[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 13 (Wednesday, February 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S675-S699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1731, which the clerk will
report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1731) to strengthen the safety net for
agricultural producers, enhance resource conservation and
rural development, to provide for farm credit, agricultural
research, nutrition, and related programs, to ensure
consumers abundant food and fiber, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Daschle (for Harkin) amendment No. 2471, in the nature of a
substitute.
Daschle motion to reconsider the vote (Vote No. 377--107th
Congress, 1st session) by which the second motion to invoke
cloture on Daschle (for Harkin) amendment No. 2471 (listed
above) was not agreed to.
Lugar (for Kyl/Nickles) amendment No. 2850 (to amendment
No. 2471), to express 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.
Lugar (for Domenici) modified amendment No. 2851 (to
amendment No. 2471), to require the Secretary of Agriculture
to make payments to milk producers.
Harkin (for Kerry/Snowe) amendment No. 2852 (to amendment
No. 2471), to provide emergency disaster assistance for the
commercial fishery failure with respect to Northeast
multispecies fisheries.
Reid (for Conrad) amendment No. 2857 (to amendment No.
2471), to express 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.
Text of Amendment 2834, as modified
On page 2, line 10, after the word ``forestry,'' insert:
``or commercial fisheries''.
Amendments Nos. 2857 and 2850
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour
of 9:40 a.m. having arrived, there will now be a total of 10 minutes
debate equally divided on the Conrad amendment No. 2857 and the Kyl
amendment No. 2850.
[[Page S676]]
Who yields time? The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if the Chair would alert me when I have
used 4 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will do so.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Conrad amendment states the following:
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 fiscal year 2003 budget
the Federal Government is projected to spend Social Security
surplus funds 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,
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.
Here is where we are. There are no surpluses left. This chart shows,
from 1992 to 2012, the fiscal condition of the country. It shows that,
while we were able to avoid using Social Security funds or most of the
Social Security funds for 4 years, we have now gone back to the old,
bad ways of taking every dime of Social Security funds for other
purposes--for the President's tax cuts and for other spending
priorities.
This is something we all pledged not to do. It is not just in the
context of the economic downturn and the war. It is a condition that
will confront us the entire rest of this decade, as this chart shows.
Where did the money go? The Congressional Budget Office tells us over
the 10-year period 42 percent of the reason for the return to deficits
is the tax cut the President proposed and pushed through Congress last
year; 23 percent is a result of the economic downturn; 18 percent
results from the additional defense and homeland security costs
necessitated by our response to the attack on our country; 17 percent
came about as a result of technical changes, largely underestimations
of the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.
Last year we were told we would have $2.7 trillion of non-trust-fund
surpluses over the next decade. That is where the President's tax came
from. Now that entire projected surplus is gone, and what we are left
with is deficits of $2.2 trillion--every dime of it being financed by
the Social Security and Medicare trust funds under the President's
proposal.
Last year we were told we would be paying down $2 trillion of debt in
the next 10 years. Now the administration informs us that will be only
$521 billion.
The consequence of more debt is that we will be paying $1 trillion
more in interest costs than we were told last year. That means $1
trillion not available to improve the defense of the country or to
strengthen homeland security or to pay down the debt.
Now the Senator from Arizona comes and says we ought to dig the hole
deeper. The Senator from Arizona says: We ought to make permanent the
estate tax elimination that was part of the tax bill last year. That
would cost $104 billion for the rest of this decade, and over the next
decade it would cost $800 billion, right at the time the baby boomers
begin retiring in large numbers.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is where we are headed. In 2016, the
Social Security trust funds turn cash negative. Then these surpluses
that are being used to pay for tax cuts and other expenses of
Government are going to vanish, and instead we will have massive
deficits.
I urge my colleagues to support the Conrad amendment, to say no to
making permanent tax cuts that would be financed out of the Social
Security trust funds. Every Member, virtually every Member, has pledged
not to do that. This is the time to reaffirm that commitment to the
integrity of the trust funds.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? The Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the problem with the argument of the Senator
from North Dakota is that there is not one shred of truth to it. It is
absolutely false to contend that we are going to be spending Social
Security surplus funds on ``permanentizing'' the repeal of the death
tax. It is simply false.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the budget estimates
from President Bush's 2003 budget submission which demonstrates this
fact.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
BUDGET ESTIMATES--PRESIDENT BUSH'S 2003 BUDGET SUBMISSION
[In billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2003-2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline non-social security surplus............................ 17 51 99 199 395 463
Effect of extending death tax repeal............................ -3 -3 -4 -25 -61 -104
Resulting non-social security surplus........................... 14 48 95 174 334 359
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: President's 2003 budget, OMB.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, what this shows is that during the period of
time we are talking about, we are going to have a non-Social Security
surplus of almost a half trillion dollars, $463 billion to be exact.
The Senator from North Dakota can't have it both ways. In his
resolution he uses these statistics to calculate how much a permanent
repeal of the death tax is going to cost and says it is $104 billion
over 10 years. That is what the budget says. But you can't use that
statistic and then ignore the other half of the equation, which is that
during the same period of time we will have a surplus of $463 billion.
That doesn't count any of the Social Security surplus.
If you subtract 104 from 463, you are not even close to getting to
the Social Security surplus. You still have a significant $359 billion
surplus, plus Social Security.
I ask my colleague this: I would be happy to support his resolution
if he would be willing to drop the clause that says it is going to cost
$104 billion over the next 10 years, all of which would further reduce
the Social Security surplus, since that is a false statement, and also
if he would drop the sentence ``Under the administration's fiscal
budget, the Federal Government is projected to spend the Social
Security surplus for other purposes in each of the next 10 years,''
because that also is demonstrably false under the President's budget
submission. Would the Senator from North Dakota be willing to drop
those provisions of his amendment, in which case I would be happy to
support it and urge my colleagues to do the same?
Mr. CONRAD. I have no intention of dropping those statements which
accurately reflect precisely what the President's budget----
Mr. KYL. If the Senator from North Dakota is not willing to amend his
resolution, then I will have to urge my colleagues not only to oppose
his resolution, because it is simply false in its recitations and is an
inaccurate portrayal of what we are going to be doing, but, secondly,
it totally misrepresents the effect of our resolution, our sense of the
Senate which is very straightforward.
It says: We voted to repeal the death tax. Let's make that permanent.
Let's not try to play games with the American people and say we did
something which we all know is only going to be in effect for 1 year
after which it sunsets.
I defer to my colleague from Oklahoma.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two minutes.
Mr. NICKLES. On the other side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Eight seconds.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Kyl-
Nickles-Gramm-Sessions amendment to make the death tax repeal
permanent. To say we are going to reduce the death tax for the next 9
years, have it go to zero in the year 2010, and then in the year 2011
we are going to have a big increase and go back to death tax rates of
50 or 60 percent is absurd. We need to make it permanent.
This is a sense of the Senate that says it should be permanent. I
believe there is a competing resolution offered by my colleague that
says: Wait a minute. This is going to take Social Security money. That
is not correct. My colleague is entitled to his own
[[Page S677]]
opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts. The facts are projected
by OMB.
The administration's estimate by OMB is that we are going to have a
$99 billion surplus in the year 2010, $199 billion in the year 2011,
and $395 billion in 2012. That is not counting Social Security. That is
over and above Social Security. Those are the administration's
estimates. So we ought to be factual. I don't mind the ``therefore, it
is the sense of the Senate that the Social Security surplus funds
should not be used to make currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or
for wasteful spending.'' Who is for wasteful spending? The part of this
that says the $110 billion would be used to reduce Social Security is
not factual.
You should not be using a death tax to pay for Social Security in the
first place. But it is not in this resolution or in the amendment
offered by my friend and colleague from Arizona.
I urge my colleagues, let's do something for agriculture that would
be positive and repeal the death tax. Talk to your farmers and ranchers
and small businesspeople. Is there something you can do to help them?
Yes, repeal the death tax. The Government should not take one-half of
somebody's property just because they die. Let's make the death tax
repeal permanent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is
recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Kyl talks about the budget
baseline. He is not talking about the President's budget. I submit the
President's budget that shows clearly it will be raiding the Social
Security trust fund by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years, and add to
it, if we pass the Kyl amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired. Under the
previous order, the question is on agreeing to the Conrad amendment No.
2857.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Bennett
Domenici
The amendment (No. 2857) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next series
of votes be 10 minutes in duration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the Kyl
amendment No. 2850.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--42
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--2
Bennett
Domenici
The amendment (No. 2850) was agreed to.
Mr. GRAMM. 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.
Amendment No. 2851, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes debate prior to a vote in relation to the Domenici amendment,
No. 2851, as modified. Who yields time?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute in favor of the amendment
to myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Domenici amendment is a straightforward
and simple amendment. It says, if we are going to have a dairy support
program in the country, it should be fair and equitable for all
dairymen. Currently, the bill provides for $2 billion, split 25 percent
for New England, although New England provides only 18 percent of the
milk. There are other inequities throughout. The Domenici amendment
simply says treat everybody the same throughout the country.
It likewise does away with a lot of bureaucratic, complex maneuvers
in terms of trying to compute this formula, changing it to a
straightforward, once-a-year payment, the same for every dairyman.
Because of the equity of the amendment and its simplicity, I commend
the amendment to Senators and ask for their vote.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Domenici amendment is a reflection of
failed policies. What it basically says is you pay dairy farmers when
markets are good. But when the markets are bad, as Senator Landrieu has
pointed out time and time again, there is too little help for our dairy
farmers. That makes absolutely no sense.
Second, we have a balanced dairy program in the bill, carefully
crafted, so that no parts of the country are discriminated against.
What the Domenici amendment does is it upsets that. It will foster
regional fights again and again and again in the future. We do not want
that. We have it carefully crafted in this bill.
Third, we just overwhelmingly voted for payment limitations, but in
the Domenici amendment, no matter how
[[Page S678]]
big you are, you can get more and more payments. There is no payment
limitation whatsoever, no matter the size of the dairy operation.
For those three reasons, I believe the Senate should turn down the
Domenici amendment and keep the underlying bill that is fair to the
whole country.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the dairy
amendment by my friend and colleague, Senator Domenici. I do believe
this amendment is an improvement to the dairy provision in the Daschle/
Harkin substitute the Senate is now considering. I urge my colleagues
to support the amendment.
I believe a market-oriented approach is the right approach for
national dairy policy. The existing price support program and the
federal milk marketing orders have served the producers and consumers
for many years and I am pleased the farm bill extends the price support
program until 2006.
The Dashle-Harkin substitute creates a new $2 billion federal dairy
payment scheme. Mr. President, the independent Food and Agricultural
Policy Research Institute has analyzed the dairy provisions in the
substitute. The analysis shows that during the five years of this farm
bill, the new federal payments will encourage overproduction and drive
down market prices. For the first two years of the farm bill, producer
income is up because of the federal payments. But by the third year,
the federal payments drop off dramatically and producers are actually
worse off for the final two years of the farm bill. Moreover, the
market prices for milk used for cheese, butter, and powdered milk are
lower every year.
I don't believe the nation will be well served by the new dairy
payment scheme in the Daschle/Harkin substitute. That's why I proposed
an amendment last month with Senator Crapo to eliminate the new dairy
payment program. Our amendment failed on a vote of 51 to 47.
Though I do not support creating any new dairy payment program, I
support this modest amendment because it recognizes the fact that the
dairy industry in America has become one national market. Today, milk
and milk products are transported long distances economically to meet
the needs of consumers in every state. Mr. President, competition
encourages efficiency and consumers benefit from national markets.
Unfortunately, the bill as it now is divides the country into two
markets. One for 12 Northeast States where producers receive one
federal payment for their milk and another one for producers in the
other States with a different federal payment. No other agricultural
commodity is treated this way in this farm bill. Producers in the 12
States will receive 25 percent of the federal payments, though they
produce less than 18 percent of the nation's milk. Moreover, farmers in
the 12 States are guaranteed a payment of nearly $17 dollars per
hundredweight, while payments elsewhere are based on a fraction of the
market rates and undoubtedly will be substantially lower. This
amendment combines the two regions and treats producers in every State
equally.
Another concern I have with the underlying language is that it is not
fair to all farmers. Federal payments would be capped at 8 million
pounds, which will put producers in New Mexico at a serious
disadvantage in marketing their milk. Because of the cap, producers in
New Mexico would receive an average of less than 20 cents per
hundredweight for their milk--48th out of the 50 States. Only farmers
in Arizona and Wyoming would do worse than New Mexico. Under our
amendment, all producers are paid at the same rate.
Finally, we have not fully considered the boundary effects of the new
dairy payment scheme. What's going to happen to producers in States
like Ohio and Virginia, which border the 12-State region? Will the
higher federal payment to producers inside the region hurt the
producers just outside the region? Under our amendment, there are no
boundary effects because there is only a single, nation-wide payment
rate.
New Mexico has one of the nation's fastest growing dairy industries,
more than tripling in the past 10 years. In 2001, New Mexico moved up
from the tenth to the eighth largest dairy producing State. More
recently New Mexico has moved into seventh place. A recent study by Dr.
Michael Looper of New Mexico State University showed the dairy industry
payroll in New Mexico in 2000 was $25 million per year and the total
annual economic impact in the State was $1.6 billion. In Chavez County
alone, the economic impact of milk production was a whopping $527
million per year. Dairy is now a critical element of my State's
economy, especially in rural areas. I cannot support any new federal
program that could endanger New Mexico's vibrant dairy industry.
New Mexico tends to have large, efficient dairies, which are the big
losers under the current dairy proposal. These are family-owned dairies
in rural areas--just like in the other States. They are bigger because
New Mexico has the land and resources to support larger dairies. This
amendment is good for the diary farmers in New Mexico and a positive
improvement to the underlying bill because it treats farmers in every
State equally.
I believe we should work toward a balanced national dairy policy that
is fair to all farmers, not one that pits one State against another and
large dairies against small producers.
I hope the Senate will soon complete work on this farm bill and I
look forward to working with Chairman Harkin to further improve the
dairy programs as the bill moves to conference. I do believe this
amendment is a step in the right direction
I commend Senator Domenici for his amendment and urge my colleagues
to support it.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I spoke on the floor in December about
how devastating the original farm bill would have been to the
California diary industry. And I have said California cannot be left
out of any dairy equation.
California is the largest dairy State in the nation. Last year,
California dairy farmers produced 32.2 billion pounds of milk--over 19
percent of the nation's supply. With over 2,100 dairy farms in the
state, California leads the Nation in total number of milk cows at
approximately 1.5 million. The original bill agreed to in the
Agriculture Committee would have cost California dairy farmers $1.5
billion over 9 years and driven up prices for consumers by $1.5 billion
over 9 years.
The bill on the floor, however, will hold California harmless. While
it is difficult to project exactly how much income California dairy
farmers will receive, I believe that by supporting the dairy language
in the farm bill, an even better result can be achieved for
California's dairy farmers. I wish to thank a number of Senators for
working together to find a way that the California dairy industry can
be held harmless by the dairy provisions in the farm bill.
While the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico might seem
like a better deal for California than what has been agreed to in the
farm bill, I believe the California dairy industry will be better off
in the long run if I continue to support the careful balance achieved
during the farm bill debate in December. In theory, the amendment
offered by the Senator from New Mexico would be good for California
because there are no caps, or limitations, on the size of the dairies
that will qualify for payments.
However, the California dairy industry is at the point where they
believe, like many other farm groups, that we need to get a farm bill
passed in the Senate and get to conference. Voting against the Domenici
amendment will allow us to pass a bill. A vote for the amendment will
bring it down. I will keep a close eye on the conference negotiations
and expect California to continue to be held harmless, or made better
off.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to table the Domenici amendment. 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 motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
[[Page S679]]
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--42
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bingaman
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nickles
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Bennett
Domenici
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2852
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Kerry-Snowe
amendment No. 2852.
Who yields time?
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am delighted to cosponsor Senator Kerry's
important amendment which would provide necessary assistance to a
collapsing commercial groundfish fishery. I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting it.
This amendment addresses a very serious problem facing the Northeast,
a collapse of its groundfish fishery. This fishery provided over 80
million pounds of food for our Nation last year. This collapse is
comparable to a crop failure and is equally deserving of our
assistance.
The Federal Government has issued three times the number of permits
as the fishery can sustain. The fishermen are now being held
accountable for the government's actions and subjected to draconian
management measures as a result. We need to help them permanently
remove some of this extra capacity.
In particular, the fishermen who rely on catching cod and other
groundfish are in need of assistance. This amendment provides $10
million in disaster assistance for these commercial fisherman. It will
bring much needed help to those fishermen who need and more importantly
want help.
As a voluntary program, this amendment will extend a helping hand to
those fishermen who wish to make a transition and permanently exit the
multispecies groundfish fishery in the Northeast by giving the Federal
Government the means to provide assistance. Additionally, I have worked
with Senator Kerry to develop language that ensure the equitable and
efficient distribution of this aid.
In my home State of Maine, fishing is an integral part of our
livelihood, a common thread that runs along our coast and throughout
the State. Unfortunately, we are at a time where fisheries in Maine are
in trouble and in need of help. This amendment would provide the needed
help.
It is not often that we are presented with a win-win situation, like
we are here. Not only will this amendment provide the funding and
flexibility needed to help fisherman, but it will promote conservation
of the fishery.
I am pleased to support an amendment that will provide the necessary
funding and framework to meet one of the many challenges facing our
fisherman. Again, I would like to thank Senator Kerry for sponsoring
this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Kerry-Snowe
amendment, and thank Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe for their
leadership in bringing this important proposal before the United States
Senate.
The Atlantic Northeast Multispecies Fishermen Permit Buyback Program
established under this amendment would allow hard-working New England
fishermen to retire from this economically stressed industry with
dignity, while the work continues to rebuild our fish stocks to
sustainable levels.
