[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.

                          ____________________