tax.
Probably the best thing we can do for agriculture in this entire bill
is to make repeal of the death tax permanent.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, the proposal before us today to repeal the
estate tax rests on profound misunderstandings of this tax, and
particularly on who pays this tax.
We have been hearing our colleagues talk about the death tax and that
it is stalking every American. It turns out that in 1999, 2.5 million
adults died; 49,870 estates incurred a tax liability. A very small
fraction of Americans face the estate tax, but I point out, they are
the wealthiest Americans. They are not the Social Security recipients.
They are not individuals who have worked all their lives and are now
with a small pension facing their last days. These are the wealthiest
Americans.
It turns out that with the unified credits, with the ability to gift
funds to individuals, there is an opportunity--in fact, one that is
taken by most Americans--to avoid the estate tax. So this is not a
death tax; this is a tax on the very wealthiest Americans. And this is
a tax that was really, in many respects, copied from the example of our
British brethren across the sea, who saw the corrosive power of wealth
that is passed on from generation to generation to generation.
I have heard some of my colleagues on the Republican side talk about
how the death tax is an insidious weapon of large corporations to beat
down the small workers and farmers in this country. Nothing is further
from the truth.
This whole estate tax not only is designed to raise revenue, it is
also designed to ensure that great fortunes are not passed down,
becoming great and powerful without any check whatsoever.
There is another issue with respect to estate taxes. People talk
about it as so unfair because it is a double tax: You get taxed when
you earn the money and you get taxed again when you pass away. It turns
out that a significant amount of estates consist of unrealized capital
gains.
Economists have estimated that 36 percent of the wealth in all
taxable estates is in the form of unrealized capital gains: someone
purchases a home, someone purchases stock, they hold that stock for
years, and at the time of their death, the estate tax is imposed. But
also at the time of death, these assets are passed on to their heirs on
a stepped-up basis. So without an estate tax, much of this gain would
never be taxed.
There is also another myth that we have heard time and time again;
that is, really what happens is that this onerous tax takes away from
the family farms and the small businesses of America; that they have to
liquidate their assets; that they cannot pass
[[Page S644]]
them on; that they have to pay everything they have earned just to
satisfy this tax.
First of all, recognize this tax applies to very few Americans at
all. And second, recognize that, despite all the discussions about the
family farms being forced into sale because of this tax, no one can
produce any real evidence.
The New York Times did a report, talking about an Iowa State
University economist who searched out and tried to find farms that were
forced into sale because of the estate tax. He could not find any.
Indeed, they cited officials from the American Farm Bureau. They could
not find any concrete examples of a farm that was forced to be sold to
pay for estate taxes. So the myth of the family farm being eliminated--
the sons and daughters standing there being denied their inheritance
because of the estate tax--is a myth.
There is also the suggestion that if we repeal the estate tax there
will be no effect on charitable contributions. That, too, is a
misnomer. There have been studies on this question. One study was by
David Joulfaian, a Treasury Department economist, who estimated that
eliminating the estate tax would reduce charitable bequests by about 12
percent, or about $1.3 billion in 1998 dollars. This would have a
deleterious effect on something that we all want to encourage; that is,
contributions to charities.
So for these reasons, and many more, I do not think repeal of the
estate tax is something that should become permanent.
It will also have an impact on State budgets because there is a
portion of the estate tax which is credited to local States for their
purposes. This would have adverse effects on the finances of States and
the finances of the Federal Government. Ultimately, we would be trading
off estate taxes for the rich, relief for those individual estates, and
we would be paying for it with Social Security funds. I believe this is
not the right way to proceed.
Much of what is talked about today as the inequity of the estate tax
is more myth than reality. The reality is that if we make this
permanent, it will be a huge windfall, most of it the result of
unrealized capital gains for the very wealthiest Americans, and we will
be taking away the resources we need to provide support for seniors,
for children, for the educational system, for those things that will
make us strong as a nation.
I hope we will reject the proposal offered by the Senator from
Arizona.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I, too, rise in strong support of the
second-degree amendment offered by our distinguished chairman of the
Budget Committee. His arguments about protecting Social Security and
the promotion of fiscal responsibility and basic fairness in our
economy are compelling, particularly when we consider it relative to
the permanent extension of the inheritance tax.
This amendment stands for a very simple proposition, a principle that
no Social Security surplus funds should be used for any other purpose.
Under this second-degree amendment, the Senate would go on record
opposing the use of Social Security funds for making currently
scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful spending.
Social Security is a sacred compact between the American people and
their Government. We have promised all Americans if they work hard and
play by the rules, when they retire they will not have to live in the
fear of poverty. We have promised them a safety net that will provide
baseline payments for their retirement years. That is what Social
Security is all about, that safety net.
The Kyl amendment and those who would make permanent the estate tax
are truly undermining that promise of Social Security. In this decade
alone, we will spend $104 billion, if this is made permanent, of Social
Security revenues and reserves to fund this new accelerated tax cut.
And probably as serious with regard to fiscal issues, we will spend
over $800 billion in the following decade just at the time our baby
boom generation, those in the demographic bubble, come into play, and
when the stresses on Social Security and Medicare and all other Federal
Government expenditures will be under most pressure.
This is a bad idea. It is a mistake. The Senator from Rhode Island
was speaking in the context of fairness. I wonder why we think 2,800
farm estates out of over 2\1/2\ million in 1999 leads us to believe
that we need to change this tax policy, particularly when we put it in
conjunction with undermining our Social Security payments, and only
48,000 estates were paid in 1998. Then you add in the fact that taxes
have not been paid on unrealized capital gains. I don't understand why
we want to make the tradeoff of undermining our fiscal position as a
nation, undermining our ability to continue to fund Social Security
appropriately for such a narrow slice.
We are all asked to sacrifice in a world where we are under
constraints because of national defense, homeland security,
expenditures we need to make, but we also need to protect our seniors,
our Social Security. It seems to me this is a priority that does not
match the time nor the place nor the needs of our Nation.
It is not like Social Security is an extraordinarily generous benefit
for our seniors. It provides a little more than $10,000 per person per
year on average. In New Jersey, that doesn't go a long way toward
paying for retirement.
I don't know why we should be putting it at more risk today than we
would at other times, particularly since we are talking about such a
narrow slice of the American landscape. This is a time when making some
adjustments to our estate taxes are perfectly reasonable. We have
accomplished that. We continue to do that as we go forward. But why we
want to make this permanent, undermine our fiscal integrity, undermine
Social Security, and do it with an eye that forgets about the fairness
of who is getting the benefit relative to what is going to be charged
to the American people as we go forward makes no sense.
I hope my colleagues in the Senate will stand with the distinguished
Senator from North Dakota and make sure that we have a true expression
of the sense of the Senate that stands with the American people.
When the American people are asked a question, do we want to make
permanent these tax cuts or do we want to have a raid on Social
Security and an undermining of our retirement benefits, 84 percent of
the American people say: Let's stand with Social Security, and let's
forgo these tax cuts.
I hope we take that into consideration when we are thinking about
what are our priorities in this debate about an estate tax cut
acceleration relative to our priorities on fiscal responsibility and
protecting our seniors through Social Security.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator from Minnesota will withhold
briefly, we are at a point now where we can see a finality to this
bill. At the present time, it is my understanding on this estate tax
debate, Senator Kyl and Senator Dayton are the only two people still
left to speak on this. That is my understanding.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be allowed to speak for up
to 15 minutes and Senator Dayton for up to 15 minutes regarding
amendment No. 2850 and that there be no second-degree amendments in
order to either amendment; that is, the Conrad amendment or the Kyl
amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of the time of the two
Senators I have just mentioned, the amendments be set aside to recur
Wednesday, tomorrow, February 13, at 9:40 a.m.; that there be a total
of 5 minutes for debate on both amendments with the time equally
divided and controlled; that at 9:45 a.m., the first vote occur on the
Conrad amendment, to be followed immediately by a vote on the Kyl
amendment without further intervening action or debate.