This fishermen's permit buyback will help end the cycle of boom and
bust that plagues our fisheries and assist in developing a long-term
sustainable fishery in New England.
Fishing has been an important industry in the United States. In my
own state of Massachusetts, as in other states, it is a trade that is
rich in tradition. Generation after generation of families has passed
on their knowledge of this trade to their children. So it is not just a
key part of our economy. It is also as much a part of our heritage as
the family farm.
Many port cities across the country rely on fishing as their main
industry. This is particularly true in Massachusetts. The city of New
Bedford, Massachusetts is the second biggest fishing port in the United
States. And we have in our state more than 10,000 fishermen who rely on
the sea to earn a living and care for their families.
Over the past few years, we have taken a number of steps to help
these hardworking families and this important industry.
The fishermen in Massachusetts did not have health insurance until
the State and Federal Government intervened. In fact, even though this
is one of the most dangerous occupations in the world, our fishermen
did not have health insurance until 1998. Today, as a result of our
efforts, 800 fishermen and their families now have health care.
Fishermen have also suffered because of Federal regulations. As a
result of federal actions over the past decade, fishing has declined,
and the incomes of these families has plummeted as a result.
In recent times, the National Marine Fishing Service has taken steps
to help rebuild the fish stocks. The fishing season has been shortened
from twelve months to six months and there are catch limits to prevent
overfishing of fragile stocks.
At the same time, fishermen have adapted to the changes and working
with scientists at the National Marine Fishing Service to help both the
fishermen and the government to better understand the steps necessary
to protect fishing stocks, while protecting fishing jobs.
For example, in 1999, the scallop industry off George's Bank was set
to be closed because it was believed that the scallop stocks were
depleted. Scientists and the fishermen worked with NASA to obtain
satellite photographs of scallop beds of George's Bank. They were able
to get accurate pictures of the scallop beds and found that stocks were
full.
This past year the scallop industry logged a record year, with
profits over $350 million. This is an example of how science has helped
the fishing industry, and is the kind of cooperation that should be
supported.
The fishermen have also made changes to their equipment to minimize
damage to the environment and fishing stocks.
Preserving this historic industry will be an ongoing challenge. And
the Kerry-Snowe amendment moves us ahead in meeting that challenge.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have examined this amendment on our
side, and we have no objection to this amendment. We are willing to
accept this amendment to help the fisheries in the northeastern part of
the United States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept this amendment.
We are hopeful that the fisheries that will be helped by it will move
toward a healthier situation generally for fishing in New England.
We have consulted with our Senators from New England. This is a very
important issue for them and to others in the industry. For these
reasons, we are prepared to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
[[Page S680]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2852.
The amendment (No. 2852) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. 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. 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. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, during these moments while we are
attempting to work out the managers' amendment, I would like to take a
few minutes to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee,
Senator Harkin, and his staff for their remarkable work and cooperation
with members of our staff as we have worked in the Agriculture
Committee. I thank also the leaders, Senator Daschle and Senator Lott,
Senator Nickles, and particularly Senator Reid, who has guided this
process with great persuasion and effectiveness.
I wanted to mention by name each of the members of the Agriculture
Committee minority staff to whom I am greatly indebted for their
expertise, their faithfulness, and their patience. I commend Katie
Boots, Danny Spellacy, Andy Morton, Carol Dubard, Chris Salisbury, Beth
Bechdol, Dave Johnson, Erin Shaw, Michael Knipe, Walt Lukken, Terri
Nintemann, Jeff Burnam, Andy Fisher, Mark Tyndall, and Keith Luse, who
has headed this effort so ably.
We have also had detailees to the committee. From GAO, we had Pat
Sweeney, and from USDA, Carol Olander, Dave White, and Benjamin Young.
I thank them all, as I know my colleagues do, for their remarkable
work.
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. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I apologize to my colleagues for holding
up the proceedings of the Senate on this very important legislation,
but at some point someone has to say ``enough.''
When I first came to the Senate, which was not as long ago as a
number of the other Members, a package of technical amendments was
sometimes two, three, four, five amendments that were purely technical
in nature. We now have a new Senate record. This package of technical
amendments, the managers' package which has been subject to neither
debate nor discussion by any Member of this body, is now 396 pages
long. It has 137 amendments. Billions of dollars are in the managers'
package.
I want to repeat, it is longer than the original House bill. There
are authorizations from nutrient reduction pilot programs to a
technical correction to the wildlife incentive program changes from
$350,000 to $50 million a year in fiscal year 2007. None of these has
been debated and discussed, that I know of.
I have selected three that are particularly egregious, on which we
will have votes. I would like to say I am familiar with the details of
these three amendments on which I am seeking votes, but I am not,
because they are technical amendments in a package. In fact, I am
interested to see the Senator from Wisconsin in the Chamber because he
has sort of been a triggering mechanism to what I am doing right now.
When we had an appropriations bill and I said, ``Who has seen the
managers' package?'' no one said a word, and because it was late at
night, I let it go. There were 15 amendments in a managers' package
which was millions of dollars earmarked for specific States. I said I
would not let that happen again.
Now we have a bill, as I say, a managers' package, which is 396 pages
long with 137 amendments. We have been working on this bill for months,
as the majority leader pointed out to me. We saw 100 of the amendments
last night. We did not see the additional 30 technical amendments until
10 minutes before we were supposed to vote. We cannot operate this way.
We cannot operate this way with the taxpayers' money.
If anyone has ever seen a package of technical amendments that
exceeds this, I would like to hear from them. I do know what a
managers' package is supposed to be, and that is some technical
amendments that make technical corrections, not amendments such as No.
127, which adds a section authorizing a technical assistance program
for geographically disadvantaged farmers. Do you have that? This is a
technical assistance program for geographically disadvantaged farmers,
$10 million a year between 2002 and 2006. This is in a managers'
package. There are Delta regional economic development grants,
additional nutrition technology in the delta region, of $7 million a
year. And a pilot program for the Chesapeake Bay until 2006, $70
million.
I am sure these may be good programs. They may be very beneficial.
Particularly in the case of the Chesapeake Bay, they may be very
important. What is it doing in a managers' package? What is it doing
with 130 other amendments in a managers' package?
I will ask for votes on these three amendments. They will, I am sure,
be resoundingly carried. I tell my colleagues, the next time we do
this, we will have extended debate and discussion and second-degree
amendments. It has to stop. My constituents deserve the right to know
what is in these amendments. When they are talking about $10, $20, $70
million in an amendment, they should not be in a so-called managers'
package.
I don't want to impede the progress of the Senate too long, but I
cannot allow this practice to continue. The Senator from Kansas is
here. He was the manager of major legislation. I ask if the Senator
from Kansas has ever seen a bill with this kind of a managers' package
in it? I ask unanimous consent for the Senator from Kansas to respond.
Mr. ROBERTS. I am happy to respond to the distinguished Senator from
Arizona. The answer is: No.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will be glad to address the first
amendment. We will have short debate and discussion. As I said, I would
like to debate it at length, but I don't know anything about it. That
is the reason I am forcing a vote. Maybe we will know something about
these various amendments.
I say again to my colleagues, this is not the right way to do the
people's business. It is not the right way to do the people's business,
a 396-page package of managers' amendments that are supposed to be
technical in nature. I am glad to vote on whichever amendment the
distinguished managers choose to bring forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I think the Senator from Arizona has
an excellent point. I know people are working hard to try to get the
bill completed. There are things in the bill that I think are very good
and there are things in the bill I do not agree with at all. There are
some amendments that a number of people are concerned about that are
important, that are legitimate.
I don't think in the effort of expediency we should be throwing
everything in this package. I would hope to have a much more
deliberative process in this bill and future bills on something so
important to my State, so important to many of the States.
I realize the managers are pressed to get a bill through in a timely
fashion. That is important. But on such an extensive bill I don't think
we are serving the people's business well to move through it so
rapidly. Maybe we have to go longer in the evenings, voting at night,
to get some of these amendments done. This is important legislation. It
should not be rushed.
Regarding this bill, there is some of it with which I agree; much of
it I do
[[Page S681]]
not. I hope we do not follow this procedure when we move forward with
future pieces of legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I defer for a moment before I propound a
unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I will respond to the Senator from
Arizona on the issue he has raised.
I agree fully with the necessity of openness and providing an
opportunity for review, and we have certainly sought to do that to make
this amendment available. At the same time, we cannot operate as the
Senate unless we have an element of trust in those who have been
appointed or elected to lead our committees on both the majority and
the minority side. That is why we as a Senate delegate to committees
both the authority and the responsibility to develop legislation, to
have hearings, to come up with the bills and to bring them on the
floor.
I ask any Senator, how could we ever operate as a Senate if every
line, every paragraph, every little item in every bill had to be fully
debated and discussed and if every Senator is obliged to sit down and
go through and debate every item on the floor? It is impossible. That
is why we have built up a system involving openness but also trust.
That is why when we receive a request for an amendment, if a senator
comes from one side and says, he or she wants to put this amendment in
the bill, in the managers' amendment, I look at it to make my judgment
and then go to Senator Lugar, the Ranking Member on the other side. I
say: Someone on our side is suggesting they want to do this; would you
take a look at it, talk to your staff, go to whomever you want to on
your side and look it over. I go to Senators on my side and see if
there are any objections. If no one raises any objections, and it is
good policy we put it in the managers' amendment.
We also are careful that items added through the managers to the bill
are not of such major importance that they substantially affect the
underlying legislation. That is true of the amendments in here.
The Senator spoke about billions of dollars being in the managers'
amendment. That is simply not so. We have kept within the budget
allocation. Nothing in the managers' amendment goes beyond our budget
allocation. I asked my staff to add up the total in the managers'
amendment, all of the items in there. That is, what additional cost is
in the managers' amendment that is not in the pending legislation
already? It adds up to only about $38 million more over 10 years in
mandatory spending than is already in the underlying bill. It is not
billions of dollars: $38 million over 10 years. These are items that
are not large. There are some technical changes, adjustments and so
forth. But it is a very small amount of money when you consider we are
talking about a $73.5 billion bill.
I say to my friend from Arizona, we must operate on a system of trust
around here. Obviously, with trust there has to be sunshine. The
underlying bill and earlier versions of the managers' amendment have
been out there for quite some time. Additional amendments were recently
added in order to wrap up the bill. These were available for anyone to
see. In addition to the checking I described earlier, any Senate staff
or any Senator who wants to come see what is in the managers' package
can at any time. They just need to ask. There is no secrecy. That is
the way we operate.
I hope the Senator from Arizona is not saying from now on, no matter
how available and open we make the process, we will not trust anyone.
We cannot trust Senator Lugar; we cannot trust Senator Harkin; we
cannot trust Senator Kohl; we cannot trust Senator Roberts. Everything
has to be brought onto the Senate floor for every Senator to debate and
vote on the most minute detail. We would never get anything done in
this Chamber.
This managers' amendment has been carefully drafted. It has been
vetted. It has been fully aired and exposed to the sunshine. It has
been out there for people to see as it has been drafted. I did not go
to the Senator from Arizona and----
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield for a question.
Mr. McCAIN. The fact is, we didn't see 30 of these amendments until
10 minutes before the vote. So how can the Senator say they are out
there when we did not see them? We have asked to see them. We have told
him we want to see them. It is well known we want to see them. How in
the world can the Senator from Iowa say they have been out there when
we didn't see them until this morning, and we didn't see the other
hundred until last night? The Senator from Iowa is simply not stating
the facts as they are.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Arizona that my staff tells me
that as they have developed the managers' amendment over the last few
months, staff has made available the various versions. That they have
been e-mailed out constantly to the staff of Agriculture Committee
members, so that any one who wanted to, at any point in time, could
have seen what was being requested and considered as an amendment. As
for the later amendments, we have done the best we can to make them
available as soon as possible. Again, both Senator Lugar and I have
signed off on them and worked with members on our respective sides.
Finally, the amendment and a summary of it is available for review. We
are operating under a consensus approach to this managers' amendment.
If there is an objection to putting something in the managers'
amendment it does not go in. That is exactly the process that applied
to the Kerry-Snowe fisheries amendment. It was our understanding that
the Senator from Arizona did not want that amendment in the managers'
amendment so we have dealt with it separately on the floor this
morning.
Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield further, we did not see 30 of
the amendments until this morning. They were not available to anyone.
It is a fact. Just as no one had seen the 15 amendments that were
earmarked in the appropriations bill I complained about. No one had
seen them. It is a fact.
Mr. HARKIN. I do not agree with the characterization by the Senator
from Arizona. There were not 30 amendments to the managers' amendment
dropped on the Senate just this morning--that is a fact. Some
additional work on the managers' amendment occurred last evening. That
is the nature of putting together such a substantial bill as this
legislation is. But any modifications were signed off on and accepted
by the minority staff. They have been available for review. And I am
told that most of them, were e-mailed out at around 6 o'clock last
night.
Mr. McCAIN. One hundred were mailed out last night at 6 o'clock, and
then 30 more came in this morning. That is a little bit different
version of the facts.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator, I have checked again with my staff.
There were no where near 30 amendments of a substantial nature that
came in this morning.
Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to get a list of those we were given this
morning. There are 30 that we were given shortly before the vote, the
final vote on the bill that we were apprised of that we had asked for.
Mr. HARKIN. I am not certain what that is all about. I am told there
may have been some after 6 p.m. But, again, I say to the Senator from
Arizona, these were cleared on both sides. We never kept any from
Senator Lugar. He never kept any from us--not on either side. We have
had our staffs look at them. We have checked with other members. That
is what I am talking about--openness and availability but also trust
and trusting whether or not committee chairmen and their staffs are
sensitive enough, and ranking members are sensitive enough, to say: We
don't need to burden the entire Senate with this. We can make a
judgment, check as appropriate and make the amendment available.
I also say to my friend from Arizona, even though these are in the
managers' package--first of all, it is not billions, it is $38 million,
I say to my friend.
Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to discuss that with the Senator from
Iowa. No. 18 is changed from $375,000 to $355 million, and change
$50,000 to $50 million. That is just amendment No. 18.
[[Page S682]]
Mr. HARKIN. This was a clear technical amendment. If you look at the
underlying bill you will see that previous fiscal year funding was all
in the millions. The fact that the latter years were in thousands is
obviously a typographical mistake. This did not add any money to the
managers' package because it already was scored by CBO as being in the
millions.
I say further to my friend----
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a dialog with the
Senator, if that is agreeable? I just want to make sure we observe the
rules of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a dialog with
the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. I am not sure what you would like to debate here.
Mr. McCAIN. It says technical correction in the Wildlife Habitat
Incentive Program, technical correction, mandatory funding language,
change it from $375,000 to $355 million, in fiscal year 2006; and
change $50,000 to $50 million in fiscal year 2007.
Obviously, this is a technical change. Obviously, it is a change of
many millions of dollars.
Mr. HARKIN. May I respond? I asked my staff about that. At a cursory
reading, as the Senator has done, he says: My gosh, we are going from
$375,000 to $355 million in a managers' amendment.
Here is what that is about. In the underlying substitute, there was
either a typographical error or a mistake made. It was listed in the
legislative language as $375,000, but it was known by everyone to be
$375 million, as it was scored by CBO as the correct amount. As I
pointed our earlier, if you look at all the funding for WHIP in context
it makes sense. There was just a mistake made. So we are correcting the
mistake in the underlying bill. A shift was also made of $20 million
from WHIP in the managers' amendment, but that did not add to the score
in the managers' amendment.
I say to my friend from Arizona, it has already been scored.
Mr. McCAIN. You are still correcting in the underlying bill some $400
million.
Mr. HARKIN. No, there is $375 million already in the underlying bill
that has been scored by CBO.
Mr. McCAIN. Plus $50 million. I don't care if it has been scored by
CBO or not, it is not in the underlying bill.
Mr. HARKIN. It is in the underlying bill as fully understood. The
managers' amendment is only a technical correction to conform to the
clear understanding.
Mr. McCAIN. Then you don't need the technical correction. I ask
unanimous consent to eliminate technical amendment No. 18.
Mr. HARKIN. I object. Because it is clearly a technical correction
that you have taken out of context. What you contend is that real money
has been added in the managers' amendment and that is not true. What
CBO scores does matter because CBO recognized the typo and we fixed it
in the managers' amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HARKIN. In the underlying bill, the amount of money for the
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program funding language was scored by CBO
at $375 million. It was a printing error that was made in the text of
the bill, it is mistakenly listed as $375,000 in the underlying bill.
Look at all the previous funding levels--they are all in the millions.
The technical correction here is to make the underlying bill comport
with what CBO has already scored. That is what technical corrections
are for.
So I say to my friend from Arizona, if this is illustrative of the
problems he has with managers' amendments, I say again, that is why you
have to have some trust in the ranking member and in the chairman and
our respective staffs, that we are operating above board with openness
but also that we are only proposing technical corrections and matters
that are acceptable to both sides and not objected to by any member.
Mr. McCAIN. Let me repeat. It's a technical amendment that adds some
$400 million.
Here is another one, authorized to be appropriated, $7 million for
each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2006. That is another ``technical
amendment.''
But the larger issue here is--the larger issue is why do we need 396
pages of technical corrections to a bill which is larger than the
entire House bill and has 130-some technical corrections? There is
something wrong here. There is something fundamentally wrong.
I say to the Senator from Iowa, I have been here almost as long as he
has--not as long. I have never seen bills that required trust of 396
pages and 130 technical amendments. I have never seen any other farm
bill that did, nor has the Senator from Kansas, who used to shepherd
these bills through the House.
I am supposed to trust a managers' amendment of 396 pages? I am glad
to trust, but in the words of a former President of the United States,
``trust but verify'' because time after time after time, I have seen
amendments put in that are earmarks, specifically for specific areas,
specific States, specific congressional districts. I have seen them
time after time. It is not only me who is objecting to that. The
Citizens Against Government Waste and the Taxpayers Union and every
other watchdog organization condemn this practice, and so do I.
