[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 14 (Thursday, February 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S846-S849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support
for the farm bill the Senate passed yesterday.
I want to commend Senator Harkin for this bill. Through his
leadership, the Senate has passed a Farm Bill that will establish a
better economic safety net for many farmers, bolster conservation
efforts, improve nutrition and food security for our poorest citizens,
and encourage new opportunities in rural communities. The bill also
makes critical investments in agricultural trade and research.
I will talk about the long-term policy changes in a moment, but I
want to mention a critical amendment sponsored by Senator Baucus. The
Baucus amendment provides assistance to farmers and ranchers who have
been hard hit by drought and other weather events in the last year. I
worked with Senator Cantwell to include $100 million in market loss
assistance for apple growers in the amendment. I am very pleased the
Senate voted 69-31 in favor of the amendment, and I will work to keep
it in the final bill.
This Farm Bill passed by the Senate today will restore an effective
safety net for many of our Nation's farmers.
For the last several years, I have heard concerns from farmers in
Washington State who grow wheat, barley, dry peas, lentils and
chickpeas. They believe, as I do, that the 1996 Farm Bill failed to
meet the needs of producers and rural communities. The strongest
proponents of the 1996 Farm Bill argued that if we gave producers more
flexibility, created the best agricultural research system in the
world, and opened foreign markets, our farmers would thrive in the
global marketplace.
I strongly supported more flexibility in our commodity programs. And
I have strongly supported efforts to improve our research
infrastructure and expand and open foreign markets.
But our actions were not enough. Congress could not wave a magic wand
and create a rational world market for agricultural products. The
commodity title of the 1996 Farm Bill was written for a world that
simply did not, and does not, exist.
This year, in this Farm Bill, Congress has the opportunity to write a
commodity title that works. And Senator Harkin and the Senate
Agriculture Committee did just that. Wheat and barley producers in
Washington State will benefit from a strong safety net that includes a
good balance between higher loan rates, fixed payments, and
countercyclical payments when market prices fall below target prices.
In addition, the bill includes a new marketing assistance loan
program for dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas. I applaud this provision
in the bill. It will help restore market-based decisions and make it
economical for producers across the northern-tier States to grow these
important rotational crops. I have been pleased to work with my dry
pea, lentil, and chickpea growers in Washington State on this important
issue. I believe it is critical, and I urge, the conferees to retain
this provision in the final bill.
The Senate Farm Bill makes critical investments in conservation. The
conservation title creates new opportunities to conserve resources on
private lands while helping farmers and ranchers with their bottom
lines.
The conservation title of this bill gradually increases funding for
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program from its existing
authorization of $200 million a year to $1.5 billion each year. EQIP is
an effective and flexible tool. It provides technical, financial, and
educational assistance to producers to build animal waste management
facilities, improve irrigation efficiency, or enhance wildlife habitat.
The EQIP funding included in this bill will help us improve water
quality and salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest.
The bill also includes commonsense increases for the Conservation
Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. While I recognize
there are some concerns in farm country with expanding these programs,
I believe the CRP and WRP provisions in this bill are reasonable.
The bill includes a new water conservation program within CRP. I
believe this program will lead to new opportunities to protect fish and
wildlife, while respecting the rights of our farmers and ranchers. As
the bill goes to conference, I look forward to working with interested
organizations on this issue.
Finally, the conservation title expands our investments in the
Farmland Protection Program, the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program,
the Resource Conservation and Development Program, establishes a new
Conservation Security Program, and improves forestry initiatives.
The conservation changes made in this bill are particularly important
to States like Washington. The farmers in my State produce
approximately 230 commodities. However, only a fraction of these
commodities have a direct income or price support relationship with the
Federal Government.
Without new investments in the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, and the Conservation
Security Program, many farmers and ranchers would not receive the
financial help they need to make the conservation investments the
public is demanding. This bill creates a win-win situation for the
environment and for farmers and ranchers.
I believe Congress also has a responsibility to create a win-win
situation for our farmers and ranchers with respect to trade. One way
we can do this is to invest in trade promotion programs that will help
our farmers build marketshare in foreign countries.
In 1999, and again in 2001, I introduced the Agricultural Market
Access and Development Act. My legislation would increase funding in
the Market Access Program to $200 million and enhance funding for the
Foreign Market Development Program. I was joined on that legislation by
a bipartisan coalition of members.
[[Page S847]]
The Senate Farm Bill includes substantial new investments in the
Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program, and I
was pleased to be the leading advocate in the Senate to enhance these
programs.
Congress also has a responsibility to allow all commodity groups to
participate in our foreign food aid programs. I worked to include a
small provision in the Farm Bill that requires the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to issue a report on the use of perishable commodities,
like potatoes and apples, in foreign food aid programs. Specifically,
my amendment requires USDA to report to the Congress on transportation
and storage infrastructure problems and funding problems that have
prevented greater participation in the programs by specialty crops.