Has Senator Conrad offered his amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has not.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will offer his amendment. These will be
the two amendments that have been talked about here this evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, I would like to suggest one
change
[[Page S645]]
in the proposal. I know Senator Domenici would like to speak tomorrow.
He is not here this evening. Since there are no other Senators in the
Chamber to listen to this debate except for the four who are here,
might I inquire of the assistant majority leader whether he would be
agreeable to a total of 10 minutes, with 5 minutes per side, and then
adjusting it, the 9:40 or 9:45 time; in other words, to add 2\1/2\
minutes per side?
Mr. REID. We accept that suggestion. The vote will be at 9:50.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have no objection to that point. Since
there were two previous Democratic speakers, I wonder if the Senator
from Minnesota would allow me to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request, as modified? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2857
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Conrad,
proposes an amendment numbered 2857.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Since both political parties have pledged not to misuse
Social Security surplus funds by spending them for other
purposes; and
Since under the Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget,
the federal government is projected to spend the Social
Security surplus for other purposes in each of the next 10
years;
Since permanent extension of the inheritance tax repeal
would cost, according to the Administration's estimate,
approximately $104 billion over the next 10 years, all of
which would further reduce the Social Security surplus;
Therefore it is the Sense of the Senate that no Social
Security surplus funds should be used to pay to make
currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful
spending.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 20
minutes each for debate prior to a vote in relation to the following
remaining amendments: Domenici 2851, as modified; Kerry-Snowe 2852,
with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that
the amendments must be debated tonight; that no second-degree
amendments be in order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation to
the amendments; that if the amendment is not disposed of, then it
remains debatable and amendable; that the vote in relation to these
amendments occur on Wednesday in a stacked sequence in the order in
which they were offered; that there be 2 minutes for explanation
between each vote; that upon disposition of all amendments, the
remaining provisions of the previous unanimous consent agreement remain
in effect; provided further that a managers' amendment still be in
order on Wednesday and that Senator McCain be recognized to speak for
up to 15 minutes prior to final disposition of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Amendment No. 2834, As Modified
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk and state
that Senators Leahy and Stevens and the two managers have agreed to
this amendment. This is in relation to the Leahy amendment No. 2834.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
[The amendment will be printed in the Record of February 13, 2002.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Leahy amendment
as modified?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2834), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
Amendment No. 2851, As Modified
Mr. LUGAR. I call up amendment No. 2851, which I offered on behalf of
Senator Domenici earlier today, and I send a modification of the
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Strike section 132 and insert the following:
SEC. 132. NATIONAL DAIRY PROGRAM.
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(as amended by section 772(b) of Public Law 107-76) is
amended by inserting after section 141 (7 U.S.C. 7251) the
following:
``SEC. 142. NATIONAL DAIRY PROGRAM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Dairy farm.--
``(A) In general.--The term `dairy farm' means a dairy farm
that is--
``(i) located within the United States;
``(ii) permitted under a license issued by State or local
agency or the Secretary--
``(I) to market milk for human consumption; or
``(II) to process milk into products for human consumption;
and
``(iii) operated by producers that commercially market milk
during the payment period.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `dairy farm' does not include a
farm that is operated by a successor to a producer.
``(2) Eligible production.--The term `eligible production'
means the average quantity of milk marketed for commercial
use in which the producer has had a direct or indirect
interest during each of the 1999 through 2001 fiscal years.
``(B) each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005.
``(4) Producer.--The term `producer' means the individual
or entity that is the holder of the license described in
paragraph (1)(A)(ii) for the dairy farm.
``(b) Program.--The Secretary shall make payments to
producers.
``(c) Amount.--Subject to subsection (h), payments to
producers on a dairy farm under this section shall be
calculated by multiplying--
``(1) the eligible production; by
``(2) the payment rate.
``(d) Payment Rate.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the payment
rate for a payment under this subsection shall be equal to
$0.315 per hundredweight.
``(2) Adjustment.--The Secretary may adjust the payment
rate under paragraph (1) with respect to the last fiscal year
of the payment period if the Secretary determines that there
are insufficient funds made available under subsection (h) to
carry out this section for that fiscal year.
``(e) Application for Payment.--To be eligible for a
payment for a payment period under this section, the
producers on a dairy farm shall submit an application to the
Secretary in such manner as is prescribed by the Secretary.
``(f) Timing of Payments.--Payments under this section
shall be made on an annual basis.
``(g) Adjustments.--The Secretary may provide for the
adjustment of eligible production of a dairy farm under this
section if the production of milk on the dairy farm has been
adversely affected by (as determined by the Secretary)--
``(1) damaging weather or a related condition;
``(2) a criminal act of a person other than the producers
on the dairy farm; or
``(3) any other act or event beyond the control of the
producers on the dairy farm.
``(h) Funding.--The Secretary shall use not more than
$2,000,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to carry out this section.''.
Amendment No. 2850
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me explain where we are. We have two
competing sense-of-the-Senate amendments. The first is the Kyl-Nickles
amendment. Incidentally, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Hutchinson of Arkansas be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. This sense-of-the-Senate amendment says we should make
permanent the repeal of the death tax that the majority of us voted for
last year and the President signed into law. It is kind of a cruel hoax
to repeal the death tax after a 10-year period, only to have that
sunset the very next year. So if you are lucky enough to die in the
year 2010, your heirs don't have to pay the tax. But if you are unlucky
enough to live to the year 2011, you go right back to the death tax as
it existed last year, with a 60-percent rate, with only a $675,000
exemption. That will be a huge tax increase in that year unless we are
able to make the death tax repeal permanent.
I submit that all of us who voted for that--the vast majority of the
Members of this body--certainly intended that we weren't playing a
trick on the American people. We intended the repeal of the death tax
to be permanent rather than just for 1 year. The competing amendment is
Senator Conrad's. The bottom line is that we
[[Page S646]]
not spend Social Security money either for tax cuts or wasteful
spending. That is a proposition with which I suspect we can all agree.
The only problem with his proposal is in the text of it, an assertion
that the proposal to make permanent the repeal of the death tax
actually would spend Social Security money. That is incorrect, as has
been pointed out by Senators Gramm and Nickles.
Let me talk about the reasons we need to make the death tax repeal
permanent and why the arguments of those who oppose that are simply
incorrect. One of the arguments the Senator from Rhode Island had was
that there is the myth that lots of people pay the death tax. Actually,
I didn't assert that. I don't think most people would say lots of
people pay it. Too many estates pay it. I guess his point was that
people don't pay it, estates pay it. Who owns estates? People do--the
heirs, the children, usually, of the person who has died. It is not a
very happy circumstance that the death of their father or mother causes
them to have to pay a tax. All of the other taxes, with two minor
exceptions that we have in our Tax Code, are a result of some action
that we take, voluntary action. If you want to earn money, you have to
pay income tax. The death tax is the only one where you don't choose
the event that triggers the tax. You die; you pay a tax. That is not
something you voluntarily do.
That is why everyone who has voted for it has agreed it is an unfair
tax and it should not be paid. The fact that not that many people pay
it is beside the point. It affects millions and millions of people.
Whom does it affect? First of all, all the people in the families of
the estates that are being taxed. Secondly, it affects all of the
people who tried to plan against the eventuality of paying a death tax.
There are literally millions of those people.