I say to the Senator from Iowa, again, I don't know what is done with
Agriculture Committee members or Agriculture Committee staff. I know I
have had a longstanding request to see any amendments, and particularly
any technical amendments. Either the Senator from Iowa or his staff did
not show us those amendments until last night. And there were a number
of amendments that were added as short a time as a half hour before the
final vote.
Your staff can deny it, but it is a fact. So I will not sit still for
that kind of procedure. That is why we will have these votes. I am
sorry the Senator does not like the fact that I don't trust 130-some
amendments I have never seen that cover 396 pages. I think my
constituents deserve better than me ``trusting''--particularly given
all the earmarking and pork-barreling I have seen going on, on the
increase over the past several years.
I cannot debate these amendments very well because, as I said, I have
not seen them because they were not shown to me or other Members of the
Senate. That is pretty much the situation. I am sure many of them are
virtuous, but the fact is there is all kinds of money and programs in
here.
There are interesting things in here. There is one, No. 110: Adds
``gender'' to the list of socially disadvantaged groups covered by
section 2501, the outreach program for socially disadvantaged farmers.
Could the Senator, just out of curiosity, tell me what a socially
disadvantaged farmer is?
Madam President, will the Senator from Iowa yield for a question?
What is a ``socially disadvantaged farmer''?
Mr. HARKIN. I know the Senator is being a little provocative to make
his point. That is OK. There is an existing program to help farmers,
including minority farmers, who because of circumstances have a harder
time getting credit and making a go of it in farming. While the
socially disadvantaged program covers minority farmers, there was not a
mention of gender, at least for all of the USDA programs involved. It
came to the attention of a member--not me, but someone who wanted us to
do this--that women were not adequately covered in existing law. This
was just a correction to put in that program the definition that gender
is a basis on which someone may qualify for assistance under the
socially disadvantaged program. That way, along with other
disadvantaged groups the law would include gender so women in
agriculture would receive fair treatment and opportunity. It seems to
me to be a very harmless type of provision to put in there. Again, I
don't understand why that should be such a big item. We cleared it on
both sides.
I hope the Senator is not saying that every time--maybe he is saying
this but I do not know--an amendment comes to the managers' package
that has been cleared on both sides and is mailed out that we have to
send a message to his office specifically asking him to look at it. The
process is open. If the Senator wants to have his staff come over at
any time, the door is open. They can look at any amendment they want.
[[Page S683]]
Mr. REID. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. Without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. REID. If I may correct something, I listened to this. I had a
heart-to-heart discussion with the Senator from Arizona earlier today.
I think that maybe I am partially to blame for what has gone on. I say
that because I have been here with the two managers of the bill for
several weeks. The Senator from Arizona is right. I do not know which
bill it was, but it was one of the last bills we had before the new
year. The Senator asked me if I would in the future when there was a
managers' package notify him or his staff. He did ask me that. There is
no question about that. Last night I should have done that, and I
didn't do that. It is not Senator Harkin's fault or Senator Lugar's
fault. But the Senator from Arizona did come to me the last time we had
this problem and I told him I would do that. I didn't do it. It is
certainly nothing that is deceptive. I simply didn't do it. I forgot.
One of the reasons is that I have such great confidence in the two
managers of the bill. I do not know on the minority side if there is a
Senator who I have such great respect for than Senator Lugar. This man
is top of the line. He has worked very closely with us on this bill, as
my friend, Senator Harkin, has spoken about many times.
I don't think we need to discuss it here today. I think the Senator
from Arizona has a right to be concerned, but his concern should be
directed towards me, because, in fact, the last time he indicated he,
in the future, was going to raise objections to the managers'
amendment. I should have brought this to his attention.
When we talked earlier today, he indicated he wanted to offer
amendments to each one of these. I indicated that the unanimous consent
agreement wouldn't allow that.
Certainly the Senator from Arizona can do whatever he wishes, but I
think we can get to the heart of this if he makes a motion to strike
each of these three things about which he is concerned. I think his
points will be very well taken.
When this happens again, I will do my best to make sure that he or
his staff are aware of the managers' package. I don't want the Senator
from Iowa or the Senator from Indiana to be blamed for any of this. I
should have on my own brought this to the attention of the Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, if I might reclaim my time, I thank the
Senator from Nevada for that. I harbor no ill will at all. I have great
respect for the Senator from Arizona. He knows that. I am just trying
to be as open as possible. We all know that legislative matters and
requests for changes do come up throughout the process of putting a
bill together. Some do come in late, but that is the right of senators
to request modifications. However, nobody is trying to ram anything
through that people don't know about.
I will say to my friend from Arizona that this managers's amendment
has been scrubbed and checked carefully, but there is another stopgap
within this process just in case something gets through inadvertently
that may not have been obvious or to which someone had a serious
objection but had not raised it for some reason. We have to go to
conference. Everything in this bill and managers' amendment is out
there in that conference. Everything is out there for everybody to see.
I say to my friend that there is another level which we are going
through. This amendment and this bill are not the final word.
That is the only point I am trying to make.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I appreciate his
comments on this issue. I say to the Senator from Iowa that I would
like to trust everything that goes through this body. I can tell you
too many stories of things that went through without my knowledge that
cost the taxpayers a whole lot of money. I will tell you about one.
Put into an appropriations bill was a provision that two ships would
be built in Pascagoula, MS, in return for which there would be
exclusive rights for those ships to sail to the Hawaiian Islands. I
never saw that amendment until after it was done. Associated with that
was over $1 billion in loan guarantees from the Maritime
Administration. I never saw the amendment. The outfit just went
bankrupt. The taxpayers have already spent some $300 million-plus which
they lost from those loan guarantees, and they stand to lose over $1
billion. I am sure it was a well-meant and a well-intentioned amendment
to help both Mississippi and the Hawaiian Islands. I knew it would fail
because I know enough about shipbuilding in the United States of
America.
Those are the kinds of things that happen time after time--maybe not
of that magnitude--because of amendments, which are well-intentioned
and probably good in many respects but don't undergo the scrutiny and
the hearings and the authorizations necessary to prevent that from
happening put into these pieces of legislation.
That proposal I told you about would have never cleared either the
Commerce Committee or the Armed Services Committee. It never would have
gotten through. It was stuck in an appropriations bill, which we do
time after time. The night I was here, I asked: Does anybody know what
is in the managers' package? No. It was late at night. So I said: OK. I
don't object. There were 15 earmarks of millions of dollars for
specific States. That is my taxpayers' money, too.
I say to the Senator that this system is broken. We are now up to
8,000 earmarks on appropriations bills. That is up from less than 2,000
3 years ago. It is wrong. It is just wrong. It is wrong from the
standpoint of fiscal discipline and budgetary reasons, but it is also
wrong in the respect that these matters need to go through the proper
authorizing and appropriations process. At least this is an
authorization bill.
I thank the Senator from Nevada for his comments. I am very grateful
for the courtesy that he has shown me, not only now but for many years.
I withdraw my requirement to object and to seek to strike these three
amendments, and I will agree to go to final passage.
But I say to the Senator from Iowa one more time that this is
unprecedented with 396 pages of technical amendments in the managers'
package. It is wrong and 1,130-plus technical amendments is wrong. It
is not the right way for us to do business. I hope we can do better in
the future.
I yield the floor. I am prepared to move to final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Iowa.
Amendment No. 2859
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up the amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself and Mr.
Lugar, proposes an amendment numbered 2859.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in the Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2859.
The amendment (No. 2859) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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. Without objection, the substitute amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2471), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is about to
complete action on this farm bill. While the bill has some positive and
helpful provisions, particularly with respect to
[[Page S684]]
conservation, rural development, research, and nutrition, I plan to
vote against the bill.
One of the primary objectives of farm legislation should be to
improve the predictability and effectiveness of the financial safety
net available to farmers. However, the payment limitation amendment
that was adopted by the Senate will reduce the level of price support
and shred the safety-net that our farmers need. According to the
Congressional Research Service, cotton farmers would be able to receive
benefits on approximately 880 acres, and rice farmers would be able to
receive benefits on about 490 acres. Any additional acreage planted to
these commodities would not be eligible for any government assistance.
Since 1985, the marketing loan program has been the centerpiece of
our Nation's farm policy. The marketing loan program provides reliable
and predictable income support for farmers while allowing U.S.
commodities to be competitive in the global market. This legislation
will make the marketing loan program completely useless.
Considering the bleak forecast for the farm economy, it does not
stand to reason that Congress should pass legislation that imposes new
rules and regulations which will restrict government assistance so
drastically.
I hope we can resolve the differences we have over this bill in
conference with the House and bring back a truly beneficial farm bill.
I pledge my best efforts to achieve that result.
Preservation of Land for John Ogonowski
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Harkin for his
effective work on this legislation. I particularly commend Senator
Harkin for his leadership in including programs in this farm bill that
will help farmers across the Nation, including those in the Northeast.
I would like to take a few moments to speak about John Ogonowski, the
courageous pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, which was hijacked by
terrorists on September 11th and which crashed into the first tower of
the World Trade Center that day. At the time of his tragic death, John
Ogonowski had been working tirelessly to preserve 33 acres of land that
had once been part of the Ogonowski farm in Dracut, MA. The Farmland
Protection Program serves as a vehicle to help preserve farmland, and I
hope that the funds from that program can be used to preserve the land
that John cared so much about. I hope that we can make John's dream
come true.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will be honored to work with the Senator
to try to preserve the land in memory of John Ogonowski who was a proud
farmer and a brave man. The land in Dracut, MA would stand as a fitting
memorial to him. I will work, as the bill progresses, to encourage the
use of Farmland Protection Program funds for this important cause.
Mr. KENNEDY. The land in Dracut is along a road that is traveled by
many families, commuters, and tourists. All those who pass by the land
will know of John Ogonowski's life and his family's love of farming.
John farmed these fields for many years as a young man and was often
seen riding on his John Deere tractor with a wave and a smile for those
he passed. His family continues to maintain substantial farmland in the
community, but John was deeply concerned about this portion that had
been sold recently. To John, the original Ogonowski farm was one of the
wonders of the world, and John had worked skillfully and tirelessly to
create the Dracut Land Trust to preserve it. Now, in a well-deserved
tribute to John Ogonowski, we will work to help the Dracut Land Trust
preserve these 33 beautiful acres.
Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to clarify that it is the
intent of this provision to encourage the development of innovative
solutions to the nutrient pollution problem in the Chesapeake Bay. The
principal focus of the program, as envisioned by Bay-area scientists
and organizations, is to create new incentives for farmers to reduce
the application of nitrogen by at least 15 percent below what is
normally considered best practice and to provide financial protection
in the event of reduced yields. In order to implement the provision, it
is my expectation that the Risk Management Agency will make available
the Nutrient BMP Insurance Endorsement that was approved by the Federal
Crop Insurance Corporation on December 12, 2001 in the states of the
Chesapeake Bay region, with such modifications as necessary to
effectuate the purposes of this section.
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. The purpose of this provision is
to support the development of new and innovative solutions to the
Chesapeake Bay's nutrient over-enrichment problem. It provides $70
million for States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to test new
practices that could provide major reductions in nutrient pollution. It
will clearly require an underlying risk management instrument and we
would expect the Risk Management Agency to make its programs available
to implement the yield insurance aspect of this provision. I will be
happy to work with the Senator from Maryland in Conference to ensure
that the mechanisms to carry out this provision are created or made
available.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chairman of the Committee. This provision
is a win-win situation for the Bay and farmers. It will reduce nutrient
inputs to the Bay and it will enable farmers to lower their operating
costs by avoiding the cost of unneeded fertilizer, without risking loss
of a portion of their crops. Experience gained in this pilot program
will allow better understanding of risks and benefits of this practice.
technical assistance providers
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the section
on certification of third party technical providers allows the
Secretary to certify providers. The legislative language, regarding the
certifying programs run by the United States Department of Agriculture
is designed so that the USDA does not run the programs in a manner that
directly or indirectly undermines the ability of private, long-
standing, and highly regarded certification programs like those
operated by the Certified Crop Advisors and National Alliance of
Independent Crop Consultants.
The intention of the conservation title, and especially this section,
as I understand it, ensures that the Nation's farmers and ranchers will
be able to continue to receive high quality conservation technical
assistance, and that there will be enough technical assistance to allow
the complete and proper delivery of the conservation programs funded in
the farm bill.
In addition, it is my understanding that the Secretary of Agriculture
will consult with and be advised by representatives from federal,
state, and local agencies as well as representatives from the private
and non-profit sectors on an Advisory Council. It is expected that in
selecting representatives, the Secretary shall appoint representatives
from the following groups: Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Forest Service and Farm Service Agency, the National Association of
Conservation Districts, the Certified Crop Advisors, the National
Association of State Foresters, the National Alliance of Independent
Crop Consultants and the American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Together with other appointed members of the Advisory Council, these
representatives will advise the Secretary of the management of
certification programs for the provision of technical assistance by
third party providers.
Mr. LUGAR. I agree with Senator Roberts that those are the intentions
of the language regarding non-federal technical assistance providers.
Mr. HARKIN. I also agree with Senator Roberts and Senator Lugar and
thank them for working with me on the important work of expanding and
enhancing conservation technical assistance. I am a strong supporter of
the work done by private third parties including the Certified Crop
Advisors and the National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants. Our
bill will allow them to prosper while enhancing technical assistance
nation-wide.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I commend the chairman and ranking member
of the Senate Agriculture Committee for accepting my amendment to
provide mandatory funding for the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program.
Biodiesel is a home-grown renewable fuel. Even as world oil prices
are tightening, America's farmers are producing record crops of
soybeans. Unfortunately, U.S. soybean prices are now at record lows.
Building demand for biodiesel will help increase these commodity prices
while enhancing our Nation's energy security. In Minnesota,
[[Page S685]]
soybeans are the number one cash crop, grown on about 7 million acres.
As we increase demand for soybeans, thus boosting market prices, we are
also investing in the economic well-being of farmers and rural
communities across our country.
Minnesota has been a long-time leader in the production of renewable
fuels such as ethanol, wind-generated electricity, biomass, and solar
energy. As Minnesota's Commissioner of Energy and Economic Development
during the 1980's, I know firsthand the important role that federal and
state programs play in developing these industries during their
infancies. So I strongly support legislation that promotes the use of
renewable energy and programs that educate the public in order to
create demand.
Last June, I, along with Senator Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas,
introduced legislation to provide tax incentives for increased use of
biodiesel, a renewable fuel made from soybean and other vegetable oils.
The biodiesel bill provides a Federal excise tax credit similar to the
excise tax credit for ethanol-blended gasoline. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture estimates that the resulting increase in biodiesel sales
will increase soybean prices by at least 25 percent per bushel. As
market prices go higher, the cost of government price supports become
lower. The savings realized by the Commodity Credit Corporation, and
the American taxpayer, would then be used to cover the cost of the tax
credit. My bill directs the savings to the Commodity Credit Corporation
to reimburse the Federal Highway Trust Fund for its lost revenues.
Over the past year I have been working with the Senate Finance
Committee to include the biodiesel tax credit in the energy tax package
that is scheduled to be marked up by the committee this afternoon. I
wish to commend the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, for her help
in this effort. If we are successful in passing this tax credit, an
effective education program to educate the public on the benefits of
biodiesel fuel will be essential as biodiesel makes the transition from
research and development to commercialization.
During the markup of the energy title of the farm bill, the Senate
Agriculture Committee passed my amendment to authorize $25 million over
the next five years for the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program. My
amendment, which passed the committee unanimously, increased the amount
available from $1 million to $5 million annually through 2006 for
grants to educate Americans about biodiesel. The passage of this
amendment was a critical step toward encouraging the production and use
of biodiesel.
I am pleased to report that the chairman and ranking member of the
Senate Agriculture Committee have now accepted my floor amendment that
will provide mandatory funding for the Biodiesel Fuel Education
Program. My amendment will avoid the need to go through the annual
appropriations process by providing $5 million in mandatory funding
annually in fiscal years 2003 through 2006.
The biodiesel tax credit, together with the Biodiesel Fuel Education
Program, provides a comprehensive approach to facilitate the entry of
biodiesel fuels into the marketplace. Working in tandem, these
legislative initiatives will educate the public, increase demand for
biodiesel, bring higher prices for farmers, lower government outlays,
improve the environment, and lower our dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to comment Senator Harkin
for including in the farm bill a provision that is crucial to the Great
Plains region of our Nation. The provision addresses the alarming
decline in groundwater in the Southern Ogallala Aquifer, which extends
under four States: Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
A reliable source of groundwater is essential to the well-being and
livelihoods of people in the Great Plains region. Local towns and rural
areas are dependent on the use of ground water for drinking water,
ranching, farming, and other commercial uses. Yet many areas overlying
the Ogallala Aquifer have experienced a dramatic depletion of this
groundwater resource. Some areas have seen a decline of over 100 feet
in aquifer levels during the last half of the twentieth century.
This provision would establish a voluntary 4-year groundwater
conservation incentives program for the Southern High Plains Aquifer
region. Incentive payments would be made for voluntary land management
practices, which may include changes from irrigated to dryland
agriculture, changes in cropping patterns to utilize water conserving
crops, and other conservation measures that results in significant
savings in groundwater use. Cost-share payments will be made for
structural practices that will conserve groundwater resources of the
High Plains Aquifer, which may include improvement of irrigation
systems and purchase of new equipment.
The provision also requires the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake
groundwater education efforts in the southern High Plains Aquifer area,
cooperating in these efforts by working with the southern High Plains
Aquifer states, the land grant colleges and universities in the area
and their state cooperative extension services, other educational
institutions, and private organizations, as appropriate.