Just recently, 110,000 boxes of apples arrived in Vladivostok,
Russia. This is the first time USDA has funded a shipment of perishable
commodities through our foreign food aid programs. I believe our fruit
and vegetable producers deserve an opportunity to participate in these
initiatives, and I believe this report will be an important first step
in improving access to these programs.
The Farm Bill includes additional provisions that I believe will help
our farmers and ranchers.
The first would require country-of-origin labeling for fruits and
vegetables, meat, and farm-raised fish and shellfish. We require our
farmers and ranchers to meet environmental and food safety standards
that are far above many of our competitors. Country-of-origin labeling
will give consumers additional information with which to make a
decision on the food they buy.
The second provision would allow the Federal Government to guarantee
private loans to Cuba for the purchase of U.S. agricultural products.
For too long, the United States has used food as a weapon against the
Cuban people. The only person that has benefitted from this policy is
Fidel Castro. I strongly support the Committee's bill with respect to
Cuba, and I was pleased to join with my colleagues in defeating an
amendment to eliminate these new financing tools.
Trade is critical to the long-term future of our agricultural
producers. One other long-term investment we need to make is in the
area of agricultural research.
In my home State, we are fortunate to have an excellent working
relationship between our State universities and the USDA Agricultural
Research Service. Through these partnerships, our universities and USDA
have been able to leverage limited resources to create new varieties of
crops, enhance food safety and improve conservation. This research
benefits farmers, consumers, and the environment.
I am pleased that this Farm Bill strengthens our research
infrastructure and increases funding for priority research initiatives.
One program that is of particular significance to researchers in
Washington State is the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food
Systems, and I am pleased the Senate bill includes additional funding
for it.
The Farm Bill goes far beyond agriculture and conservation. It is a
critical vehicle for helping communities and the poor.
Senator Harkin has always been a leader in rural development, and
this Farm Bill shows how seriously he takes this issue.
Included in the managers' amendment is a provision I authored on
rural telecommunications planning. It would simply modify the broadband
telecommunications grant program in the bill to add a small planning
component. I will work to include this and other rural
telecommunications provisions in the final bill.
I would like to complete my remarks by commending Senators Harkin and
Lugar for their efforts in writing a strong nutrition title in this
Farm Bill. Both the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee have
an outstanding record on these issues. During debate on the Farm Bill,
I was pleased to support amendments that further strengthened the food
stamp program changes included in the bill.
The underlying bill made significant improvements to the food stamp
program. It provides three more months of transition food stamps for
families moving off welfare. It simplifies the program for State
administrators and participating families. It helps benefits keep up
with inflation and addresses the needs of the poorest families. And it
restores eligibility for low-income working legal immigrants and their
families.
The Senate also passed amendments by Senators Durbin, Dorgan, and
McConnell that expanded the nutrition title. The Durbin amendment
helped restore food stamp benefits to legal immigrants who have lived
in the United States for five years. The Dorgan amendment expanded
access to food stamps for families with children and modified the
excess shelter expense deduction. The McConnell amendment expanded
access to food stamps for low-income disabled families.
I was pleased to support final passage of this legislation. I believe
it is the right bill at the right time for rural America, and I look
forward to working with my colleagues as the bill goes to conference.
TRIBAL FORESTRY IN THE FARM BILL
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on two tribal
forestry amendments that were included in the Farm Bill that passed the
Senate yesterday. I was pleased to work on these amendments with
Senators Inouye, Daschle, Cantwell, Baucus, and Wellstone.
The purpose of these amendments is to improve coordination between
the United States Forest Service and Native Americans in managing and
protecting our natural resources.
The Forest Service owns millions of acres of forests and grasslands
that share borders with land owned by tribes and by individual Native
Americans. It is in the national interest for the Forest Service and
tribes to coordinate their efforts to protect and manage these
resources. It is also the Federal Government's fiduciary responsibility
to assist tribes in managing trust lands and to ensure that tribal
treaty rights on Forest Service lands are upheld. While over the years
the Forest Service has adopted many policies regarding relationships
with tribal governments, these policies have not been implemented
consistently.
In 1999, the Chief of the Forest Service created a National Tribal
Relations Task Force to make recommendations to strengthen policies and
improve coordination. The Task Force, which included representatives
from the Forest Service, the Intertribal Timber Council and the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, BIA, found that, ``Specific legal authorities,
authorizing legislation, regulations, manuals, and handbooks, must be
modified to expand the foundation necessary to build long-term working
relationships with Indian Tribes.''