In 1999, the estimate is that we collected $23 billion in estate tax
and, in addition to that, Americans paid an additional $23 billion in
estate planning, in insurance, to accountants and lawyers and estate
planners. So, in effect, it is a double tax.
Another point the Senator from Rhode Island made was that there is
really a demonstrable effect on charitable contributions. He cited a
study that said there might be fewer contributions to charity if we
repeal the death tax. First, it should not be Federal Government policy
to force people to give money to charity. That should be from the
heart, not because you have a gun at your head. We can have incentives
and we can have a tax credit if you contribute to charity. But we
should not say unless you contribute that money to charity, the
Government is going to confiscate it from your heirs. That is unfair
and not something Federal tax policy should do.
Secondly, to summarize a story of a friend of mine, Jerry Witsosky,
who started a small printing company: He eventually hired 200 people.
He was one of the most generous people in our community of Phoenix, AZ.
He just could not say no. He had Boys and Girls Clubs named after him.
He was a very generous person. When he died, his family had to sell the
business to pay the estate taxes. They sold it to a big corporation. So
much for preventing the accumulation of wealth. Has that big
corporation ever contributed to charities in my community? Not that I
am awere.
The bottom line is these private, family-owned businesses are pillars
of their community. When they have to be sold off to some big
corporation, don't tell me you are going to have enhanced contributions
to charity as a result.
The Senator from New Jersey had a couple of arguments--I wish he were
still here. He is absolutely wrong in both of the arguments he made. I
don't think he has actually read the bill that repealed the tax last
year or he would not have made the statement that taxes are not paid on
unrealized capital gains under the law that exists today, under the
bill we passed last year. That is not correct. We substitute the
capital gains tax for the estate tax. So for the first time there will
be a tax on unrealized capital gains. The only amount we carve out from
that is essentially equal to the exemption we have in the law today. So
nobody who is exempt from paying the tax today would have to pay the
tax 10 years from now. But except for that carve-out, there is going to
be a capital gains tax substituted for the estate tax. So that argument
of the Senator from New Jersey is simply incorrect.
The second argument is also incorrect, that no Social Security
surplus funds should ever be used and that that is what would happen if
we made permanent the repeal of the estate tax. But that is not correct
either. As the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Oklahoma pointed
out, at the point in time that the repeal of the death tax is made
permanent, we are running huge Social Security surpluses. In 2010, for
example, according to OMB, we would have a Social Security surplus that
year of $290 billion--a non-Social-Security surplus of $60 billion.
Subtract the $4 billion in costs from the repeal of the death tax and
you still have $56 billion in non-Social-Security surplus, and you
still have the original $290 billion Social Security surplus.
So the OMB numbers--the very numbers referred to in Senator Conrad's
amendment--belie the claim that we would be taking Social Security
money in order to pay for the repeal of the death tax. It just isn't
true.
Mr. President, what are the reasons for making the repeal of the
death tax permanent? The primary reason is fairness. But the secondary
reason is the confusion that exists in the code if we don't do that.
Think about it. We gradually phase down the amount of death tax until
the ninth year, when it finally goes out of existence, and 1 year later
it is all back again in its worst form--the form that existed last
year. How do you plan against that? Unless you are absolutely certain
you are going to die in the year 2010, you are going to have to pay the
same lawyers, accountants, buy the same insurance, and do the same
estate planning that you do today that you will have to do tomorrow.
You will have to do all of those things, and the net result is a very
inefficient and wasteful situation--money that is unproductively going
to these people who could be put productively back into the economy to
create jobs, stimulate the economy and, to be fair, frankly, to our
families.
That money is wasted unless you consider money going to lawyers as
not being wasted. As a recovering lawyer, I would argue differently.
The fact is, that is unproductive capital. Wilbur Steger says if you
can repeal it tomorrow, you can inject $40 billion of capital into our
economy.
The bottom line is repealing the death tax is good economically. It
is also good for the people who have to plan against the eventuality of
paying the tax, and it is good for the families who otherwise would
have to bear the burden of it.
It is not fair because it is a tax on death rather than voluntary
activity. It is bad economic policy and bad tax policy because nobody
can figure out under the law we passed last year what they are going to
have to do, again, unless they know for sure they are going to die in
the year 2010.
Let's go back to the basics. Last year, because of a quirk in the
law, we could only pass a 10-year tax bill. We did the best we could.
We repealed the estate tax within that 10-year frame. Right after the
10 years expire, the whole provision sunsets, and we go right back to
the Tax Code as it existed last year.
Is that what we intended when the vast majority of us voted to repeal
the estate tax we call the death tax? No. Were we playing a cruel hoax
on our constituents, claiming with great fanfare that we repealed the
death tax, but knowing all along we really only repealed it for 1 year?
Did we really intend for it to be repealed for 1 year? I daresay
everyone who voted for repeal of the death tax is going to support the
amendment, the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that says we should make
it permanent. Otherwise, they intended something different certainly
than I did and, I think, the vast majority of the Americans who support
this.
The President in his budget calls for the ``permanentizing'' of the
repeal of the death tax. That is calculated in his budget, and OMB
makes crystal clear that budget is not taking one dime from the Social
Security surplus to do it. That is why we should reject the proposal of
the Senator from North Dakota which has in it a statement that that is
what we are doing.
[[Page S647]]
If he is willing to drop that one clause of his sense-of-the-Senate
resolution, then I will be the first to vote for his sense-of-the-
Senate resolution and urge my colleagues to do so because I agree we
should not take Social Security surplus money. But that is not what
will happen if we are able to effect a permanent repeal of the death
tax.
At the end of the day, this is all about fairness. Is it fair to tax
people who are members of a family and who did not choose that the
breadwinner in the family die? Is it fair to tax them up to 60 percent
of the value of that estate, especially since many of the assets of
small businesses and farms are tied up not in cash or liquid assets but
in the business itself, so that the net result is they cannot just
write a check for that obligation, they literally have to sell the
business, as my friend Jerry Witsosky's family had to do? Is that fair?
Is that the policy the U.S. Government should be setting? I submit
the answer is no. That is what the vast majority of Senators said last
year. The House of Representatives concurred, and the President signed
the repeal of the death tax into law.
The only problem with that is, as I have said, it sunsets after the
10th year. That is what we need to correct. We need to find the right
vehicle to do that. It has been said the farm bill is not the right
bill to do that, even though the tax has a very perverse effect on
family farms. That is why we bring this sense-of-the-Senate resolution
to our colleagues--if you agree with us that we make the repeal of the
death tax permanent, that we intended to do that, and we intend to do
as soon as we have the right opportunity and reject the competing
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that claims that doing this would take
money from the Social Security surplus, something which now three of us
have pointed out is absolutely totally false.
If the author of the competing sense-of-the-Senate resolution will
drop that claim and will simply say it is the sense of the Senate we
not spend the Social Security surplus to ``permanentize'' tax cuts or
on wasteful spending, then we will be happy to support that. We can
support both of them. Otherwise, we are going to have to vote against
the sense-of-the-Senate resolution of the Senator from North Dakota,
and I urge my colleagues to support the sense-of-the-Senate resolution
that Senator Nickles, Senator Hutchison, I, and others have sponsored.
It is the right thing, it is the fair thing, and it is the honest thing
to do for the American people so they are not misled that our action
last year in repealing the death tax is for all time. It is not. It is
only for 1 year.
I conclude by submitting for the Record a list of organizations that
support the permanent repeal of the estate tax, what I have been
referring to as the death tax, and I ask unanimous consent this list be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Family Business Estate Tax Coalition
Air Conditioning Contractors of America; American Business
Press; American Consulting Engineers Council; American
Council for Capital Formation; American Family Business
Institute; American Farm Bureau Federation; American Forest
and Paper Association; American Forest Resources Council;
American Hotel & Lodging Association; American International
Automobile Dealers Association; American Supply Association;
American Wholesale Marketers Association; American Vintners
Association; Americans for Fair Taxation; Associated Builders
& Contractors; Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated
General Contractors; Association for Manufacturing
Technology.