This provision brings focus to an issue that concerns the long-term
economic viability of communities in much of America's heartland. This
is farm country, and the cornerstone of its economy is its groundwater
supply, the Ogallala Aquifer, which allows for irrigated agriculture.
The Department of Agriculture estimates that there are over 6 million
acres of irrigated agriculture overlying just the southern portion of
the Ogallala. These farms use between 6 and 9 million acre feet of
water per year. The problem we are confronting is that the aquifer is
not sustainable, and it is being depleted rapidly. This threatens the
way of life of all who live on the High Plains. This provision will
take significant steps to address this serious problem.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment, cosponsored
by my colleagues from North and South Carolina and Virginia, that will
provide temporary relief to flue-cured tobacco growers in our States. I
express my appreciation to the chairman and ranking member for
accepting our amendment into the manager's package.
Flue-cured tobacco is produced under a system of acreage allotments
and marketing quotas. This system involves both the amount of land on
which the tobacco may be grown and the amount of tobacco harvested or
the yield from that land. Hence, the allotment refers to acreage, while
the quota refers to the right to market or sell the poundage produced
on the allotted acreage. Usually to simplify discussion of this system,
reference is only made to the term ``quota''.
Originally quota was owned by the producers as a tangible asset that
could be passed down through inheritance from the owner to his spouse,
his children, his grandchildren, or other heirs. Over time as people
left the farm, we now find quota owners who no longer have any
connection with Flue-cured tobacco production other than that they
derive income from the leasing of their quota to Flue-cured tobacco
producers.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a view that the
competition for flue-cured tobacco leases was driving up the cost of
production. As a result, in 1983 Congress passed Public Law 98-180.
Section 205 of that act stated that flue-cured tobacco growers would
not be permitted to lease their allotments and transfer their quotas
for 1987 and subsequent crops. The rationale was that if tobacco
growers could not lease tobacco quota and transfer it to their farms,
then it was presumed that tobacco growers would buy the flue-cured
tobacco quota from the quota owners. Conversely, if quota owners could
not lease and transfer their quotas, they would be forced to sell them.
For whatever reasons, this provision of law has never been enforced by
the Secretary of Agriculture. Therefore, quota owners did not sell
their quotas to producers. However, since growers could no longer lease
and transfer quota, they began to rent the land to which the quota
belongs. Through a United States Department of Agriculture, USDA,
administrative procedure known as reconstitution, growers combined the
quota owners' farms into their own.
Now, the Secretary has determined that USDA will, commencing with the
[[Page S686]]
2002 Flue-cured tobacco crop, began enforcing this 1983 law by a strict
interpretation of the rules that define a farm and govern farm
reconstitutions. This action by the Secretary is causing considerable
confusion and concern among flue-cured tobacco producers and quota
owners. Incomes and balance sheets are at risk.
This current effort to enforce the 1983 law to force the sales of
flue-cured tobacco quota is most ill times. Current conditions make
quota too expensive for the tobacco producers to buy. There are two
main reasons for this. First, quota owners are receiving ``tobacco
quota payments'' as a result of the National Tobacco Grower Settlement
Trust Agreement, also known as the Phase II settlement. Second, The
President's Commission on Improving Economic Opportunity in Communities
Dependent upon Tobacco Production While Protecting Public Health has
recommended a tobacco quota buyout. Given the current and the potential
income streams to tobacco quota owners over and above the quota's value
to tobacco growers, few if any tobacco producers could now afford to
buy flue-cured tobacco quota. Moreover, the ultimate objective of the
recommendations of The President's Commission is to completely do away
with the system of tobacco quotas. With the uncertainty surrounding the
Federal tobacco program, it is very doubtful that any financial
institution would even be willing to lend money to producers to
purchasing quota.
My amendment suspends the enforcement of this provision of law for
one year, for the 2002 flue-cured tobacco crop. Additionally, it
addresses a problem whereby certain local USDA offices are requiring
flue-cured tobacco farm combinations to follow the rules governing
reconstitutions of production flexibility contract farms rather than
the specific rules that control reconstitutions of flue-cured tobacco
farms. It also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to study the issue
and report back to the Congress within 90 days of enactment of this
bill.
Finally, I would note that while flue-cured tobacco is also grown in
Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, my amendment, as a result of a
particular set of circumstances, will not have any effect on flue-cured
tobacco production in those three States nor on any other type of
tobacco production. We shall be doing our Carolina and Virginia flue-
cured tobacco farmers and quota owners a great service by adopting this
amendment in order to give the Secretary time to review the belated,
unintended impact of this 1983 legislation and to allow time for a
thoughtful, deliberate implementation or consideration of repeal of the
provision.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me first express my appreciation and
respect for the work of the Chairman, Senator Harkin, and the ranking
member, Senator Lugar, for their dedication to address the challenging
issues facing American farmers. In addition to funding commodity
programs, this farm bill addresses the country's trade policy
commitments, goals to improve farming practices through conservation
measures, establishes energy and forestry initiatives, and reauthorizes
food and nutrition programs.
Every few years we debate a new farm policy, attempting to reach that
elusive goal of economic sustainability in the agriculture sector. Yet
little seems to change from farm bill to farm bill except the title of
the bill. We're always taking one step forward and two steps back.
Payments are more generous, new subsidies are created, and the Federal
Government's role is expanding, not shrinking, hurting small farmers,
compromising agricultural exports, and penalizing American consumers
and taxpayers.
In 1996, we passed a farm bill that was intended to implement a more
market-oriented farm policy and wean farmers off government assistance.
Instead, five years later, farm subsidies have ballooned by 400
percent. In the year 2000 alone, farm subsidies reached a record level
of $22 billion.
Just a few days ago, the Senate approved an amendment to implement a
stricter limit on payments to farmers. While certainly laudable, I was
disappointed that this amendment does not save the taxpayers any
money--the savings are simply redistributed to other federal programs.
Even with this change, it's quite obvious that farm spending is still
undeniably generous, with an additional $73.4 billion dedicated to
commodity and other farm programs over the next ten years, which is new
spending over and above the CBO baseline. Although the Senate bill
includes a five-year authorization, and the House bill proposes ten
years, both bills propose to spend, in one way or another, the full
$73.5 billion in additional spending included in last year's budget
resolution. That means, irregardless of a five-year or ten-year bill,
the budget commitment for taxpayers could still tab up to $170 billion
in total to pay for current programs and cover the costs for new ones
proposed in this farm bill.
That is an enormous federal commitment. Just this past December, the
Administration proposed to spend $26 billion for its new education
bill, a relatively meager amount to be spent on school programs in
comparison to farm programs. What is more incredible is that we are
asking American taxpayers to foot this $170 billion bill when other
compelling priorities remain backlogged or unfunded.
For example:
Indian schools on Native American reservations, suffering from the
worst dilapidated school conditions in the country, need $1.2 billion
to fix the deferred maintenance backlog at 185 schools.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which has never been
fully funded, would require $10 billion.
And, about $5-6 million a year for Special Subsistence Allowance
payments to military households would help get service members off food
stamps.
Unfortunately, these will remain low priorities and underfunded as
long as farm spending increasingly consumes the federal treasury.
Yesterday, the Senate also voted to suspend budget rules to include
an additional $2.4 billion in crop and livestock disaster assistance
for 2001 crops in this farm bill. This $2.4 billion is, of course, not
subject to budget limitations. This is spending in addition to the $5.5
billion already allocated by the Congress for 2001 crops and $33
billion in ad-hoc or emergency farm assistance provided over the last
four years. So, that makes a grand total of $35.4 billion in additional
farm spending over and above the $70 billion authorized in the 1996
farm bill.
Where's the reform? Where does this unlimited spending end?
Unfortunately, at the end of the debate, special interests win once
again. Let's take a look at the grab-bag for special interests in this
farm bill:
This bill restores counter-cyclical target price payments that were
eliminated in the 1996 farm bill, potentially spending up to $70
billion for commodity programs for the life of this bill.
A new direct payment program is created for dairy farmers at a cost
of $2 billion over a 3-4 year period, with one-quarter of these funds
earmarked to the northeast States.
Establishment of a new peanut direct payment program, costing $2.6
billion over 5 years.
Honey, and wool and mohair subsidy programs are reinstated, programs
which were either phased out or eliminated in the 1996 farm bill.
Higher loan rates are provided for specific crops such as wheat,
corn, cotton, and others.
The Federal sugar subsidy program receives additional props in this
bill, not only penalizing consumers with artificially high sugar prices
but costing taxpayers $254 million to support the program.
New authorization for payments and loans available to producers of
dry peas, lentils, and large and small chickpeas.
Addition of new benefits for soybeans and minor oilseeds farmers.
Mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements for wild fish--a
provision that has not been debated or reviewed, but simply included in
the manager's package.
$100 million in emergency assistance for apple producers.
Farm spending has gone unchecked for decades. Only until the GAO and
other independent taxpayer groups singled out the disparity of farm
payments has some light been shed on this unlimited spending.
The GAO's report, which highlighted the egregious disparity in farm
benefits, demonstrated that over 80 percent
[[Page S687]]
of farm payments have been distributed to large and medium sized farms,
leaving small farmers in the cold.
Even with changes in this bill for payment limitations, there simply
is nothing to prevent farm groups from seeking future disaster relief
and emergency spending when their commodity payments are limited as
proposed in this Senate bill. It would be nothing short of miraculous
if this payment limitation provision survived conference negotiations
given the expected resistance from entrenched farm interests. The
bottom line is that taxpayers face the threat of a return to basic
status quo farm policy, lavishing government payouts to large farming
operations and conglomerates.
We had an opportunity to implement a real reform proposal, as
presented by my distinguished colleague, Senator Lugar, and I applaud
him for his efforts. Senator Lugar fought a brave fight to force the
Senate to debate a more sensible reform of farm policies, fighting
against a tide of pressure from his colleagues, the distinguished
chairman, and many agriculture groups.
He offered a proposal to substantially reduce federal farm payments
and focus assistance on a needs-based approach. He boldly proposed to
phase out cherished sugar, peanuts and dairy subsidies. He also
suggested that federal assistance is more appropriately focused to
those farmers that genuinely need assistance. Sadly, his proposal will
never see the light of day beyond this chamber because too many are
willing to adhere to the status quo rather than accept progressive
policies.
This bill is a great disappointment.
While not all of my colleagues are equally budget conscious when
passing such comprehensive legislation, more than a few should be
concerned about how this bill could potentially impact U.S. trade
commitments.
Today, agricultural exports account for approximately one-fourth of
U.S. farm income. Because of this, removing trader barriers to U.S.
agricultural goods is more important now than ever. But as we travel
around the world, championing the cause of free trade, we must practice
what we preach. We cannot possibly expect foreign governments to reduce
barriers to entry for U.S. agricultural products, while the United
States Congress continues to build up greater barriers domestically, to
reduce competition from foreign products.
I am a supporter of free trade. I want American farmers to be able to
sell their goods around the world. This bill continues protectionist
policies that raise barriers to foreign goods. These efforts will
jeopardize the ability of America's farmers to continue to export goods
abroad and profit from expanded exports. Passage of this legislation
could very well lead to violations of international trade rules and
will no doubt complicate the position of the United States in future
trade negotiations.
For example, a current one-year ban on catfish imports in effect
right now because of a last-minute rider to the agriculture
appropriations bill we passed last year. I opposed this ban, but,
unfortunately, special interests have also secured a ten-year ban on
catfish imports in the House farm bill.
Also included in the managers' package of amendments is a provision
that requires country of origin labeling for ``wild fish.'' Not many of
my colleagues realize how difficult this provision will be to implement
because so many different fish from different sources are often
processed within the same fish processing plant. Fish processors will
have to completely change the way they operate their business in order
to comply with this protectionist measure. Other such trade distorting
programs such as dairy and sugar price support programs remain a
constant in farm bills.
Farm policy is among the most volatile and complicated matters we
deal with in the Congress. But what seems clear to me is that the farm
economy seems unable to operate unless the Congress infuses billions of
dollars in the form of direct federal payments, mandates government
fixed prices, and imposes distorted quotas.
We continue to spend and spend on farm subsidies, despite the
projections from CBO, which indicate that if current tax and spending
policies remain in place, the total unified budget will show a deficit
of $21 billion in 2002 and $14 billion in 2003, and net surpluses every
year thereafter through 2012.
According to CBO, the on-budget accounts are projected to post
deficits of $181 billion in 2002, $193 billion in 2003, and declining
amounts through 2009. On-budget surpluses do not appear again until
2010. And, let's face it, medium- and long-term budget projections are
worth little more than the paper they're printed on.
At this time of economic uncertainty, this farm bill is an appalling
breach of our federal spending responsibility and our national
integrity, while continuing the heavy burden long placed on taxpayers.
I regret that I cannot support this bill. I realize that many
agricultural producers in Arizona have relied on some of these farm
subsidies and other agriculture programs, particularly from rural
development initiatives. Unfortunately, this farm bill, like most other
farm bills in years past, tilts benefits toward the bigger farm
producing States while Arizona, like many other States, will lose out
over the long term.
Sadly this bill fails by all accounts to provide a sound and
defensible national farm policy.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I oppose this legislation, and I wanted
to take a few moments of my colleagues' time to explain why.
Let me begin by commending the distinguished chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, for his outstanding leadership
on agricultural issues and his strong commitment to farmers. There is
no more passionate advocate on these issues in the Senate.
Let me also say that I grew up on a farm--a 120 acre family farm. I
understand what it means to wake up early and put in the long, hard
hours that go along with family farming. I have tremendous respect for
the men and women who put food on our nation's table. And I represent a
state, the Garden State, with an important agricultural history,
although one less dominant today.
But, in my view, the legislation before us is the wrong way to
support America's farmers. It perpetuates an outdated system of
subsidies that distorts the market, unfairly benefits a limited number
of producers, and, most importantly, imposes excessive costs on all
consumers. It distributes these subsidies in a manner that leaves
farmers in states like New Jersey with little assistance. And, while
this bill does more than other farm bills in recent history, it will
use Social Security surpluses for unrelated spending, just when we
should be saving to prepare for the baby boomers' retirement.
If we were starting from scratch, no rational person would design the
system of agricultural policies that we now have in place, a system
begun during the Great Depression. This system provides that most of
the federal assistance goes to four crops: wheat, corn, cotton and
rice.
If we were starting from scratch, the first question would be: why?
What is it about wheat, for example, that justifies giving its
producers large subsidies?
The answer is that there is little reason. We have done it in the
past. But there is no good reason to give wheat, or any of the other
program crops, special treatment that is not provided to other
producers.
When Government chooses arbitrarily to favor some products with
subsidies, it creates distortions in the market. Farmers might
ordinarily be inclined to grow vegetables, soybeans, apples, or other
fruits. That may be what consumers want and might make sense
economically. But if those fruits do not enjoy government subsidies,
many farmers will choose instead to plant more wheat. That reduces the
supply of fruit, which raises its price. At the same time, it increases
the supply of wheat, which lowers its price.
Under the farm program, moreover, a reduction in the price of wheat
then triggers even more Government subsidies. In other words,
Government subsidies lead to more government subsidies, as the market
gets increasingly distorted. The end result is often higher prices for
consumers and, eventually, higher taxes for everybody.
Let me focus on this last point. This bill calls for a dramatic
increase in overall spending on agriculture: as reported by committee,
a total of $73 billion over baseline levels in the next
[[Page S688]]
decade. Note that baseline levels already incorporate the effects of
inflation. So a $73 billion increase is a huge amount of money. And the
fact is, we cannot afford it.
In large measure because of the tax cuts enacted last year, we
already are looking at deficits for years to come. President Bush's
budget calls for raiding Social Security surpluses of $1.5 trillion
over the next 10 years. And I am afraid that this bill will mean that
Social Security surpluses are diverted to pay for farm subsidies. That,
in my view, is wrong.
Our Nation faces a huge demographic bubble, as the baby boom
generation moves toward retirement. We simply must save more to prepare
for that. This is the wrong time to be calling for huge increases in
agriculture subsidies.
I also would point out that this bill, like the existing system of
farm subsidies, is fundamentally unfair to my State of New Jersey. The
overwhelming bulk of the subsidies in this bill will go for commodities
that, by and large, are not produced in the Garden State.
In New Jersey, our farmers grow large amounts of specialty crops,
such as blueberries, eggplant and asparagus. In fact, New Jersey ranks
second in the nation for blueberry production, and fourth in the nation
for eggplant and asparagus production. Yet, though New Jersey's farmers
meet much of the nation's needs for these crops, none of our blueberry,
eggplant or asparagus farmers receive support under the existing
commodity programs. That is one reason, Mr. President, that New Jersey
got less than one-twentieth of one percent of the total commodity
assistance provided by the Federal Government in fiscal year 2001. Less
than one-twentieth of one percent!
The people of my State get one of the worst returns on their tax
dollar of any State in the nation. This Congress can be generous when
it comes to rural areas in other parts of the country. But our State
has very different needs. And, when it comes to supporting urban areas,
like Newark, Camden or Trenton, we tend to come up short. Yes, HUD
helps some. Yes, there are some subsidies for transit. But, overall,
the Federal government is not treating my State equitably. We are
continuously the 49th of the 50 States in our return on the Federal
dollar. That bothers a lot of New Jerseyans. And it bothers me.
Having said that, I recognize that if you simply compare this bill to
existing law, there are a few provisions that represent improvements. I
do support most of the conservation and nutrition provisions. And I
acknowledge the hard work of Senators Leahy and Torricelli in pushing
for more fairness for specialty crops.
Yet at the end of the day, the existing system of farm subsidies
essentially remains intact in this bill, and the subsidies for favored
crops are only increased. That means we will continue to subsidize a
limited number of producers. We will continue to distort the market. We
will continue to impose higher costs on consumers and taxpayers. We
will continue to invade the Social Security Trust Fund. And we will
continue to treat my State of New Jersey unfairly.