Citizens Against Government Waste; Citizens for a Sound
Economy; Communicating For Agriculture; Construction Industry
Manufacturers Association; Farm Credit Council; Fierce and
Isakowitz; Food Distributors International; Food Marketing
Institute; Guest & Associates; Independent Community Bankers
of America; Independent Insurance Agents of America;
International Council of Shopping Centers, Kessler &
Associates; National Association of Beverage Retailers;
National Association of Convenience Stores; National
Association of Home Builders; National Association of
Manufacturers; National Association of Plumbing-Heating-
Cooling Contractors; National Association of Realtors;
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National
Automobile Dealers Association; National Beer Wholesalers
Association; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National
Corn Growers Association; National Cotton Council; National
Electrical Contractors Association.
National Federation of Independent Business; National
Grocers Association; National Licensed Beverage Association;
National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association;
National Marine Manufacturers Association; National Newspaper
Association; National Restaurant Association; National
Roofing Contractors Association; National Small Business
United; National Telephone Cooperative Association; National
Tooling & Machining Association; National Utility Contractors
Association; Newspaper Association of America; Ocean Spray
Cranberries, Inc; Organization for the Promotion &
Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO);
Painting & Decorating Contractors of America; Petroleum
Marketers Association of America; Printing Industries of
America; Rock Hill Telephone Company; Safeguard America's
Family Enterprises; Society of American Florists;
Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers; Texas and Southwestern
Cattle Raisers Association; Textile Rental Services
Association; Tire Association of North America; United States
Telecom Association; U.S. Business & Industry Council; U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America;
and the Wine Institute.
Members of the Small Business Legislative Council
Air Conditioning Contractors of America; Alliance of
Independent Store Owners and Professionals; Alliance of
Affordable Services; American Bus Association; American
Consulting Engineers Council; American Council of Independent
Laboratories; American Machine Tool Distributors Association;
American Moving and Storage Association; American Nursery and
Landscape Association; American Road & Transportation
Builders Association; American Society of Interior Designers;
American Society of Travel Agents, Inc.; American
Subcontractors Association; Associated Landscape Contractors
of America; Association of Small Business Development
Centers; Association of Sales and Marketing Companies;
Automotive Recyclers Association; Bowling Proprietors
Association of America; Building Service Contractors
Association International; Business Advertising Council; CBA;
Council of Fleet Specialists; Council of Growing Companies;
and the Cremation Association of North America.
Direct Selling Association; Electronics Representatives
Association; Health Industry Representatives Association;
Helicopter Association International; Independent Community
Bankers of America; Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.;
Independent Medical Distributors Association; International
Association of Refrigerated Warehouses; International
Association of Used Equipment Dealers; International Business
Brokers Association; International Franchise Association;
Machinery Dealers National Association; Mail Advertising
Service Association; Manufacturers Agents for the Food
Service Industry; Manufacturers Agents National Association;
Manufacturers Representatives of America, Inc.; National
Association for the Self-Employed; National Association of
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors; and the National
Association of Realtors.
National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds; National
Association of Small Business Investment, Companies; National
Community Pharmacists Association; National Electrical
Contractors Association; National Electrical Manufacturers
Representatives Association; National Lumber & Building
Material Dealers Association; National Ornamental &
Miscellaneous Metals Association; National Paperbox
Association; National Private Truck Council; National Retail
Hardware Association; National Tooling and Machining
Association; National Wood Flooring Association; Painting and
Decorating Contractors of America; Petroleum Marketers
Association of America; Printing Industries of America, Inc.;
Professional Lawn Care Association of America; Promotional
Products Association International; The Retailer's Bakery
Association; Saturation Mailers Coalition; Small Business
Council of America, Inc.; Small Business Exporters
Association; SMC Business Councils; Society of American
Florists; Specialty Equipment Market Association; Tire
Association of North America; Turfgrass Producers
International; United Motorcoach Association; Washington Area
New Automobile Dealers Association.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues are joined in making
permanent the repeal of the death tax, and we can express that is our
intention when we vote on this tomorrow morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The Senator from Minnesota is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I want to take a different tack from some of my
Democratic colleagues and say to the Senator from Arizona and others
who have expressed his point of view that I understand and respect his
sentiment as one which reflects also accurately what I have heard from
a lot of Minnesota farmers, a lot of Minnesota business owners
throughout the State.
[[Page S648]]
I am convinced, regardless of what my particular view might be and
regardless of what the facts of the situation might be, that any farmer
or business person or probably anybody who has accumulated some estate
who even believes it is possible that he or she will ultimately be
affected by this tax considers it onerous. I can see for those it does
impact, they consider it onerous.
I agree with the Senator from Arizona that the decision made a year
ago by the Congress, signed into law, to finally repeal the estate tax
entirely in the year 2010 and then reverse that repeal and go back to
the pre-2001 tax level is nonsensical, absurd, and should have been
recognized last year for what it was, which was an attempt--in fact, a
successful effort--to compress 10 years of tax cuts permitted by the
budget resolution into the first 9 years of the budget so we would face
exactly this predicament and there would be, as the Senator said, and
properly so, no logical explanation to the American people for why
these tax cuts which occurred over those 9 years are suddenly all going
to disappear in the 10th year.
In fact, I think that argument can equally apply to the reduction in
the rates which would also go back to their pre-2001 levels if no
change is made. The child tax credit, which will go up to $1,000 per
child, reverts back down to its pre-2001 $500 level.
I agree with the Senator what was done last year was nonsensical, and
any rational person trying to look into that situation, any tax
planning expert advising someone about his or her tax plan decisions,
especially as that year 2011 approaches, is going to say what it is,
and with which I agree: It is nonsensical and ridiculous to conduct tax
policy in that way.
I invite the Senator from Arizona to work with me--and I look forward
to doing so--to change this practice which I encountered last year
which, for the first time, my first year--I understand the tactic, but
I think it is fundamentally wrong no matter who perpetrates it, to be
having tax changes phasing in, phasing out, and the like. These are the
kinds of games and manipulations we all realize occur. No wonder the
American people do not think we have a Tax Code they can depend upon,
trust, that makes sense. They are right.
In my experience, just about any tax that is imposed upon people is
considered onerous. As a policymaker, I guess I am left wondering which
of those taxes, from the standpoint of perceived burden and actual
burden, would be the prime candidates to be reduced if we had the
resources to do so.
I certainly note that competing with the estate tax elimination, in
terms of what taxes impact most Americans, the payroll tax would
certainly be my first candidate, especially as it affects the employee.
Seventy-five percent of working Americans pay more out of their payroll
taxes than they do out of their income taxes. And certainly for
employers, for businesses, it is perceived as a cost and as an
impediment to hiring additional people.
Another inequity we will face over this next decade as it stands
today is some 39 million Americans will be bumped up against the
alternative minimum tax by the year 2011 under current law.
We should remedy all of those inequities. The bottom line is, and
what Senator Conrad was asking his colleagues to recognize tonight, and
what the American people need to understand about the course that we
are about to head down, is we cannot afford to make all of these tax
cuts and all of the spending increases which the President's budget
proposes without seriously weakening the financial strength of this
country so that in a decade, at the end of this 10-year budget period,
we are likely to be unable to meet the increased demands of Social
Security and medical benefits of an aging population.