For these reasons, I cannot in good conscience support this
legislation. And I hope that, in time, we can revisit a failed farm
policy and achieve real, needed reform.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my
colleagues and the Senate leadership for bringing this legislation, the
new federal farm bill, to the floor so early in the year. I think the
priority this bill received on the calendar reflects its priority to
the Nation, our economy, and especially our rural and agricultural
regions.
In my home state of Nebraska, 55,000 families earn their living on
the farm. In total, one in four jobs in Nebraska is connected to
agriculture. To say the farm bill and Federal farm programs are
important to my state is an understatement.
Which is why I was part of a group of sensible, concerned Senators
that pushed this body to consider, and pass, a new farm bill last year.
We knew that we had to act fast to remedy the problems associated with
Freedom to Farm. I know first hand, serving as governor of a rural
state during the implementation of that program, that it was a failure
and needed to be fixed.
We wanted to get it done last year for two reasons. First, we wanted
to give farmers and their lenders as much time as possible to plan for
a new federal program. Second, time was running short on the Federal
budget clock and in order to maintain an acceptable level of funding
for the farm bill, we needed get it done before the budget authority
expired for $73.5 billion in new farm bill funds we had secured.
But, that didn't happen. We had an administration that thought we
should wait, and a merry band of Senators agreed. So, for reasons still
unclear to me, the farm bill was defeated last year, and the only
people who suffered were the farmers all across the country who depend
on these programs to thrive.
Now, we are here on the precipice of progress. We have addressed the
concerns that were raised last year and we may actually pass a new farm
bill this week. I must say it's been an interesting process. As the
debate on the farm bill was underway last December, simultaneous
debates on how best to boost the nation's economy out of a recession
were being conducted.
I was part of the economic stimulus discussions, and a part of the
farm bill proceedings in the Agriculture Committee. I couldn't help but
notice the parallel goals of both bills: to stimulate the economy and
to stimulate the agriculture economy.
An argument might be made that the best economic boost for my state,
Nebraska, is something to generate activity in the agriculture economic
sector. Anything that improves the agricultural economy stirs the
overall economy in my state. That is why I am here now. I am here to
say that this farm bill represents the best economic hope for rural,
agriculture-based, states like Nebraska.
Commodity prices for crops remain at historic lows for the fourth
straight year. Livestock producers--the largest sector of agriculture
in my State--are facing costly new environmental regulations with
frightfully few federal resources to help share the burden.
This farm bill addresses these concerns and will have a positive
impact on the rural economy. This farm bill is the right thing to do,
even if it's a few weeks late.
We have made great strides with this bill. I am proud to say we have
nearly doubled conservation spending--encouraging agriculture to
improve resource management and for the first time providing incentives
for conservation on land in production.
This farm bill promotes trade, promotes conservation and competition.
It breathes new life into our commodity programs.
For example, it reauthorizes the programs for sugar beet growers,
which are so critical to the 550 sugar beet families in western
Nebraska. It also provides nutrition programs for hungry children and
adults, supports our international food donation and trade efforts, and
protects millions of acres of environmentally sensitive land, among
other important priorities.
The farm bill before us makes a real commitment--both in programs and
funding--to rural development. This farm bill removes barriers to the
school lunch program for military families by eliminating an accounting
glitch that uses their housing allowance to prohibit their
participation.
I am pleased that despite the obstacles laid down before us, the
Senate is about to do the right thing and pass this needed and
important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the people who
feed our nation and the nations around the world, our farmers and
ranchers, by supporting the new farm bill.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I opposed the sense-of-the-Senate
amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. Senator Kyl's amendment
called for the removal of the sunset date for the estate tax changes
made in last year's tax cut package. I opposed it because the proposal
was both unfair and unaffordable.
The Senator's proposal was unfair because only a tiny number of
Americans pay the estate tax under current law. In fact, in 1999 only
636 Minnesotans paid any estate tax whatsoever. This is simply not a
burden that falls on many families. That does not mean that I don't
support raising the estate tax exemption to a higher level to shield
smaller estates--particularly the few
[[Page S689]]
small business owners and farmers who end up being affected by the tax.
I would support raising the exemption immediately to $4-5 million, with
perhaps higher exemptions for small businesses and farms.
The current law, as amended last summer, provides for much slower and
uneven estate tax relief. It has made the estate tax process much more
complicated--not less. And when full repeal phases in in 2010, it will
shield the wealthiest estates in America--worth hundreds of millions
and even billions of dollars--from any tax liability. That's what the
Kyl amendment proposed we make permanent and I think it would be
terrible policy.
And it is made all the more terrible because it is so expensive. The
Kyl proposal would cost $104 billion over the next 10 years--literally
to protect a few thousand ultra-wealthy families. Even worse, from
2013-2022 it would cost other taxpayers over $800 billion to provide
this ``relief.'' Most of this cost would be financed out of the Social
Security surplus and at precisely the moment that the baby boomers
start to retire in large numbers.
I will not jeopardize Social Security--which tens of millions of
Americans rely upon for their retirement--to grant tax breaks to the
heirs of multi-millionaires and billionaires. For that reason I opposed
the amendment.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1731, the
2002 farm bill. This legislation makes much needed changes to the
failed farm policies adopted under the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act and
charts a course that promises a better future for all of America's
family farmers.
The 2002 farm bill takes significant steps in ensuring that the
family farmers throughout my State and across the Nation are able to
carry on in the face of a rural economy that has continued to lag
behind the general economy for two decades. Over the past several
years, the Congress has repeatedly had to intervene with a series of ad
hoc disaster relief measures in an attempt to remedy the failed farm
policy instituted under the so-called ``Freedom to Farm Act.'' The 2002
farm bill takes significant steps toward ensuring that Federal support
is provided to those farmers who are most in need. The legislation
seeks to reform the farm system by reinstituting an income safety net
to provide more support in difficult years and less during good years.
It contains provisions to help ensure that commodity payments that
individual farmers can receive reach those who need them most: our
small and medium sized farmers.
Agriculture plays a vital role in Maryland. It remains the State's
largest commercial industry, providing over $17.5 billion in annual
revenue. In all, agriculture and related industry employs about 350,000
residents, including those who own and operate Maryland's 12,400 farms.
And 2.1 million acres, or 33 percent of the total area of my State, is
used for farming. This represents the largest single land use in
Maryland.
The commodity title of the farm bill contains a number of provisions
that are of particular importance to Maryland's agricultural economy. I
would like to just touch upon two, those concerning our dairy producers
and our specialty crop farmers.
First, our Nation's dairy policy has been amended to reflect the
unique needs of dairy farmers in the Northeast, including Maryland. The
1997 Census of Maryland Agriculture indicates that there are 1,091
dairy farms in the State, a number that is about 600 below 1987, and
one which I fear will be significantly lower upon the completion of
this year's census. If these small dairy farmers are to succeed, it is
essential that they be able to compete on a level playing field. This
legislation creates a new counter-cyclical payment system for
northeastern states when minimum fluid prices fall below $16.94 per
hundredweight.
The farm bill also includes provisions that address the needs of
specialty crop producers, crops such as fruits and vegetables that do
not benefit from traditional commodity support programs, which are
making up an increasingly important part of Maryland's agricultural
economy. The legislation includes several provisions concerning
specialty crops, including a provision authorizing funds from USDA's
Commodity Credit Corporation to be used to purchase these specialty
crops over the next 5 years. Further, using savings incurred as a part
of the payment limitations amendment, USDA's Risk Management Agency has
been directed to develop cost-of-production insurance for a variety of
specialty crops to cover documented costs of production in the event of
low prices.
The farm bill also includes a significant increase in funding for
vital conservation programs, devoting over $21 billion in new spending
to conservation efforts over the next 10 years. This figure is double
the current baseline spending and marks the largest increase in
conservation spending ever in a farm bill. These additional funds mean
increased funding for programs of great interest to the State of
Maryland, including: wetland restoration, wildlife habitat incentive
programs, and above all farmland and grassland protection, critical to
helping farmers resist the pressures of sprawl.
The legislation authorizes two new programs targeted specifically at
restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay. First, it authorizes a $70
million nutrient reduction pilot program to encourage the development
of innovative solutions to the nutrient pollution problem in the
Chesapeake Bay.
Nutrient over-enrichment from agricultural operations and other non-
point sources is one of the most serious problems facing the Chesapeake
Bay. In 1987, the Chesapeake Bay Program established a goal of a 40
percent reduction of controllable loads of nitrogen and phosphorus
entering the bay by 2000--a goal that was unprecedented in this
country. Over the past 15 years, farmers in the six-state Bay
watershed, with assistance from the Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program or so-called CREP and other USDA conservation programs, have
made substantial progress in reducing nutrient inputs. From 1985 to
2000, total nitrogen loads to the bay were reduced by 51 million
pounds, with the largest percentage of this reduction coming from
agriculture. Unfortunately, we continue to fall short of the nitrogen
goal. If we are to remove nutrient impairments to the bay, additional
reductions from agricultural sources must be made and that will only be
accomplished with new and innovative programs.
A recent summit of leading agricultural and marine scientists from
across the Nation convened in Maryland concluded that the most
effective means to reducing nitrogen losses from agricultural lands is
to reduce the over-application of nitrogen that the crops do not use.
Because some agricultural crops are relatively inefficient nitrogen
users at high yields, the last pound of nitrogen applied to a crop is
the least helpful to a farmer's yield, but the most likely to run off
into our nation's waters. By providing incentives and financial
protections for farmers to accept slightly reduced yields in some
years, the Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program will reduce farmers' risks,
lower their operational costs, and at the same time substantially
decrease nitrogen losses to the environment.
The principal focus of the Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program, as
conceived by bay-area scientists and organizations, is to create new
incentives for farmers to reduce the application of nitrogen by at
least 15 percent below what is normally considered best practice and to
provide financial protection in the event of reduced yields. The way
the program is envisioned, farmers in an area would bid in and say how
much money they would demand for each pound of nitrogen reduced so long
as the 15 percent threshold is met. Farmers do not have to agree to
farm in any particular way; the only question is have they reduced
their nitrogen applications at least 15 percent below recommended
levels. The program allows for flexibility in achieving nutrient
retention targets through such methods as cover crops, constructed
wetlands, stream buffers, and switch grass. The program would be
monitored based on actual performance by comparing how much nitrogen is
applied to how much is removed in crops. It would also provide rewards
based on each increment of superior performance. The program goal is to
increase enrollment annually and have one million acres of cropland
enrolled in year four. Five to 10 percent of the funding will be used
to support promotion and education as well as monitoring and evaluation
of program impacts.
[[Page S690]]
I anticipate that in implementing this program, the Department of
Agriculture will work with States and the private sector to create the
mechanisms to carry out this provision. Specifically, I would
anticipate that the Department would work to achieve the following in
implementing the program: Target investments in nutrient reductions
where they are most cost effective through competitive selection
processes and through a bidding process to establish incentive rates;
reward producers for each incremental level of nutrient reduction and
possibly increasing incentive rates for each incremental level; test a
variety of reduction techniques including both decreasing nitrogen
inputs by at least 15 percent below land grant university recommended
rates and increasing nitrogen removal from agricultural runoff;
encourage alternative land use practices that reduce nutrient runoff
while still producing income; and develop a complementary nutrient
insurance program to provide financial protection to farmers who
experience reduced yields due to reductions in nutrient applications.
This is a very important provision that will use market incentives to
reduce nitrogen discharge into our Nation's largest estuary. This pilot
program is a cutting-edge approach that allows watershed scale testing
of a new practice that could provide major reductions in nutrient
pollution throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed while maintaining or
enhancing farm viability.
Second, the managers' amendment authorizes the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Forestry Program. Forest loss and fragmentation are occurring
rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most important
issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According to the
National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost
350,000 acres of forest between 1987-1997 or almost 100 acres per day.
More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments
resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading
to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion,
less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its
capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits,
such as controlling storm water runoff, erosion and air pollution--all
critical to the bay clean-up effort.
Since 1990, the U.S. Forest Service has been an important part of the
Chesapeake Bay Program. Administered through the Northeastern Area,
State and Private Forestry, this program has worked closely with
Federal, State and local partners in the six-State Chesapeake Bay
region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration and
stewardship activities, can contribute to achieving the bay restoration
goals. Over the past 11 years, it has provided modest levels of
technical and financial assistance, averaging approximately $300,000 a
year, to develop collaborative watershed projects that address
watershed forest conservation, restoration and stewardship. With the
signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the USDA Forest
Service has become more important than ever. Among other provisions,
this agreement requires the signatories to conserve existing forests
along all streams and shoreline; promote the expansion and connection
of contiguous forests; assess the bay's forest lands; and provide
technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or
revise plans, ordinances and subdivision regulations to provide for the
conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands.
To address these goals, the U.S. Forest Service must have additional
resources and authority, and that is what this provision seeks to
provide.
Specifically, the provision codifies the roles and responsibilities
of the USDA Forest Service to the bay restoration effort. It
strengthens existing coordination, technical assistance, forest
resource assessment, and planning efforts. It authorizes a small grants
program to support local agencies, watershed associations and citizen
groups in conducting on-the-ground conservation projects. It also
establishes a regional applied urban forestry research and training
program to enhance urban forests in the watershed. Finally it
authorizes $3.5 million for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2006--a
modest increase in view of the six-State, 64,000 square mile watershed.
The 2002 farm bill, also authorizes a number of critical programs
which will be of great benefit to the people of my State and all
Americans. The legislation includes provisions to address the
development needs of America's rural communities, including
infrastructure funds for businesses and communities to promote genuine
revitalization. It doubles the amount proposed by the administration
for nutrition programs, in an effort to ensure that no Americans go to
bed hungry.
Finally, I am pleased that the legislation strikes an ill-conceived
provision proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to dispose of
land at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. As you know,
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center is the Nation's premier
agricultural research facility. The research undertaken at Beltsville
has helped ensure the irradication of certain plant and animal diseases
and the production of high-quality agricultural products so that our
farmers and agribusinesses can compete in the global marketplace. And
the work at Beltsville has led to products and production methods that
are safer for both consumers and the environment. Parceling out this
property would most certainly be a step in the wrong direction.
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center is a national asset which has
served as a much needed buffer in the midst of an otherwise highly
developed area. In my view, the Federal Government would not realize
proceeds from the sale of this property sufficient to compensate for
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center's great value to the Department
of Agriculture and to the American public. This sale would be extremely
short sighted and ultimately regretted.
In closing, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee, Senator Harkin, who has done a terrific job in ensuring that
this legislation reflects the needs of America's family farmers and our
nation's rural communities. And I urge my colleagues to join with me in
supporting its passage.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, for several months now, the attention
of the Senate has been focused on the condition of farming in America.
While this is a rite of some regularity every few years when we
consider again the many hundreds of Federal programs that affect
American agriculture, it is a subject of ongoing interest for those of
us whose States rely disproportionately on farming. As Kansas'
Secretary of Agriculture I had a unique opportunity to see all aspects
of farming in our state and I rise today to briefly discuss the
important priorities for Kansas in this farm bill.
Despite my concerns about many other provisions in this farm bill--I
am very pleased to see that our carbon sequestration provisions are
included. This portion could help build a new market for farmers--one
that pays them for how they produce, not just what they produce.
The Wyden-Brownback amendment builds on this promise and expands it
to help us explore how carbon trading might work by using our
cooperatives.
Carbon sequestration is a largely untapped resource that can buy us
the one thing we need most in this debate: time. The Department of
Energy estimates that over the next 50 to 100 years, agricultural lands
alone could have the potential to remove anywhere from 40 to 80 billion
metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere. If we expand this to include
forests, the number will be far greater--indicating there is a real
difference that could be made by encouraging a carbon sink approach.
Carbon sequestration alone can not solve the climate change dilemma,
but as we search for technological advancements that allow us to create
energy with less pollution, and as we continue to research the cause
and potential effects of climate change, it only makes sense that we
enhance a natural process we already know has the benefit of reducing
existing concentrations of greenhouse gases--particularly when this
process also improves water quality, soil fertility and wildlife
habitat. This is a no-regrets policy--much like taking out insurance on
your house or car. We should do no less for the protection of the
planet.
[[Page S691]]
In addition to this carbon sequestration provision, I am also pleased
that we will be able to address another pressing environmental issue
facing our country and particularly Kansas. Water, so essential to
cultivation, is a top priority for Kansas farmers and I am pleased to
say that this Farm Bill can help in this vital area as well.
The Kansas Water Authority has been considering ways to extend the
usable life of the Ogallala Aquifer and assure ground water will be
available to meet the needs of future generations. The long term
sustainability of ground water supplies is a concern of mine and I am
pleased with the portion of the farm bill that creates the Southern
High Plains Aquifer Groundwater Conservation Program. This legislation
takes the necessary first step to protect and conserve this valuable
resource. A reliable source of groundwater is essential to the economy
of Kansas. There have been dramatic declines in water table levels in
the last half of this century. It is projected that if no action is
taken the aquifer could in some portions be completely dry in 100
years. Kansas is one of the States where this decline is especially
pronounced.
Through this new program in the farm bill, farmers will be given
incentive payments for improving irrigation systems, changing from
high-water intensity crops to low-water intensity crops, as well as
converting from irrigation to dryland farming. Payments will be made as
result of a true savings in groundwater resources. I am pleased to have
worked with my colleague, Senator Jeff Bingaman, in supporting this
portion of the farm bill and hope that the rest of our colleagues will
see how important this program is to saving the usable life of the
Ogallala Aquifer.
The farm bill currently under consideration is not the bill that I
would have drafted, independent of the deliberations of this body.