If we take the President's budget, assume that the Congress does not
change one thing about it, and then apply the Office of Management and
Budget, the administration's own fiscal expert, consequences of that
budget, as Senator Conrad said, and it bears repeating, for those next
10 years every dollar in the Federal Government's operating budget, the
surpluses, will be eliminated. All of the surpluses in the Medicare
trust fund for every 1 of those 10 years will be eliminated. Sixty
percent of the Social Security trust fund surpluses, totaling $1.5
trillion during that time, will have to be spent to pay for the
operating deficits which will result, leaving at the end of those 10
years in the fiscal year 2012, $1 trillion of surpluses in the Social
Security trust fund, and $1.9 trillion of debt that has not been paid
because of this additional spending--national debt that, I might add,
was projected originally a year ago to have been eliminated by the end
of these 10 years.
So I repeat, if we, today, were to adopt the budget which the
President has sent to the Congress, without a change, if the economy of
this country over the next decade performs according to OMB's
assumptions, which are that we will come out of the recession quickly,
we will boost up above average GDP, and then we will continue at a rate
for the rest of the decade that will result in a decade average of 3.1
percent real growth in GDP; in other words a reasonably optimistic
economic assumption sustained over 10 years--low inflation, 2.1
percent, unemployment staying at 4.9 percent, good economic
conditions--we will still face $849 billion in deficits in our
operating budgets which have to be made up by Social Security and
Medicare trust fund dollars.
At that point, we end up facing the proposal of Senator Kyl and
others that we should eliminate the estate tax permanently during that
following decade, which the Congressional Budget Office predicts would
cost $4 trillion. If we look at the numbers, we will see we cannot
afford to sacrifice another $4 trillion in tax revenues during that
time.
The Social Security payments are going to increase. The national debt
has not been eliminated. Frankly, I am not even as concerned about that
decade, at least not tonight, as I am about the decisions we will be
making over the next few weeks and months that will affect what
precedes that decade.
I assume Senator Kyl's amendment will pass tomorrow. It is a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. It has no force of law. It does not start to
take effect until the year 2011. That is about as easy a tax cut vote
as anybody can ever hope for.
I implore my Republican colleagues, I implore all of my Senate
colleagues, to review the President's budget proposals and to review
Senator Conrad's predictions because they essentially agree. They say
if that budget is adopted, we are heading into another decade-long
spree of cutting taxes. We did last year. Now some want to accelerate
those tax cuts. We want to make some of those tax cuts permanent in
following decades--popular decisions, every one of them not in context.
We are proposing to embark on a major military spending spree, $451
billion of additional defense spending in the next 5 years compounded
through the next 5 years, spending that we are not paying for with the
tax cuts; that we are paying for with the Medicare and Social Security
trust funds. Those are the unavoidable realities, the unpleasant
realities that we would prefer to avoid. If we do that, we will
jeopardize the long-term financial security of this Nation.
If we repeat what occurred in the 1980s and send this country down
the path of ongoing budget deficits, we will bequeath to our children
and those who follow a fiscal nightmare of unprecedented proportions.
Regardless of what we do tomorrow with the sense-of-the-Senate
resolution, the real decisions we are going to face in the months ahead
will not be those kinds of cosmetics. They will be real commitments to
tax cuts and to spending increases that will be sweet and appealing at
the time, but the reality is they will jeopardize this country's
financial strength and stability.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Amendment No. 2851
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement that
has been adopted on amendment No. 2851, the Domenici amendment on
dairy, that debate must occur this evening. The provision provides for
2 minutes of debate tomorrow prior to the vote, equally divided.
Senator Domenici is not able to be present. Earlier today, on his
behalf, I offered the amendment with a short argument.
[[Page S649]]
I ask that the Chair call up amendment No. 2851.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may
require from the 10 minutes provided to the proponents of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President I will read from a letter which Senator
Domenici has written to his colleagues in the Senate in support of
amendment No. 2851:
I ask you to join me in making the dairy title of the farm
bill equitable to all producers across the country. There is
currently $2 billion available in S. 1731 over the next five
years for the dairy program. However, the dairy title of the
farm bill currently under consideration on the Senate floor
gives special treatment to 12 states at the expense of the
remaining 38. Specifically, those producers in the 12 New
England states currently producing 18% of our nation's milk,
will receive a disproportionate 25% in producer payments.
This is inconsistent with the vast majority of other programs
where the loan rate, or payment rate for a particular
commodity is the same for producers all across the country.
There is no market justification for this type of division.
FAPRI analysis of S. 1731 shows that the response to these
payments would result in depressed market prices. By the last
year of the program, estimates predict that income to dairy
farmers in every state would be reduced. This is a reduction
on all milk--not just milk of a certain level of production.
Thus, producers whose milk is not eligible for the payments
will be receiving less money for their milk than if the
payments were not made at all. To be fair, those producers
should not have to pay for this policy. All producers should
be allowed to fully participate.
I ask that you support an amendment that will be offered on
my behalf that will distribute this $2 billion in a more
equitable manner. The program that I propose is national in
scope.
Dairy prices can change rapidly from month to month. Rather
than burden the Secretary with the costs of computing payment
rates and making monthly payments, I propose to streamline
this process and make an annual flat payment to producers
over the next five years which will approximate the counter-
cyclical payments they would receive if computed and paid
like other commodities. Estimates show that rate to be
approximately 31.5 cents per hundredweight on all milk
produced. Under this approach, administrative costs will be
reduced and payment uncertainties will be eliminated. A
payment on all milk will provide, in gross dollars, as much
or more money to virtually all states. A table illustrating
this is attached.
I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
COMPARISON OF PRODUCER PAYMENTS DASCHLE SUBSTITUTE--DOMENICI AMENDMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Eligible Daschle substitute Domenici
State production pounds ------------------------------------------------ amendment
(million) (million) Min ($thous) Mid ($thous) Max ($thous) (thous)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................. 300 278 486 1,652 3402 3623
Alaska.................................................. 14.36 13 23 79 163 173
Arizona................................................. 2884 854 1494 5079 10457 34824
Arkansas................................................ 459 425 743 2528 5204 5542
California.............................................. 33194 15435 27012 91839 189081 400818
Colorado................................................ 1961 1181 2066 7024 14461 23679
Connecticut............................................. 459 425 5785 7646 7646 5542
Delaware................................................ 140.9 130 1776 2347 2347 1701
Florida................................................. 2389 1206 2111 7178 14779 28847
Georgia................................................. 1431 1241 2171 7382 15198 17279
Hawaii.................................................. 106.4 98 172 586 1206 1285
Idaho................................................... 7754 3644 6378 21684 44644 93630
Illinois................................................ 2020 2006 3510 11935 24572 24392
Indiana................................................. 2576 2476 4332 14729 30325 31105
Iowa.................................................... 3785 3702 6478 22025 45346 45704
Kansas.................................................. 1560 1444 2527 8591 17688 18837
Kentucky................................................ 1657 1654 2894 9839 20258 20008
Louisana................................................ 629 582 1019 3464 7132 7595
Maine................................................... 656 607 8268 10928 10928 7921
Maryland................................................ 1285 1207 16430 21716 21716 15516
Massachusetts........................................... 366 339 4613 6097 6097 4419
Michigan................................................ 5721 5166 9041 30738 63284 69081
Minnesota............................................... 8895 8610 15068 51232 105477 107407
Mississippi............................................. 505 467 818 2781 5726 6098
Missouri................................................ 1972 1942 3399 11557 23795 23812
Montana................................................. 346 320 560 1906 3923 4178
Nebraska................................................ 1146 1061 1856 6311 12994 13838
Nevada.................................................. 485 449 786 2671 5499 5856
New Hampshire........................................... 322 298 4058 5364 5364 3888
New Jersey.............................................. 242 224 3050 4031 4031 2922
New Mexico.............................................. 5561 1268 2219 7544 15532 67149
New York................................................ 11750 11045 150396 198781 198781 141881
North Carolina.......................................... 1164 1083 1894 6441 13261 14055
North Dakota............................................ 655 606 1061 3607 7427 7909
Ohio.................................................... 4388 4318 7556 25691 52893 52985
Oklahoma................................................ 1293 1050 1837 6247 12861 15613
Oregon.................................................. 1746 1437 2515 8550 17603 21083
Pennsylvania............................................ 10849 10697 145669 192520 192520 131002
Rhode Island............................................ 23.6 22 297 393 393 285
South Carolina.......................................... 363 336 588 1999 4116 4383
South Dakota............................................ 1631 1432 2506 8521 17542 19694
Tennessee............................................... 1335 1324 2318 7880 16223 16120
Texas................................................... 5099 4166 7290 24787 51032 61570
Utah.................................................... 1634 1428 2499 8497 17494 19731
Vermont................................................. 2678 2557 34824 46028 46028 32337
Virginia................................................ 1878 1850 3237 11006 22660 22677
Washington.............................................. 5512 3467 6067 20629 42471 66557
West Virginia........................................... 249 230 3138 4148 4148 3007
Wisconsin............................................... 22225 21558 37727 128272 264089 268367
Wyoming................................................. 63 58 102 347 714 761
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 165,357 .............. 552,657 1,092,831 1,720,534 1,996,689
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA Dairy Products 4/17/01, 7/17/01, 10/16/01, 1/17/02.
Eligible pounds are pounds per operation at or below 8,000,000 per year and approximate the percentages used by FAPRI in its analysis.
Payment rates under Daschle Substitute are from Ken Bailey. Penn State Staff paper #344, December 20, 2001. Analysis of the Dairy Provisions in the
Senate Version of the Farm Bill. Payments in the NE Program had to be reduced to keep within the 500 million budgetary cap.
Mr. LUGAR. I continue reading:
I also propose the elimination of caps on payments to
producers based upon production. This is a fairness issue.
Since 1983, dairy producers have paid assessments for their
programs. These assessments have always been without
limitation. Now that there are payments, these producers
should benefit from the same policy--payments without
limitations.
A well known dairy economist with Penn State University,
using recent historical prices, estimated that payments for
the Northeast farmers would be from 24 cents to 91 cents per
hundredweight with an average of 57 cents. At the same time
producers elsewhere would receive from nothing to 35 cents
with a mid point of 14 cents.
Producers in the same marketing orders who share the same
blend prices and the same markets, could be treated vastly
different under S. 1731. These producers are members of the
same cooperatives, use the same trucking companies and
otherwise participate in a single market. Yet, some in the
market order stand to make 3 to 4 times as much as their
neighbors, while market prices in the rest of the country are
significantly reduced as a result of the disparity.
Again, I urge you to join me in making the dairy title
equitable to all producers. If you
[[Page S650]]
are interested in co-sponsoring this legislation or need
additional information, please contact Shelly Randel at 224-
1964.
I wish Senator Domenici were here to make the statement himself and
to further amplify the equity of his program, but common sense would
dictate that there should be equity among the States. Clearly, there is
not. Clearly, dairy farmers with almost identical conditions and
identical cooperatives should have equitable treatment. S. 1731 clearly
does not accomplish that.
Therefore, I commend the Domenici amendment to Senators. I am hopeful
when the debate concludes tomorrow after the 2 minutes, 1 minute a side
to summarize, that Senators will vote in favor of the Domenici
amendment.
I yield the floor and 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. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will ask again that a quorum call be
instituted with the time evenly divided between the two sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. 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 the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senate's
attention an issue that I hope we might continue to work on during the
conference on the farm bill. Last year President Bush set a theme that
we ``should not leave any child behind.'' While the world has certainly
changed in the past year, I believe that one of the reasons we will
succeed in the war against terrorism is that we understand the
importance of leaving no child behind. It is my hope that as we work
through this conference we will keep our children's health as a top
priority.
The Food Stamp Act provides assistance to millions of children living
in the United States. In 1980, Congress removed Puerto Rico from the
food stamp program as a budget-cutting initiative and established in
its place the Nutrition Assistance Program, a block grant for Puerto
Rico to provide a modified Food Stamp Program. The Nutrition Assistance
Program in Puerto Rico known as NAP, provides support to over 400,000
children.
Over the past year, Puerto Rico's Governor Sila Calderon and her
administration have moved aggressively and voluntarily to complete
implementation of an Electronic Benefits System for the nutrition
program. The Commonwealth thus joins the 50 States as they modernize
their food stamp distribution services to ensure authorized purchases
by the individuals for whom the benefits were intended. They have
worked effectively with the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service to
strengthen the administration of the program to ensure that limited
dollars are stretched to the maximum.
However, as of 2000, the annual purchasing power of NAP was $147
million less than when it was enacted 22 years ago, compared to the
cost of household food on the mainland. If you use the index measuring
the increased cost of food in Puerto Rico, you find that the purchasing
power of the program has fallen by almost $1 billion.
The loss of purchasing power has real effects on real children. If
you look at the NAP and compare it to the Federal Food Stamp Program,
you find that the program, 1, does not provide similar benefits; and 2,
the budget limitations have excluded many low-income children in Puerto
Rico from participation in the program.
For example, the Food Stamp Program's monthly income limitation is
$1,531 for a family of three on the mainland and in the Virgin Islands,
but the NAP program must limit participation in the program to families
of three whose income is $558. This amount equals about 47% of the
Federal poverty level, while participation in the Federal Food Stamp
Program is extended to those whose incomes are less than 150% of the
Federal poverty level.
The NAP maximum benefit level for the family of three is $268 as
compared to $341 for food stamps on the mainland and $431 on the Virgin
Islands. this problem becomes even more egregious when the cost of
purchasing essential food items is compared between Puerto Rico and the
mainland. For example, a gallon of milk in San Juan costs $3.89
compared to $2.87 in Washington, D.C.
When Congress established the Nutritional Assistance Program it was
our intent to reduce cost and permit the Commonwealth flexibility in
providing nutrition support. We certainly did not intend to create a
gap such as the one that now exists between these two programs.
Puerto Rico's children are U.S. citizens who deserve a greater
opportunity for nutritional support. These young men and women will
serve in the U.S. military, they will pay Social Security, Medicare and
unemployment taxes, and they are expected to compete in the U.S. labor
market. I believe that we need to ensure that children who are U.S.
citizens and live in Puerto Rico are not left behind when it comes to
nutrition.
I look forward to working with the distinguished chairman; the
distinguished ranking member Senator Lugar; and the other conferees to
examine alternatives for providing resources to the Nutrition
Assistance Program so that there is some narrowing of the gap between
the Federal Food Stamp Program and the Nutrition Assistance Program.
Again, I thank the chairman for his excellent work on this issue, and
I look forward to working with him to advance this cause.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the
remarks of my friend, the distinguished Senator from Vermont. As I have
indicated in remarks throughout the Senate's deliberations on this
bill, nutrition assistance is of paramount importance for enhancing our
nation's security. I am familiar with the Nutrition Assistance Program
in Puerto Rico and recognize the importance of adjusting benefit levels
and income requirements for inflation. This is why Senator Cochran and
I worked together on legislation, 2 years ago, that now provides such
an adjustment. I look forward to working with Senator Leahy, Chairman
Harkin and the other conferees in the conference on this bill to
explore this issue by assessing the needs of low-income Puerto Ricans
and possible means of addressing those needs.
peanut program
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my
distinguished colleague from Georgia, Mr. Miller, regarding the peanut
title of the proposed farm bill.