However, this effort is an initiative that is desperately needed by
America's farm families. I am hopeful that, working with our colleagues
in the other body, we will craft a compromise that protects our
priorities. We need a farm bill that can provide a safety net for
farmers, but that will not create negative incentives to overproduce
and depress crop prices. We need a bill that supports expanding trade
opportunities and respects our international commitments. We need a
bill that will, in the President's words, ``offer producers a reliable
safety net that protects them from the financial events and
circumstances beyond their control, while enabling them to better
manage their individual financial situation.'' I remain very hopeful
that we will be able to speed help to American agriculture and remove
the cloud of uncertainty that presently shrouds the prairie farms in
Kansas and America's agriculture economy generally.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, the Senate voted 98 to 0, recorded
vote No. 27, in support of Senate amendment No. 2857 to S. 1731, the
Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001.
This amendment contained sense-of-the-Senate language that ``no
Social Security surplus should be used to pay to make [sic] currently
scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful spending.'' I voted aye
because I knew that a vote against it would be construed wrongly as a
statement in favor of dipping into the Social Security trust fund.
Factual inaccuracies in the amendment deserve to be noted. It states
that ``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.''
This statement is factually incorrect. In fact, the confiscatory
inheritance--or more accurately, the estate or death tax--will be
repealed for 1 year in 2010. In 2011, the death tax is resurrected and
at the potency of 2001 rates. I support making permanent the repeal of
the death tax. This would in no way endanger the payment of future
Social Security benefits.
Over the next 10 years, from 2003 through 2012, the President's
budget projects a baseline surplus of $463 billion. That amount does
not include any Social Security funds. A permanent death tax repeal is
estimated to reduce Federal revenues by $104 billion over that time
period. The resulting surplus, made up entirely of non-Social Security
funds, would be $359 billion.
To further illustrate the inaccuracy of the contention that permanent
repeal would reduce the Social Security surplus by $104 billion, it is
useful to look at the effect of permanence in 2011 and 2012.
In 2011, the Federal Government is projected to generate a $199
billion surplus--a surplus that does not include any Social Security
funds. Permanently repealing the death tax would reduce Federal
revenues by $25 billion in 2011, which is 12.5 percent of the projected
surplus for that year.
In 2012, the Federal Government is projected to generate a $395
billion surplus--a surplus that does not include any Social Security
funds. Permanently repealing the death tax would reduce federal
revenues by $61 billion in 2012, which is 15.4 percent of the projected
surplus for that year.
The facts are clear. Making the death tax permanent will not deplete
the Social Security surplus. Supporters of the continued existence
death tax have long underestimated the depth of moral opposition to
this ``virtue tax'' on our American families, small businesses, family
farmers, and ranchers. Unfortunately, the death-tax supporters are now
resorting to outright misstatements about the ramifications of
permanent repeal. They are attempting to convince the country that
making the repeal of this tax permanent will jeopardize our seniors'
Social Security benefits. Not true.
That is shameful and false, and a bipartisan majority of the Senate
acknowledged so--in approving, right after amendment 2857, my amendment
to make repeal of the death tax permanent.
By a vote of 56 to 42, the Senate memorialized its support for the
following statement:
``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. KOHL. Mr. President: I rise today in support of the farm bill and
look forward to the House and Senate conferees working quickly to
ensure that it is in place for the 2002 crop year. I also rise to
explain my opposition to the amendment offered unsuccessfully earlier
today by Senator Domenici regarding the dairy program included in the
Senate version of the farm bill. This amendment would have replaced the
dairy program that exists in the farm bill with a program that pays
producers regardless of the actual market price of milk. Furthermore,
the amendment failed to place a cap on the level of production eligible
for a payment.
The Senate version of the farm bill restores a much needed safety-net
for farmers and ranchers throughout the country. This bill rewrites the
1996 farm bill which has left farmers vulnerable to the continued
downward spiral of prices. Because of the 1996 bill's deficiencies,
Congress has had to approve billions of dollars in emergency assistance
every year. This is not an effective or responsible or fair way to set
the farm policy for our Nation, and I am pleased that the Senate has
stepped up to the task of providing needed and honest reform. The
Senate bill also provides significant new spending for conservation and
nutrition programs. And it targets assistance where it is needed, the
small family farm, by limiting Federal payments to $275,000 a year. All
in all, the Senate bill is a comprehensive measure that will help
farmers in Wisconsin successfully weather volatile price fluctuations
and other risks associated with farming.
Of particular interest to my State is the dairy title of this bill.
It is counter-cyclical creating a price safety-net for dairy producers
when milk prices fall below the 5-year all-milk price or a $16.94 class
I price. The Domenici amendment would have made payments to producers
regardless of market conditions. I cannot support that. We should
provide adequate relief to producers when prices decline, not simply
pay farmers to over-produce and depress prices.
Another key component of the dairy program currently in the Senate
version of the farm bill is the limitations on payments. I worked with
Senator Daschle and Senator Harkin to make sure payments under our
dairy
[[Page S692]]
program were capped so that benefits would not flow primarily to huge
farms. We limit payments to 8 million pounds of production or the
amount of milk produced in a year by approximately 400 cows. Given that
the average herd size in Wisconsin is 65, I would have preferred a much
lower cap. However, the final number was a compromise capable of
winning the support of a majority of the States. Unfortunately, the
Domenici amendment would undo this fragile coalition by removing any
limit on the payment a producer can receive. This uncapping of the
benefits would have shifted the level of assistance from the small and
medium size producers, who need the help the most, to the larger
operators. And while that may be popular out west, where dairy herds
routinely run to the thousands, it is unfair to the Midwest and
Northeast where smaller family farms predominate.
The dairy program in the Senate bill is not ideal for me nor any
other Senator in this body. Yet it represents a significant improvement
over previous policies, such as regional price-fixing compacts, and
represents a delicate balance between previously warring regions. I am
pleased that the Senate rejected the Domenici amendment and agreed to
preserve the dairy program we worked out, perhaps the only dairy
assistance plan that can garner majority support. Furthermore, I urge
the conference committee to consider carefully the enormous effort
behind and enormous fragility of the dairy section of this bill. I
plead with the committee not to return to the days of bitter regional
wars over compacts and other special dairy deals. Let this farm bill be
remembered as the legislation that marked the beginning of national and
fair dairy policy in this country.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, it is with great regret that I vote
against the farm bill today. As a member of the Agriculture Committee,
I have worked extensively on this bill at the committee level and on
the floor. I appreciate Chairman Harkin and his staff, who have been
tireless in their efforts to work with me on behalf of Arkansas
farmers. The bill we passed out of the Agriculture Committee was a
strong bill that was carefully balanced to represent both the diversity
of our various regions and the different elements of our rural economy.
But passage of the Dorgan-Grassley amendment on payment limitations
last week as well as prohibition on packer ownership of livestock make
it untenable for me to support this bill.
I won't go into great detail on the effect of the Dorgan-Grassley
payment limitations on Arkansas farmers. Instead, I refer my colleagues
to the February 7th Congressional Record and the extensive remarks I
made during debate on the amendment. In addition, I would like to
submit for the Record an article from today's Arkansas Democrat-
Gazette, which outlines the effect this amendment will have on Arkansas
farmers. This article refers to a Congressional Research Service study
which finds that a single farmer growing rice will hit his limit at
only 487 acres. As I told my colleagues during debate on the Dorgan-
Grassley amendment, many farmers in Arkansas have had to extend their
farms to over one thousand acres in order to break even because their
input costs are so high.
Last week, I cautioned my colleagues that the information they had
seen in the press and on websites about plutocrats getting rich off
farms payments was misleading. I said that the Environmental Working
Group, which was lobbying heavily in favor of payment limitations, did
not represent the family farmer. Now it seems that at least one
editorial writer agrees with me. I quote from the February 11th
Washington Times: ``Make no mistake. The agenda of the Environmental
Working Group and its financial backers is not simply to eliminate
unfair public subsidizes to agribusiness, but to cripple agribusiness
altogether. . .''
Freedom to Farm demanded that farmers engage the volatile and
subsidized global marketplace and learn how to become more competitive.
Now, with passage of these terribly unfair provisions, the Senate would
attempt to penalize America's farmers and ranchers for taking the very
measures they need to complete in that same global marketplace.
Although I sadly vote against the farm bill today, I look forward to
working with Chairman Harkin and members of the conference committee to
modify this version of the farm bill so that I might support a more
balanced and fair farm bill conference report.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorials to which I
referred be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Times, Feb. 11, 2001]
Behind the Green Curtain
(By Michelle Malkin)
Among the political chattering classes, there's a big buzz
over a tiny activist organization called the Environmental
Working Group.
Both liberals and conservatives, including the left-leaning
New York Times editorial page and the right-leaning Wall
Street Journal editorial page, have praised the group's farm
subsidy database. The National Journal notes that the
research vaulted the group ``into the big leagues and,
according to many observers, profoundly shaped the
congressional debate over pending farm legislation.''
Hundreds of stories from The Washington Post on down have
cited the group's findings over the past month.
Posted on the Internet, the Environmental Working Group
database documents $71 billion in federal agricultural
handouts from 1996-2000. Some of the money has gone to truly
undeserving and ridiculous recipients, including prosperous
companies, members of Congress, and part-time celebrity
``farmers'' such as professional basketball star Scottie
Pippen, banking giant David Rockefeller, media mogul Ted
Turner and ABC news personality Sam Donaldson.
As a longtime critic of government pork, I agree that the
group's database is a commendable public service. But
conservative opponents of farm subsidies should perhaps be a
little warier of jumping into bed with these radical greens.
The Environmental Working Group is not just a humble
``nonprofit research outfit,'' as it is being described by
the mainstream press. It is a savvy political animal funded
by deep-pocketed foundations with a big-government agenda of
their own. And it is engaged in aggressive eco-lobbying that
belies its image as an innocuous public charity dedicated to
``education'' citizens.
The Environmental Working Group's main claim to fame is its
anti-chemical fear-mongering. It scares pregnant women about
the nondangers of chlorinated water and says even one bite of
some fruit sprayed with pesticides could cause ``dizziness,
nausea and blurred vision.'' The group has also declared war
on nail polish, hairspray, playgrounds, portable classrooms
and ABC News correspondent John Stossel.
The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit, 501(c)(3)
charity, thrives on funding from an array of extremely
liberal foundations. One of its leading benefactors was
the W. Alton Jones Foundation--which failed miserably a
few years ago in its widely publicized attempt to scare
people out of using plastic sandwich bags by claiming they
contained endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The group
continues to tout the foundation's efforts and plug its
alarmist junk science book, ``Our Stolen Future,'' on the
group's Web site.
In 2000, the Environment Working Group received a $1.62
million grant over three years from The Joyce Foundation. On
its Web site, the eco-advocacy foundation describes the
grant's purpose in a political terms as supporting ``a
concentrated program of agriculture policy reform.'' But in
the foundation's tax filings, the purpose of the
Environmental Working Group grant is stated in more explicit
detail: ``For work on 2002 Farm Bill.''
Under federal tax laws, public charities can engage in
limited political activities--but the Environmental Working
Group's zealous legislative lobbying raises questions about
its status as a public charity. In a complaint to be filed
this Friday with IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti, the
Bellevue, Wash.-based Center for the Defense of Free
Enterprise charges that the Environmental Working Group's
``excessive lobbying and politicking'' activities are
``clearly illegal and should (at a minimum) result in
revocation of the organization's tax-exempt status.''
The complaint charges that the group hid its lobbying
political expenditures, failed to register as a lobbyist in
California, submitted false or misleading reports with the
IRS, and acted as a political action organization in
violation of 501(c)(3) rules. Ron Arnold, executive vice
president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise,
warns: ``The Environmental Working Group is not what it
seems. Its goal is not protecting the environment. Its goal
is power--political power.''
Make no mistake. The agenda of the Environmental Working
Group and its financial backers is not simply to eliminate
unfair public subsidies to agribusiness, but to cripple
agribusiness altogether in favor of ``organic'' alternatives,
increased regulation of manufacturers and tax-supported
environmental conservation programs.
Sometimes the enemies of enemies don't always make the best
of friends.
[[Page S693]]
____
[From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Feb. 13, 2001]
Subsidy Cuts to Wound Rice, Cotton Farms
(By Kevin Freking)
Washington.--A report from the Congressional Research
Service confirms that the lower federal subsidy limits
approved by the Senate last week would be felt mostly by the
nation's rice and cotton farmers. That means Arkansas, the
nation's largest rice producer, would be bit particularly
hard.
The nonpartisan agency projected the acreage that subsidy
recipients could farm before they reach the proposed $275,000
limit. The limit for rice farms would be reached at 731
acres; the limit for cotton farms, at 1,321 acres.
``For cotton and rice, those are not large farms,'' said
Andy Miller, assistant director of governmental affairs for
the Arkansas Farm Bureau. ``We have many folks with farms
larger than that.''
How many? It's hard to say at this point, but the number
will reach into the thousands, agriculture experts say.
The average farm in Arkansas is slightly more than 300
acres, but most rice and cotton farms are far larger. Census
statistics from 1997 show that nearly 1,000 rice farms in
Arkansas covered at least 500 acres. And about 500 cotton
farms covered 1,000 acres or more.
But even those numbers are conservative, experts said.
Arkansas has experienced continued consolidation of farms in
the past five years; there are fewer small farms, but the
number of large farms has grown.
Also, Arkansas farmers who are not married will be
ineligible for a spouse allowance. Their limit would be
$225,000 in subsidies, so they could plant even fewer acres.
For example, a rice farmer who does qualify for the allowance
would hit his limit at only 487 acres, according to the
Congressional Research Service.
The limit is part of the farm bill the Senate continued to
debate Tuesday. It was supported by many rural lawmakers from
the Midwest, and the report shows that farmers in that region
will not be affected by a $275,000 limit. For example, a
wheat farm will cover nearly 6,000 acres before it reaches
the maximum subsidy payment.
The House has already passed its version of the bill, which
will set the nation's farm policy for the next five to 10
years. Its bill set a $550,000 limit on subsidies, up from
$460,000 under current law.
house, senate versions
The Senate could bring its bill to a final vote as early as
today. If the bill passes as expected, it will be sent to a
conference committee in which negotiators would work out the
differences between the House and the Senate versions of the
bill.
Miller said the Arkansas Farm Bureau has little choice but
to oppose the bill before the Senate, ``What we're hoping for
at this point, if it does come out of the Senate with all
these onerous measures for Southern agriculture, that some of
this can be worked on in the conference committee,'' Miller
said.
Congressional staff members said it was unclear whether any
Arkansans would be named to the committee. The state has two
senators, Republican Tim Hutchinson and Democrat Blanche
Lincoln, and two congressmen, Democrats Marion Berry and Mike
Ross, on agriculture committees.
One rumor expanded upon in a Wall Street Journal editorial
Tuesday is that a trade is in the offing. Three senators from
the Northeast--Jim Jeffords and Pat Leahy of Vermont, and
Jack Reed of Rhode Island--voted against the $275,000 limit
when most observers expected them to vote for it. Leahy and
Reed are Democrats; Jeffords is the independent whose switch
from the Republican Party put the Democrats in control of the
Senate.
Leahy, almost sure to be named to the conference committee,
could back a higher subsidy cap in exchange for Southern
support for the resurrection of a dairy compact that
guarantees New England dairy farmers a higher price for their
products.
``Nobody will be surprised if [Republican Sen. Thad]
Cochran [of Mississippi] suddenly likes the idea of a milk
compact. So New Englanders will vote to subsidize rich
farmers in Mississippi in return for Southerners voting to
soak milk drinkers everywhere,'' the Journal said.
livestock ownership
One of the Senate farm-bill votes Tuesday kept a ban on
meatpacker ownership of livestock. That's an important issue
to Tyson Foods Inc. Tyson recently bought IBP to make the
Springdale-based company the largest meat producer in the
world.
A bid to kill the ban, backed by both Hutchinson and
Lincoln, failed 53-46. IDP officials released a written
statement expressing disappointment with the vote.
``IBP depends upon independent livestock operations of all
sizes to supply our plants,'' company officials said in a
press release. ``While we have no interest in becoming a big
player in the livestock feeding business, we believe more
government regulation, such as those in the proposed ban,
will produce unintended consequences and be detrimental to
the livestock industry.''
The bill would ban packing companies from owning or having
control of cattle, hogs or sheep within two weeks of their
slaughter.
The provision is wildly popular in the Midwest, where
livestock producers fear they are losing their independence
and market power as packing houses gain control over
livestock production, much as they have already done with the
growing of chickens. Poultry was exempt from the Senate
legislation.
IBP officials said that without some degree of packer
participation in livestock production, some plants may have
to close.
The provision is not part of the House-passed farm will and
so would present another issue for the conference committee
to settle.
An amendment offered Monday by Hutchinson and Lincoln will
not make it to the floor. A Hutchinson spokesman said
managers of the bill declined to offer an amendment that
deals with double-crested cormorants.
The large, fish-eating birds are causing havoc for many
fish farmers in Arkansas. The senators proposed to let
farmers apply to the Agriculture Department for permits to
rid their farms of the birds. Now those permits must continue
to come from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Senate voted to add $2.4 billion in disaster assistance
to compensate farmers in Montana and other states who lost
crops to drought last year. The Bush administration has
already said the bill costs too much, but the disaster aid
was approved 69-30.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for
final passage of the farm bill. I want to thank Chairman Harkin for his
hard work and strong leadership in getting this bill through the
Senate.
Not a day goes by that a North Carolina farmer doesn't call my office
and tell me that he or she can't get credit with a local bank and can't
make planting decisions. And you can't really fault the banks; they are
reluctant to make decisions while some here try to play partisan games
with farm programs. We must get this bill passed and to the conference
committee. We must send a signal to our farmers and our farm lenders
that their Government will provide them a safety net.
But while I recognize the importance of moving this process along, I
still have serious reservations about this measure and the effect the
stringent payment limitations enacted here on this floor will have on
my farmers. The Grassley-Dorgan amendment, which I did not support,
could quite literally mean the end for many of North Carolina's
farmers.
Those who supported this amendment did so in an effort to rid the
farm subsidy system of abuses and that's an important goal. I don't
think there is a person, myself included, who would argue against
ensuring millionaires aren't profiting from Government payments. So I
don't question the good faith of those who offered this amendment. But
if this amendment remains in the final conference report, it won't rid
the system of abuses. In fact, his amendment would hurt those hard-
working men and women who are trying to make a decent living on family
farms.
Some people like to call this amendment the ``Scottie Pippen
amendment'' after the basketball player who reportedly received farm
subsidies. I am sure we have all heard other stories about millionaires
supposedly profiting off of this system. But I want to tell you a story
about the real impact of this amendment.
Kenneth is a cotton farmer in North Carolina. It costs about $475 an
acre to grow cotton in North Carolina, and this year the price was
roughly 36 cents per pound. For Kenneth, that meant he lost about $150
an acre--and he would be the first to tell you last year was a good
year.
So he got by with subsidies and his Loan Deficiency Payments. Kenneth
poured almost every cent of that money back in to that farm. And if
this amendment remains in the final bill, Kenneth will no longer be
eligible for most of the Government's assistance programs and I suspect
he wouldn't be able to survive 1 year.
And if you think he should just hang it up, then what should he do
for the other families who partner with him to work that farm? What do
you suggests Kenneth do for the farm hands--all with families to
support--who will be out of work? And let me tell you, eastern North
Carolina is struggling and employment opportunities are few and far
between.
I am sure if you asked him, Kenneth would tell you he doesn't like
receiving Government payments. I don't want him to have to give up his
farm because we here passed an amendment with unintentional
consequences.
Talk to my farmers. Talk to the dozens of people who are calling my
office every hour scared to death that if this
[[Page S694]]
amendment remains in the final conference report, they'll be put out of
business. They will tell you the reality. And not a single one of them
is a rich, corporate farmer. They are the salt of the earth,
hardworking men and women who want to make a decent living on their
land.
None of us wants wealthy people to profit from farm subsidies. But
payment limitations and gross income caps don't prevent millionaire
athletes from profiting from farm subsidies; they punish families with
massive debt and not a penny of cash flow, no matter what they are
worth on paper.
I urge the conferees to remove this amendment. I trust the conferees
will address this problem before they send their report to the full
Senate.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, water laws are always an issue of great
concern. However, they are of even greater concern in this day and
age--especially in the West. This was so evident late last night and
this morning when a deal was struck that relieves much of the West from
participating in the Reid-Bingaman Water Conservation Program, but
effectively sends New Mexico water down the river.
All Western Senators, whose States are in much the same situation as
New Mexico, opposed the Reid-Bingaman amendment. I came to the floor
today and learned that in an attempt to keep this ill-conceived program
alive, all Western States with the exception of five--Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, California, and Washington--were exempted. This was an
attempt to get most of the Western Senators who oppose this program
from voting against it in its entirety.
I was not consulted about New Mexico being allowed to drop out like
other Western States because apparently Senator Bingaman wanted to keep
New Mexico in the program--a program that is vehemently opposed by the
New Mexico Cattle Growers, the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau,
the New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc., the New Mexico Public Lands Council,
the Dairy Producers of New Mexico, the Arizona and New Mexico Coalition
of Counties, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, the Elephant
Butte Irrigation District, and the Carlsbad Irrigation District.
Major policy changes with regard to State water issues should be
considered carefully. The Reid-Bingaman proposal has never been the
subject of a hearing. My staff has been given at least six drafts of
this language--a sign that this should be introduced as legislation,
referred to committee, and then brought to the Senate with the benefit
of committee review.
The Reid-Bingaman proposal is a State program only in appearance--
especially for those Western States who are reclamation States, such as
New Mexico. There are many questions left unanswered when it comes to
reconciling the Reid-Bingaman program with Federal Reclamation law. For
example, does the entity that holds water rights in a reclamation
project mean the Secretary of the Interior, the irrigation district or
the individual landowner who receives the water under contract with the
irrigation district? Is this relationship altered if the land is under
a management contract or is leased in accordance with reclamation law?
Do all of these parties have to agree? If one landowner enters into an
agreement, what happens to the repayment obligations of the irrigation
district? Can the irrigation district be forced to transfer water
outside district boundaries by the landowner?
Another problem with the Reid-Bingaman program is that it allows the
Secretary or a State to use condemnation powers under other authority
to further the purposes of this program. I see nothing in this language
that prevents either the Federal Government or a State from extorting
compliance and eligibility. It is evident from the comments spoken on
the floor of the U.S. Senate that the clear objective of this program
is to take water from farmers for urban needs by laundering water for
conservation.
The Reid-Bingaman program requires that States have a program to
protect in stream flows. New Mexico does not have such a program and
states that do have a program may not have as comprehensive a program
as the sponsors of this amendment want. The New Mexico legislature has
previously defeated legislation that would create any type of water
bank or similar program.
State water laws--especially in the West--are all different. Yet, the
thrust of this program seems to be forcing states to conform their
water laws into some Federal mold.
Additionally, the Reid-Bingaman amendment allows for the transfer of
water to a ``designee of the State.'' That could be a third party.
Presumably, one could be ordered to transfer rights to an urban area or
private group or individual. It is not completely clear, but it seems
that state water law, especially as it applies to junior appropriators
is being preempted.
The ``savings'' clause in this amendment is too limited. It does not
preserve any limitations under other Federal law, nor does it clearly
preserve interstate compacts, treaties and the myriad of regulations
that define interstate streams.
Finally, I have heard many claim that this program is strictly
voluntary. It is voluntary on its face only. The language is drafted to
read that anyone who participates is ``willing.'' That is part of what
is wrong in the West. We don't have enough water and people do not want
to give up what little of this resource they have. If there were
willing sellers out in New Mexico, all of the groups I mentioned above
would not oppose the Reid-Bingaman program.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr President, I rise today as we debate the farm bill to
remind my colleagues of the vulnerability of American agriculture to
acts of biological terrorism directed against livestock and crops,
commonly known as ``agroterrorism.'' In December, I addressed the need
for new technologies to detect biological agents that could be used in
malicious attacks against our Nation's agricultural industry.
The hard-working men and women who provide our meat, poultry, and
dairy products, our fruits and vegetables, and our lumber and fibers
now have a renewed sense of urgency when they consider potential
threats to American agriculture. Responding to diseases in plants and
animals has always been a fact of life for American farmers and
ranchers. Now they are confronted with the possibility of intentional
acts to release biological agents that cause disease in crops and
livestock.
The impact of an animal or crop disease outbreak could be swift and
devastating to the U.S. economy. Although the threat to our Nation's
food supply is a serious concern when discussing agroterrorism, we must
remember that the primary purpose of agroterrorism is to inflict
economic damage. The combined annual sales from the U.S. agricultural
sector exceed $100 billion. American agriculture accounts for 13
percent of the gross domestic product and nearly 17 percent of domestic
employment. The U.S. accounts for about 15 percent of all global
agricultural exports.
The impact of agroterrorism is not a just concern for rural America
alone. All of America benefits from a healthy agriculture sector.
Therefore, all of America must share in protecting our critical
agricultural resources.
Agricultural security for American farmers and protection from the
intentional release of biological agents that cause disease in crops
and livestock are essential features of the agroterrorism legislation I
am drafting. My legislation will help American farmers and ranchers
protect their investments and livelihood by providing grants or loans
for security measures on their farms and ranches.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation, and Federal Services I have held hearings on the need
for enhanced coordination of the Federal agencies that respond to acts
of conventional bioterrorism. The same is true for agroterrorism. By
strengthening agency coordination and emergency response planning, we
will also be preparing the American agricultural sector to deal with
both intentional and natural crop and livestock disease outbreaks when
they occur.
Many of the diseases that potentially threaten American crops and
livestock have been virtually eliminated within the U.S. borders, or
have never appeared on American soil. For this reason, a crucial
element of agricultural security will involve the surveillance of plant
and animal disease outbreaks
[[Page S695]]
in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, already serves as an
agricultural disease watchdog at our borders and around our farms. We
must support ongoing APHIS efforts to detect and eradicate diseases at
home by establishing stronger connections to the international
community of agencies and organizations that monitor plant and animal
disease outbreaks.
A critical component of this legislation will involve establishing a
legal framework for agroterrorism, including penalties for those who
perpetrate destructive acts against crops and livestock. Indeed, acts
of biological terrorism are not limited to the intentional release of
disease agents to harm humans, livestock or crops. Deliberate and
destructive acts against agricultural and forestry research programs
are also routinely perpetrated by extremists who oppose biotechnology.
These acts of domestic terrorism do not involve the direct use of
biological agents, but they can be just as destructive as the
intentional release of disease-causing agents.
Recently, States from Washington to Maine have experienced
destructive attacks on agricultural research projects. Reports of these
acts of vandalism are often suppressed to avoid drawing further
attention to the vulnerabilities of Federal and private agricultural
research projects. Quite frequently, these attacks fail to destroy
biotechnology experiments. Instead, the hard work accomplished by
researchers who use traditional crop breeding methods is wiped out in
these senseless and illegal activities.
In closing, I would strongly urge my colleagues to lend their
attention and support to legislative efforts that will benefit all
segments of the U.S. agriculture economy. American farmers, Federal,
State and local emergency managers, law enforcement officers,
agriculture researchers, and consumers require our help in addressing
concerns about the intentional or inadvertent spread of exotic and
emerging agricultural diseases and the economic security of the United
States' agriculture industry.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, nothing the Senate does ths session will be
more important than passing a good farm bill that provides a strong
safety net and some certainty for our Nation's farmers.
I believe that Chairman Harkin has put forward a sincere effort to
accomplish these goals. However, I find that much to my regret, I must
vote against this legislation. There are a number or provisions in the
bill that lead me to this conclusion, but chief among them is that it
puts at risk our system of water rights in the West. I refuse to
compromise Utah's water rights.
Under this bill, farmers would be required to sell or lease their
water rights to the Federal Government if they choose to participate in
a specific conservation program. This sets a terrible precedent. I
strongly oppose using Federal dollars to encourage farmers to give up
their water rights. The Federal Government has enormous financial
resources with which it could purchase unlimited acre-feet of precious
water in the West. I cannot support a large incentive aimed at
stripping our farmers of the resource that makes our way of life
possible in the West.
The water conservation program I am referring to would also create an
unprecedented link between the Endangered Species Act and farm
programs. I have no doubt that this will lead to conflicts between the
goals of the act and the livelihood of our farmers. From what I have
seen, when such a conflict arises the farmer always loses. Our farm
families struggle enough. We shouldn't add to this burden.
From a broader perspective, I disagree with the overall approach of
this farm bill. I believe it is a return to the outdated, socialistic
farm policies of the past. As it is written it, 60 percent of farmers
will not benefit from the programs in this bill. The bill provides many
billions of dollars on subsidies for overproduced commodity crops such
as wheat, cotton, and corn. These crops are important, but what about
the many crops being grown by other farmers? In my opinion, the Harkin
farm bill does too little for farmers of minor crops, who face just as
many difficulties as the farmers of the main commodities.
Still, it is very difficult for me to vote against the farm bill
today, because there are provisions in it that Utah's farmers
desperately need. I was particularly pleased that the Wool Marketing
Loan Deficiency Payment Program for our struggling wool growers was
included. This was one of my top priorities. Also important, was the
passage of the Baucus amendment, which I supported, that would give
needed emergency financial assistance to livestock producers and apple
growers who have suffered losses due to drought conditions. Finally, I
was able to add a provision that would begin the process of creating a
free market for state inspected meat products. Of course, I will fight
to keep these provisions in the bill as it goes through the conference
committee.
These and other aspects of the farm bill are worthy of my support.
However, I do not believe we should benefit farmers on one hand, and
threaten their livelihoods and water rights on the other. That is not
what a Farm Bill should do, and for that reason I oppose it.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning my
amendment No. 2852 to the farm bill, S. 1731. As chairman of the
Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee I am pleased to be joined
by my ranking member, Senator Snowe, in offering this amendment. In
addition, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy and Collins,
two other New England Senators, who know all too well the problems that
our fishermen face in New England.
This amendment will permanently revoke Northeast multi-species
fishing permits using a ``reverse auction,'' a measure that has been
developed to ensure we remove the maximum amount of capacity from the
fishery at the lowest possible price to the taxpayers. We have more
than 1,600 permits in New England. Approximately two-thirds of these
permits allow fishermen to fish for only 88 days each year. The
remaining fishermen can fish, on average, 130 days a year based on
historical days-at-sea usage. As a result of a similar provision we
secured in July of 2000, the National Marine Fisheries Service has
begun the process of reducing latent capacity in this fishery, but
recent events have indicated the need to expand the program further.
While the New England stocks are slowly recovering after years of
substantial restrictions, additional limits are coming. The most recent
scientific advice suggests that we need to cut days-at-sea by 65
percent in order to meet our 10-year rebuilding targets for Gulf of
Maine cod. Basically, two-thirds of New England fishermen could be down
to 31 days a year of fishing, from the 88 days they are allotted today.
Obviously working families would be severely affected by such cuts. We
also desperately need to reduce capacity so that the size of the
fishery is in proportion to the available resource. The current latent
permit capacity reduction program will help tremendously, but I am
convinced a second round is needed to build a sustainable fishery.
To add pressure to this already difficult situation, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia will shortly be issuing its
determination on additional management measures that must be taken in
this fishery to meet Federal legal requirements as the result of a
lawsuit filed by a number of conservation groups against the National
Marine Fisheries Service. The plaintiffs have already prevailed in that
case, in which the court found unequivocally that the Federal
Government, which has the authority to approve or disapprove plans
developed by the New England Fishery Management Council, had not
ensured that these plans included rebuilding measures required under
the management plan nor measures to limit the bycatch of fish. In this
fishery, bycatch largely results from vessel-specific mortality
controls called ``trip limits.'' I must agree, as does every fisherman
I know, the idea of throwing fish overboard in order to meet management
goals designed to increase fish abundance is both counterintuitive and
wasteful. In order to fix the problem we need to increase the trip
limits for our fishermen so they no longer have to waste good fish in
order to make a day's pay. However, we cannot increase these trip
limits until we have reduced the number of permits available for this
fishery.
[[Page S696]]
This is unfortunately a long-term problem for many traditional
fishing communities in New England. This money will allow some
fishermen to retire with dignity, others no doubt will seek job
retraining and enter another profession. I am grateful to the managers
of this bill, Senators Harkin and Lugar, for agreeing to a voice vote
on this amendment. I am confident that this money will allow us to
build both sustainable fisheries and sustainable fishing communities in
New England in the years to come.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their
cooperation and for working through this bill. It has taken a good
while. But I believe, all in all, we have come out with a well-balanced
bill. It is a comprehensive bill, and it does reflect a great deal of
bipartisan cooperation.
I especially commend and thank my ranking member, Senator Lugar, the
former chairman of this committee, for all of his help and his support,
his guidance, his suggestions, his very close working relationship to
get this bill through. We had an excellent working relationship in the
committee. We did that expeditiously.
I knew we were going to have to have votes on the floor. As it turned
out, we did have quite a few on different parts of the bill. But I
believe, all in all, the relationship has been a great relationship. I
thank Senator Lugar and his staff for that.
I also thank Senator Reid for all of his help in pulling people
together and getting the votes structured and making sure that we had
an orderly process on the floor.
I thank our majority leader, Senator Daschle, also a member of the
Agriculture Committee, for all of his guidance and leadership in
bringing this bill to its final conclusion.
I thank Senator Lott on the other side for working with us. There
were numerous times when I went to Senator Lott, and we discussed what
we were going to do. I can say, without any hesitation, at no time was
he less than most helpful in moving this process along. So I thank
Senator Lott for that.
We have had some disagreements, of course. That is the crucible of
democracy that we have. We have had our votes. But what may not have
been fully reflected on the floor is the extraordinary degree, I
believe, of bipartisan cooperation and collaboration we have had
throughout the bill.
As I mentioned a number of times, all titles that we reported out of
the Committee were reported on bipartisan votes. We have a demonstrated
bipartisan majority for this bill on the Senate floor.
So, as I say, the bill is comprehensive. It is balanced. It is the
economic recovery vehicle and jobs bill for rural America. We have met
our responsibilities to farm families, rural communities, consumers,
and the environment. We have done so while fully complying with our
budget limitations.
I believe the highlights of the bill are the following:
First, we restore and rebuild the farm income safety net that has
been missing for the last 6 years.
Second, we have doubled our commitment to conservation. There are
more resources devoted to conservation in this bill than any farm bill
that has ever come to the Senate. We are proud of that. We have a new
conservation program--the Conservation Security Program--that will move
us in a new direction in this country, that will expand conservation to
every part of America. Whether it is a corn or soybean field in Iowa,
an orchard in Michigan, a citrus orchard in Florida, a vegetable farm
in New Jersey, or an almond farm in California, this Conservation
Security Program is going to promote conservation throughout the
country.
Third, on rural development, we include substantial new funding for a
variety of rural community development activities. We also create and
fund new rural development initiatives, including new programs for
rural equity capital investments in rural America. Senator Lugar and
his staff, and my staff, have worked closely together to develop this
consensus rural development title. I believe it is going to provide for
crucial new investment in rural America.
Fourth, we have a new title in the farm bill that has never been in
any farm bill, a renewable energy title, with $550 million mandatory
spending over 5 years for things such as ethanol and soy diesel, and
for biomass, wind energy, and hydrogen energy. If nothing else, we
learned from September 11, I think, that we have to address our
dependance on foreign oil. This bill will start to do that by
developing the renewable energy resources in our country.