My colleague represents the largest peanut growing State and I
represent one of the largest peanut product manufacturing States. I
compliment him for his leadership and I am pleased by the efforts of
the Agriculture Committee in moving to a market-oriented peanut
program. My foremost concern is for elimination of the peanut quota
system, which has restricted peanut production in the United States. Do
the provisions of this farm bill terminate the peanut quota program?
Mr. MILLER. Yes, the legislative language of this farm bill
explicitly terminates the peanut quota system effective with the 2002
crop. The bill also provides that the Secretary of Agriculture is to
enter into contracts that will compensate quota owners for the lost of
their quota.
Mr. SANTORUM. I believe such provisions are useful, but I would like
to have the compensation to quota owners terminated 1 year before the
end of this 5-year farm bill. I have no problem with the House bill,
which buys out quota owners over a 5-year period in the context of a
10-year farm bill.
Mr. MILLER. If we end up with a 5-year farm bill as a result of the
House-Senate conference, my quota owners would have no problem in
having their quota bought our over 4 years. Therefore, I commit to the
Senator to work with the House-Senate conferees to ensure that we end
the quota owner buy-out contract 1 year shy of any farm bill
reauthorization.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my colleague for this unquestioned commitment
to finding an agreeable resolution. I understand that these reforms
[[Page S651]]
may be difficult for some of his peanut quota growers. However, if we
fail to provide real reform of the peanut program we will have done a
great disservice to the entire U.S. peanut sector.
Mr. MILLER. Ever-expanding peanut imports are threatening the current
and future viability of the peanut industry in Georgia and other
peanut-producing and manufacturing states. Peanut growers, shellers,
and manufacturers will come under increasing pressure as peanut
production and peanut processing infrastructure moves offshore. I am
pleased to say that this new peanut program offers a positive
resolution for the entire peanut industry, and the new program ensures
that the U.S. peanut sector is competitive in the world marketplace.
Mr. SANTORUM. I applaud the leadership and foresight of the Senator
from Georgia in developing a peanut program that truly brings needed
reform to the program while presenting new opportunities for young
peanut farmers.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I wish to enter a short colloquy with
the Senator from Iowa, Chairman of the Agriculture Committee and the
floor manager of this bill. As you know, the manager's amendment
contains a provision designed to remedy problems that transpired last
year in the programs governed by Public Law 107-25. My question is
whether this remedy applies to farmers eligible for payments and
assistance under Public Law 107-25, but who were denied payments and
assistance because their cases were under appeal when the September 30,
2001 deadline passed.
As the distinguished Senator might know, several Missouri farmers did
not receive payments and assistance they were entitled to under Public
Law 107-25. It was impossible for these Missouri farmers to meet their
September 30 deadline because their cases were under appeal. They
received no payments even though it was eventually determined that they
were eligible for assistance. So, by no fault of their own, several
Missouri family farmers face ominous financial situations without the
clarifications provided in this amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. I commend the Senator's work on behalf of Missouri family
farmers and thank her for her consideration of this amendment. This
amendment will indeed apply to farmers who were under appeal status
when the deadline passed but later were found to be in compliance and
eligible for payments and assistance under Public Law 107-25. The
amendment provides that they will receive payments for which they were
eligible and have not received. I am pleased that this amendment will
help Missouri farmers facing difficult situations.
Nutrition
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for the purpose of
engaging in a colloquy with my good friends, the distinguished senior
Senators from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Minnesota. Each
of us worked closely with the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member
of the Committee on Agriculture to ensure that the nutrition title of
the pending legislation represents an important step forward to improve
the program's ability to help low-income children, working poor, and
the elderly. As a former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I know
the importance of achieving balance in a farm bill. To ensure broad,
bipartisan and bicameral support, a farm bill must have a strong
nutrition title that benefits urban and suburban areas that feel less
of a direct stake in the agricultural provisions of the bill. I think
the pending legislation has that. Unfortunately, the bill passed by the
other body earlier this fall does not. A mere $3.6 billion out of a
$73.5 billion farm bill does not come close to representing balance and
leaves unmet too many of the urgent nutritional needs of low-income
families in urban, suburban, and rural areas alike.
Mr. KENNEDY. This farm bill makes important progress in ensuring the
nutritional well-being of low-income children. The food stamp program
is by far our nation's largest and most important child nutrition
program. Over half of all food stamp recipients are children. Four-
fifths of all food stamp benefits go to families with children. Despite
its important mission, however, this program has been in trouble. Fully
half of the savings in the 1996 welfare law came from budget-driven
cuts in food stamp benefits. Since then, sharp reductions in the
participation rate among eligible households have produced huge
additional problems. As a result, significant unmet need exists among
low-income children in our country. This legislation takes important
steps to address these problems. It recognizes that one of the clear
consequences of welfare reform is that children have been hurt. It was
never the intention of the 1996 law to cut off these children. This
legislation restores benefits to all children to eliminate confusion,
and to encourage parents to apply for benefits on behalf of their
children. In addition, this legislation recognizes that families with
children have greater living expenses than single individuals, and it
adjusts the food stamp standard deduction accordingly. It relies on the
fundamental concept, similar to the concept in legislation I introduced
last year with Senator Specter, that food stamp benefits should not
start to phase down until a family's income is nine percent above the
poverty line. By providing more adequate food assistance benefits to
children, we can help ensure that they go to school ready to learn and
grow up to be strong, healthy, productive members of our society.
Mr. GRAHAM. Accordingly, one of the most important aspects of the
nutrition title of this legislation is its sensitivity to the needs of
legal immigrants and their families. Immigrants come to this country
today for the same reasons that have brought them here throughout our
history: to live in freedom and the opportunity to earn a better life
for themselves and their families through hard work. Unfortunately,
many immigrants, like other workers in this country, will at times find
it difficult to obtain work. Others may be unable to work for a period
of time because of workplace injuries or family illnesses. To prevent
these hard-working, tax-paying families from suffering serious
hardship, it is vital that we extend our country's nutritional safety
net, the food stamp program, to more legal immigrants, particularly
immigrant children. Unlike its counterpart in the other chamber, the
nutrition title of this legislation does just that. I am proud to
support that effort.
Mr. WELLSTONE. While falling somewhat short of what I had hoped for
in terms of nutrition funding, this legislation nonetheless makes
important strides to help ensure that the most vulnerable among us are
not left without adequate nutrition in this land of plenty. Refugees
and asylees, who enter this country to escape foreign oppression, could
receive food stamps for as long as they need them without having to
worry about an arbitrary time limit such as the one in current law.
Childless unemployed adults could receive six months of food stamps
within a twenty-four month period designated by the state. This is
still a harsh provision, tougher than the provision that twice passed
the Senate in the mid-1990s with bipartisan support. Nonetheless, it
would give more people enough time to find new employment before their
food stamp eligibility runs out. The legislation also preserves a $25
million fund to help these states provide work slots to persons
reaching this time limit. The legislation also helps the very poorest
of the poor by increasing the standard deduction and by providing
transitional food stamps to persons leaving welfare because they
obtained low-paying jobs or because they reached a time limit.