Fifth, nutrition. In our bill we now over twice what the
administration proposed. The administration proposed $4.2 billion in
increased nutrition spending over the next 10 years. We have $8.9
billion in this bill. So we can be proud of the fact that we make this
great effort to make sure no one goes to bed hungry in America, to make
sure we have an adequate system of nutrition assistance through food
stamps, emergency food assistance and commodity distribution, in
addition to school breakfast and school lunch and other programs.
Lastly, on credit, agricultural trade, agricultural research--all of
these titles make substantial improvements to what we have done in the
past.
So, in conclusion, I thank Senator Lugar. I thank all of the staff. I
thank the staff on our side. I want to thank all of them by name:
Vershawn Perkins, Frank Newkirk, and Bob Sturm. I especially thank Bob
because all of the time we were out of our office in the Hart Building,
we crowded into his space. I really thank Bob Sturm for all of his help
in working out the situation of taking care of our staff.
I thank Terri Roney, Lloyd Ritter, Charlie Rawls, Erin Peterson, Doug
O'Brien, Stephanie Mercier, Mary Langowski, Jay Klug, Susan Keith, Eric
Juzenas, Sara Hopper, Amy Fredregill, Alison Fox, Kevin Brown, Seth
Boffeli, Karil Bialostosky, Rich Bender, and, of course, our
outstanding staff director, Mark Halverson.
I cannot say enough good things about Mark and all of the long hours
he has put in. I do not know if he has slept in the last 4 months. I do
not know if he has or not, but I think he deserves a break now. He has
performed superlatively in, guiding, directing, and working with our
staffs.
On the other side I will not mention all of the minority staff. I
know Senator Lugar already did. But I do want to mention Keith Luse,
the minority staff director, formerly the majority staff director.
Again, I thank Keith Luse for all of his wonderful working
relationships with me personally, with Mark Halverson, Charlie Rawls,
and all the people on our staff. It has just been outstanding. I just
cannot thank you enough for all the kindness and generosity you have
given to me and to our staff throughout this process.
So, Mr. President, this is a bill that we can go to conference with
that we can be proud of. It had strong bipartisan support as we came
out of committee. We worked our problems out on the floor, and I think
we have a bill that will revitalize and renew rural America.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on
final passage of H.R. 2646 occur at 12:30 p.m. today with rule XII,
paragraph 4, waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are moving to final passage of the
farm bill shortly. I would like to make a couple of comments prior to
the time we have the vote.
First, I commend our chairman for the extraordinary job he has done.
He has been remarkable over a long period of time. His leadership and
his cooperation and the tremendous effort he has put forth are to be
commended.
Again, one of the most able ranking members we have in the Senate is
the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar.
I admire him immensely for his intellect and for his ability to work
with people on all sides and all philosophies. Once again, he
demonstrated his ability, his leadership, and the kind of person he is
each and every day he came to the floor. I commend him as well.
Let me also commend, as Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar did, the
staff. We are very dependent upon our
[[Page S697]]
staff on all pieces of legislation; in particular, on the complexities
of agricultural policy. I must say for the record and emphatically
remind my colleagues of the work that they do, especially the staff I
am fortunate to have in my office. I am very grateful to them for their
work, for their persistence, for their ability to come up with
compromises oftentimes when we really had not thought there was one. I
thank them publicly and thank them especially today as we bring this
debate to a close.
This has been the longest debate on a farm bill in over 30 years.
Sometimes it has felt that way. Thanks to the work done in the
committee and on the floor, we now have a farm bill and a farm policy
that is improved in many ways, providing certainty for producers and
increased commitment to conservation, expanded nutrition, provisions
making farmers and ranchers more competitive, and needed assistance for
rural development.
I know we have had disagreements over the time period in which we
needed to get this farm bill moving. In the end, though, this is a good
bill. It will do a lot for rural America that is hurting right now, a
rural America that is hurting in large part due to the failure of our
current farm policy. Now we need to take the final step and pass it.
Agriculture and the farm economy provide roughly $1.3 trillion to our
economy and account for 24 million jobs. Rural America comprises 80
percent of our Nation's landmass and 20 percent of our population.
Our Nation literally cannot afford to leave rural America behind. Yet
rural America is hurting as never before. Farmers have already seen
prices drop every single year since the current farm bill was approved.
They are getting roughly half the prices they were receiving in 1996.
The record price drops farmers have seen in recent months and the
warnings from USDA that farm income could drop another 20 percent add a
level of urgency to this debate.
A recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that farmers
and ranchers are expected to lose 238,000 jobs over the next 10 years.
That is more than any sector of the U.S. economy. That is nearly the
population of St. Louis or Pittsburgh or Minneapolis.
We just cannot let that happen. Unless we pass this bill now and get
a new law soon, USDA will not be able to implement it for this crop
year. Instead, we would leave farm families to rely on a law so flawed
that we have needed to grant emergency assistance for each of the last
4 years. Make no mistake, passage of this bill is essential for the
survival of rural America.
This fall, I was in my State and met a ranch couple named Hight. When
disaster struck on September 11, Don and Adeline Hight of Murdo sold
100 calves and donated the proceeds, about $40,000, to help victims of
the attack. The manager of the local livestock association called their
donation ``an act of true Americanism.''
Rural families have always sacrificed for our country. They have been
facing a disaster now for years. With this bill, we have a chance to
provide certainty to producers, fix our failed farm safety net, and
help address the challenges we face in rural America.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can move immediately
to conference with the House and then present the bill to the President
for his signature as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from
Maine would like to address us. I invite her to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that legislation I
authored has been included in the final version of the farm bill. The
legislation, known as the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open
Space Initiative Act, would help to combat the threat of suburban
sprawl which has already consumed tens of thousands of acres of forest
land in the southern part of my home State.
I very much appreciate the assistance of Senator Lugar and Senator
Harkin, as well as Senators Jack Reed and Mike Crapo, who have worked
with me to put together this initiative.
Sprawl occurs because the economic value of forest or farmland cannot
compete with the value of developed land. In my home State, the problem
is particularly acute in southern Maine where over a 100-percent
increase in urbanized land over the past two decades has resulted in
Greater Portland being labeled as the ``sprawl capital of the
Northeast.''
I am alarmed by the amount of working forest land and open space that
has given way to strip malls and cul-du-sacs. Our State is trying hard
to respond to this challenge. The people of Maine have approved a bond
issue to preserve land through the Land for Maine's Future board, and
they continue to use scarce local funds and contribute their time and
money to preserve special lands and to support our State's 88 land
trusts.
Of course, the problem of sprawl is not limited just to Maine or to
the Northeast. Rapid, unmanageable growth affects many States and poses
a significant threat to forest land across the United States.
The effects of sprawl were highlighted by a study conducted by the
U.S. Forest Service last year. It examined forests in 13 southern
States and found that 12 million acres of southern forest land could be
lost to sprawl by the year 2020.
In Maine and elsewhere, communities are working hard to come up with
new strategies to protect our working forests and to safeguard our
communities from the effects of sprawl. I think it is time for the
Federal Government to lend a hand to these efforts.
My legislation, which was drafted with the advice of landowners,
conservation groups, and forestry experts, would establish a $50
million grant program within the Forest Service to support locally
driven projects that preserve working forests. State and local
governments as well as nonprofit organizations could compete for funds
to purchase land or conservation easements to keep forest lands in
their traditional uses.
The $50 million that would be authorized by my legislation would help
achieve a number of stewardship objectives. First, it would help
prevent forest fragmentation and preserve working forests, helping to
maintain the supply of timber that fuels Maine's most significant
industries. Second, the resources made available would be a valuable
tool for communities that are struggling to properly manage growth and
prevent sprawl. Currently, if a community were to turn to the Federal
Government for assistance, none would be found.
My bill will change that by making the Federal Government an active
partner in preserving forest land and managing sprawl, while leaving
decisionmaking to States and communities.
Mr. President, by enacting this legislation, Congress will provide a
much needed boost to local conservation initiatives and will help
sustain the vitality of our natural-resource-based communities.
I ask unanimous consent that letters of endorsement from the Maine
Nature Conservancy, the Maine Audubon Society, and the National
Association of State Foresters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Association
of State Foresters,
Washington, DC, December 5, 2002.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the National Association
of State Foresters, I would like to thank you for your
efforts to reduce the impacts of urban and suburban sprawl on
our nation's forest lands. Your proposed amendment, the
Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Initiative, to
Chairman Harkin's Farm Bill (S. 1731) demonstrates your
commitment to minimizing conversion of suburban forest lands
to non forest uses.
We support the overall concepts of the legislation. NASF
does not currently have a position on whether easements or
title to land purchased with federal funds should be expanded
from state to non-profit entities. However, maintaining
working forested lands in suburban environments is consistent
with NASF's goals.
As the Southern Forest Resource Assessment recently
released by the U.S. Forest Service clearly demonstrates, one
of the major threats to forest land is urban sprawl.
[[Page S698]]
The provisions in the Forestry Title of S. 1731 provide
important tools to enable landowners to keep their land in
trees and sustain the public benefits their forests provide.
Your amendment is another tool to address this critical
concern.
Thank you for your commitment to sustainable forest
management and to reducing suburban sprawl.
Sincerely,
Larry A. Kotchman,
President.
____
Maine Audubon Society,
Falmouth, ME, November 2, 2001.
Senator Susan Collins,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: We are pleased to be able to offer
our support of your proposed Suburban and Community Forestry
and Open Space Initiative Act of 2001, which would expand
opportunities for conserving forestland under the Cooperative
Forestry Assistance program. This Act offers a new
opportunity to protect some of the remaining actively managed
forestlands that provide habitat for many of our native
species, and encourages those lands to be managed
sustainably, with input and use from the local community.
This Act comes at a time when pressure to develop small
woodlands in southern Maine is ever increasing, interest in
conserving those woodlands is also increasing, but funds for
forest conservation are still limited.
Southern and Coastal Maine has the highest level of woody
plant and wildlife species diversity in the state.
Unfortunately, this area is one of the most desirable for
development and increasing development pressures are creating
a checkerboard of non-contiguous habitat for wildlife.
Although the overall population is relatively stable in
southern Maine, residents of larger towns and cities are
moving to surrounding rural communities, with residential
development, both permanent and seasonal homes, spreading
into large expresses of formerly agricultural and forested
open space.
In its final report dated January 1996, the Maine
Environmental Priorities Project (MEPP) concluded that
``patterns of development throughout southern and coastal
Maine and in riparian zones statewide seriously threatened
some species and some rare and critical habitats as well as
the overall productivity of Maine's terrestrial ecosystems.''
Protecting forest land throughout southern Maine wildlife.
During the past two years Maine Audubon, in concert with
several other state and federal agencies and nonprofit
conservation organizations, has been conducting outreach to
municipalities and land trusts to encourage the conservation
of forestland, including large blocks of underveloped and
unfragmented forestland that provide habitat for a wide
variety of Maine's native plants and animals. We are
providing local citizens with information about the high
value habitats in their community, and many of those we have
spoken with are intersted in acting to conserve forest land
but have few choices for funding land protection. If the bill
passes, we will be able to suggest a new source of funds for
their hard work.
Thank you for taking the initiative to help conserve
Maine's forest landscape and all the public benefits they
provide amidst the threat of sprawl. We look forward to
working with you on passage of the bill and on the subsequent
rule-making which will speak out just have the bill would be
implemented.
Sincerely,
Sally Stockwell,
Director of Conservation.
____
The Trust for Public Land,
Portland, ME, November 2, 2001.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the Trust for Public
Land, I am pleased to express our support for the Suburban
and Community Forestry and Open Space Initiative Act of 2001.
This proposal will provide a much-needed focus on working
forests that provide important resources in and around
Maine's towns and cities that are facing significant
development pressures. We applaud your foresight in
addressing this issue.
As the Trust for Public Land pursues its mission of
protecting land for people in Maine, we are acutely aware of
the difficult choices many landowners face as land values
rise and development pressures intensify. In addition, the
forest lands that lie in the path of development are
incredibly important to local residents for a variety of
resources, including recreation, wildlife habitat, water
quality and open space. Your legislation will allow these
critical lands to remain intact as community assets by
focusing federal assistance to landowners in areas affected
by suburban sprawl. This is a much-needed addition to the
resource conservation efforts that states, localities and
non-governmental partners are already undertaking and will
provide the extra funding leverage needed to successfully
meet the challenges of the future.
Our work with willing sellers across the state leads us to
believe that the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open
Space Initiative Act of 2001 will make a difference in many
Maine communities and will leave them in good shape for
future generations. Maine's forest resources are absolutely
critical to the quality of life that attracts residents and
visitors alike, and proposals like this one will ensure that
we address the conservation of those resources wisely.
Thank you for your leadership on this and many other issues
affecting Maine. We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Melville,
Maine Field Office.
____
The Nature Conservancy,
Brunswick, ME, November 2, 2001.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the Trustees and 13,000
members of The Nature Conservancy of Maine, I am writing to
you in support of your recently filed Suburban and Community
Forestry and Open Space Initiative Act of 2001.
From the St. John project in Northern Maine to the Machias
River downeast to Mt. Agamenticus in the South, the Nature
Conservancy is working in partnership with local communities,
the state, and federal governments to protect the best
remaining natural place in our state. As population continues
to increase in southern Maine, it is becoming increasingly
clear that growth and development could overtake and destroy
some of southern Maine's most outstanding forests and natural
areas. Your legislation could play an important role in
forever protecting these places. Two key sites, in
particular, come to mind as projects that could benefit from
Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Initiative
funds:
Leavitt Plantation Project, Parsonsfield: Encompassing
8,600 contiguous acres, Leavitt Plantation represents the
largest remaining block of forestland in one ownership south
of Sebago Lake. Threatened by sprawl and development, this
forest includes identified deer wintering and waterfowl/
wading bird habitat, and populations of seventeen rare
plants. The Leavitt Plantation Forest was to be cut up into
as many as 13 parcels early last year. The land's fate as
wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing grounds, hiking and
snowmobiling destination, and as an economic resource for the
region hung in the balance. Today, thanks to the cooperative
approach of a forest investment company, a conservation
group, the State, a small Maine town, area citizens and more,
this land is slated to be protected forever. But additional
funds are needed to complete the conservation of this
project.
Mt. Agamenticus, York, South Berwick, Elliot, Wells,
Ogunquit: Mt. Agamenticus, located in rapidly developing York
County, is the largest block of unfragmented, undeveloped
land near the coast between Baltimore and Portland. This vast
area is rich in native plants and wildlife, and home to
important and rare species. The forest also provides an
economic boost to the region. Mt. Agamenticus is also one of
the largest remaining recreational open spaces in southern
coastal Maine, the area is popular with birders, hikers,
bikers, and hunters, and a ``Mecca'' for mountain biking in
New England and the area consistently draws visitors from all
over the country to experience the mountain. In this rapidly
growing area of southern Maine, large, vast areas of open
space are becoming very scarce. The remaining forested lands
of Mt. Agamenticus area are threatened by sprawl and
development. However, if funded, a plan is in place to
protect this area for the benefit of the citizens of Maine
and future generations.
The Nature Conservancy supports your efforts to bring
additional federal funds to projects like these in Southern
Maine and throughout the state. Conservation of these great
places requires a commitment from the private sector as well
as from government, we appreciate your willingness to provide
leadership on such a vital issue to the people of Maine.
Sincerely,
Kent Wommack,
Executive Director/Vice President.
____
Friends of Acadia,
Bar Harbor, ME, October 16, 2001.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
U.S. Senator, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Susan: Friends of Acadia offers its full support for
the anti-sprawl bill you have initiated. It will have utility
across Maine.
Your proposal is of special interest in our region. It
offers a real hope of dealing with the sprawl that is
consuming so much of the Route 3 gateway landscape on the
mainland just above Mount Desert Island and Acadia National
Park.
Please let me know how we can help you advance this
important legislation.
Thank you for your leadership.
Yours sincerely,
W. Kent Olson,
President.
____
Maine Coast Heritage Trust,
Topsham ME, October 26, 2001.
Re Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Initiative
Act of 2001.
Senator Susan M. Collins,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: It is with great enthusiasm that I
write to express Maine Coast Heritage Trust's support for
your far-sighted Suburban and Community Forestry and Open
Space Initiative.
Maine's rural and suburban lands are changing fast as more
people move into Maine or move out of Maine's urban areas
[[Page S699]]
and into the rural countryside. This pattern of development
is altering the character of our state by diminishing both
its traditional villages and surrounding open farms and
forests. It also has a significant impact on local and state
budgets as expensive new schools and roads are built to
service these new neighborhoods.
Your initiative would provide important federal funds to be
matched by state and private dollars. As you know, Maine
voters showed their strong support for conserving open land
when they overwhelmingly endorsed the $50 million Land for
Maine's Future bond in 1999. Furthermore, the success of
Maine's 88 land trusts (perhaps the highest number of trusts
per capita in the nation) is a testament to Mainers'
commitment to maintaining the rural character of the state.
Your proposal would help leverage hard-won public and private
dollars.
I was particularly pleased to learn that your proposal
would complement the Forest Legacy Program. Forest Legacy has
been a critically important source of federal funds for
conserving large tracts of Maine's northwoods. Its
continuation is vital.
Thank you ever so much for your creative leadership and
hard work on behalf of land conservation efforts in Maine and
across America.
Sincerely,
James J. Espy,
President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to consideration of H.R. 2646, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2646) to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2011.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the
enacting clause is stricken and the text of S. 1731, as amended, is
inserted in lieu thereof.
The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading
of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill was to be read
a third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]
YEAS--58
Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--40
Allard
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--2
Bennett
Domenici
The bill (H.R. 2646) was passed.
[The bill will appear in a future edition of the Record.]
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists
on its amendments and requests a conference with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
The majority leader.
____________________