Mr. LEAHY. I fully concur with and support the comments of all four
of my distinguished colleagues that have just spoken on the nutrition
title of the farm bill. In addition to the many important features of
the bill highlighted in their remarks, I would like to add that this
legislation also takes major steps to simplify the program. Households
would be permitted to report on changes in their circumstances by
filling out a simple form every six months rather than having to take
time off from work to visit the food stamp office, as often happens
today. The cumbersome recertification process would be replaced by the
same kind of redetermination process long used in the SSI and Medicaid
programs. The crucial excess shelter deduction would be retained. This
is essential to protect families in cold weather states like Vermont
from facing the cruel choice
[[Page S652]]
between heating and eating. Nonetheless, legislation would greatly
simplify the calculation of households' utility costs. States would be
given the option to conform their definitions of income and resources
in the food stamp program to those they use in other programs. This
should allow states to eliminate unnecessary questions from their
application forms. In simplifying the program, this legislation strives
to protect families in need from experiencing hardship. Simplification
should be a means of helping the program serve families better, not an
end unto itself. I believe the simplification provisions in this
legislation meet that test. As a result, this legislation makes
important progress toward simplifying the program in ways that the
benefit of State administrators and needy families alike.
MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM FUNDING
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I
filed to the farm bill that would enhance funding for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Market Access Program. I appreciate the
support and cosponsorship of Senators Feinstein, Craig, Cantwell,
Boxer, and Wyden on this amendment.
Last year, the House of Representatives passed Trade Promotion
authority by one vote, and the World Trade Organization meetings in
Doha wrapped up with an agreement to begin a new round of trade
negotiations. In Washington, D.C., and in the capitals of nation's
around the world, it appears that momentum is building to expand trade.
But in rural areas in my home State, the support for new trade
agreements is declining. Apple growers in Omak, WA and asparagus
growers in the Yakima Valley are asking tough questions about our trade
agreements.
Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in the nation. I
have supported opening new markets for our products, whether it's
airplanes or apples. I have also been a strong supporter of giving our
farmers and businesses and tools they need to compete.
The global marketplace is tough, extremely competitive, and not
always based on free market principles. Foreign governments have taken
an aggressive posture in promoting their products. We need to be
aggressive too.
One way we can be aggressive is to fully fund the Market Access
Program. MAP helps nonprofit industry groups and other qualifying
entities to conduct market promotion in foreign markets. MAP funds can
be used for advertising and other consumer promotions, market research,
and technical assistance.
In my home State of Washington, I have seen how MAP can help farmers,
cooperatives, and small businesses. For example, each year, the apple
industry receives roughly $3 million in export development funds from
the USDA Market Access Program.
These funds, matched by grower funds, are used to promote U.S. apples
in more than 20 countries throughout the world. Since 1987, when the
apple industry first used MAP funds, apple exports have increased by 88
percent. Nearly one-quarter of fresh U.S. apple production is exported
each year, with an estimated value of nearly $400 million.
If we are not aggressive, we will not gain market share.
My amendment would have modified the Senate Farm Bill to fund MAP at
$200 million by 2004, and brought the Senate bill more in line with the
House-passed Farm Bill, which funds MAP at $200 million beginning in
fiscal year 2002. While it may not be possible to fully fund MAP at
$200 million in fiscal year 2002, I strongly support funding MAP at
this level beginning in fiscal year 2003.
Mrs. MURRAY. I want to begin by thanking Senator Feinstein for her
strong advocacy for additional Market Access Program funding. I also
want to commend the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee,
Senator Harkin, for writing a strong trade title in this Farm Bill. It
is clear to me that Senator Harkin understands how critical USDA trade
programs are to our farmers and ranchers, and to hungry nations around
the world.
I am concerned, however, about the level of funding for the Market
Access Program in the early years of this Farm Bill. I was prepared to
offer an amendment to the Farm Bill to add $145 million to the Market
Access Program, so that we would fund MAP at $200 million sooner than
in the underlying bill. Unfortunately, some controversy arose over the
offset for my amendment.
I would ask Senator Feinstein if she believes we need to fund the
Market Access Program at $200 million as soon as possible in the final
Farm Bill.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree very strongly with the Senator from
Washington that we need to fund the Market Access Program at $200
million.
If American agriculture is to remain competitive, we must ensure that
our farmers are given the same support that their foreign competitors
receive.
Heavily subsidized foreign citrus entering the U.S. has quadrupled
over the last five years, significantly lowering prices domestically
for California growers. In the European Union alone, government
subsidization of the fresh produce sector reaches upwards of $15
billion each year.
The Market Access Program provides new jobs--jobs for longshoremen,
jobs in processing, jobs in transportation, and of course, jobs for
growers.
The Market Access Program is an important tool in expanding markets
for U.S. agricultural products.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that each dollar spent
on the Market Access Program results in an increase in agricultural
exports of between $2 and $7.
Small farmers especially benefit from this program because they would
not be able to break into these foreign markets on their own.
The Market Access Program helps create and protect U.S. jobs, combat
inequitable trade practices, improve the U.S. balance of trade, and
improve farm income.
I thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership on this issue.
I look forward to continuing our work together on increasing funding
for this valuable program. To the distinguished Chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, thank you for your continued help and support.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from California for her remarks. I
would ask the Senator from Iowa if he supports raising MAP funding to
$200 million as soon as possible in the final Farm Bill that is sent to
President Bush.
Mr. HARKIN. I want to thank the Senators from Washington and
California for their strong advocacy for the Market Access Program. I
believe this is an indispensable program, particularly for specialty
crop producers around the country.
To answer the question raised by the Senators from Washington and
California, I agree we need to fund MAP at $200 million. The conference
committee will have to address many difficult issues, however I believe
it is a reasonable goal to try to fund MAP at $200 million as soon as
possible, recognizing that it may take some time for USDA to ramp up
the program effectively.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his strong support for
the Market Access Program and the specialty crop growers in my state.
MILK PROTEIN CONCENTRATE
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today I planned to offer an amendment to
the Senate farm bill that would close the milk protein concentrate
loophole.
During the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the United
States agreed to allow a substantial increase in dairy product imports
into this country. Tariff-rate quotas were established to allow imports
of most dairy products to rise from an average of 2 percent of domestic
consumption to as much as 5 percent.
Until recently, these controls have been effective, but foreign
exporters now have found ways to circumvent these quotas. Importers are
adjusting the protein content of nonfat dry milk so that it is
classified by the U.S. Customs Service as milk protein concentrate, or
MPC, a product that is not limited by a tariff-rate quota
There is no tariff-rate quota on MPC because it was a relatively new
product when the Uruguay Round WTO agreement was negotiated.
In March 2001, a General Accounting Office study requested by
Congress determined that MPC imports have surged by more than 600
percent in just 6 years. MPC imports doubled between 1998 and 1999
alone. According to the GAO study, it appears that some foreign
exporters are blending previously
[[Page S653]]
processed dairy proteins, such as casein and whey, into nonfat dry milk
to boost its protein content. This is being done solely for the purpose
of avoiding the U.S. tariff-rate quota for nonfat dry milk. This
practice, specifically cited in the GAO report, circumvents statutory
regulations designed to restrict imports of nonfat dry milk powder.
I have introduced legislation, S. 847, that would close this loophole
by regulating MPC imports in the same manner all other dairy product
imports are regulated, by establishing new tariff-rate quotas on MPC.
It also would close a similar loophole that exists for casein used in
the production of food or feed, while continuing to allow unrestricted
access for imports of casein used in the manufacture of glues and for
other industrial purposes.
The Minnesota Farmers Union, the Minnesota Milk Producers, the
National Milk Producers Federation, and the National Farmers Union
strongly support this bill. I have worked closely with these
organizations over the past year to find an appropriate legislative
vehicle for my bill, and that is why I am now offering this legislation
to the Senate Farm Bill.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota for
his hard work on behalf of U.S. dairy farmers. This bill, however,
properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee.
As chair of the finance Committee, I will work with the Senator from
Minnesota to bring the issue to the attention of the Finance Committee
members and to find an appropriate legislative vehicle for his proposal
this session.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his
strong support for U.S. dairy farmers. I respectfully withdraw my plans
to offer this amendment.
____________________