These amendments build upon the recommendations made by the Task
Force. The first amendment expands the Cooperative Forestry Assistance
Act to include a section creating four programs for tribal governments.
Currently, tribes are eligible to participate in the Forestry
Incentives and Forest Stewardship programs created by the Act, but
there are significant barriers to tribal involvement in these programs,
which were designed primarily for state governments.
This amendment would allow the Secretary to facilitate tribal
consultation and coordination on issues related to tribal rights and
interests on Forest Service land, management of shared resources, and
tribal traditional and cultural expertise. It would also authorize the
Secretary to provide assistance with: conservation awareness programs
on tribal forest land; technical assistance for resources planning,
management and conservation; and tribal acquisition of conservation
interests from willing sellers.
The second amendment to the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act would
create an Office of Tribal Relations within the Forest Service. The
purpose of this Office is to provide advice to the Secretary on Forest
Service policies and programs affecting Native Americans, to ensure
coordination between the Forest Service and tribes and to administer
tribal programs set up by the Forest Service. The amendment also
requires the Office to coordinate with other agencies within the
Agriculture Department, as well as with the BIA and the Environmental
Protection Agency. Finally, the amendment requires the Office to create
an annual
[[Page S848]]
report on the status of these efforts to increase partnerships between
the Forest Service and Native Americans.
There is widespread support for these amendments authorizing greater
collaboration between the Forest Service and Native American tribes.
The Department of the Interior is in favor of these amendments, and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture has signed off on them as well. I have
heard from several Washington state tribes asking me to be an advocate
for these additions to the Forestry Title of the Farm bill. I am
especially grateful for the Makah Tribe and the Intertribal Timber
Council, which brought these ideas to me last year. Also, I greatly
appreciate the assistance I have received from Senators Daschle,
Inouye, Cantwell, and Baucus in working on these amendments. I also
appreciate help I received from Senators Harkin and Lugar so these
amendments could be included in a manager's package of amendments to
the Farm Bill. On behalf of the numerous tribes with forest and
grasslands bordering Forest Service lands.
ENDORSEMENT OF AMENDMENT TO BAN PACKER OWNERSHIP OF LIVESTOCK
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to call to the attention of
my colleagues an editorial which appeared in the Huron, SD Daily
Plainsman entitled ``We Need Action, Not Another Study.'' This
editorial provides a strong endorsement of the bipartisan amendment
that Senator Grassley and I had included in the Senate version of the
farm bill to ban the ownership of livestock by packers.
This newspaper recognizes the importance of my amendment and
understands the real motivation behind the lobbying efforts to replace
my language with a study on vertical integration--to kill it.
This editorial speaks clearly to the importance of having a farm bill
that goes after concentration and replaces government checks with
dollars from a true, competitive marketplace.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial published
in the Huron Daily Plainsman on February 10, 2002, be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Huron Daily Plainsman, Feb. 10, 2002]
We Need Action, Not Another Study
An amendment to the Senate farm bill being offered by Sen.
Tim Johnson, D-S.D., that would ban packer ownership of
livestock 14 days prior to slaughter is running into rough
resistance from the packing industry.
The latest is an amendment that would replace Johnson's
proposal with a study.
Passing a farm bill that generously hands out taxpayers'
dollars to producers who are caught in the mire of low
services caused by corporate concentration in the
agricultural industry isn't the idea. More important is a
farm bill that attacks concentration and replaces government
checks with dollars from the marketplace that are generated
from true market competition.
The Johnson-Grassley amendment is a step in that direction.
If Congress decides to study it some more, all that will do
is to allow the big boys to get even bigger and continue the
economic depression that has staggered rural South Dakota the
last five years.
Smithfield Foods, which owns the John Morrell plant in
Sioux Falls, recently placed ads in South Dakota newspapers
criticizing Johnson's amendment. The ad said that if the
amendment becomes law, Smithfield Foods would not rebuild the
Sioux Falls plant, or build a new plant in South Dakota or
make any further investment in South Dakota or any other
state where public officials are hostile to their company.
The ad has been called economic blackmail and politically
motivated. It appeared only in South Dakota newspapers, even
though Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is a co-sponsor of the
amendment and Smithfield owns a plant in Iowa. Johnson, who
has championed a number of bills, such as the ban of packer
ownership of livestock and a meat-labeling law, that brought
the ire of the meat-packing industry down on him, is facing a
tough re-election bid against Rep. John Thune.
But the motivation of the Smithfield ad is clear and
simple--further control and dominance of the livestock
industry.
It must be remembered that Smithfield is the company that
bought out the Dakota Pork plant and then promptly closed it
down, abruptly putting about 800 people out of work. At the
time, Dakota Pork was John Morrell's main competition for
South Dakota hogs.
In the Smithfield ad, not only did the company criticize
Johnson's amendment, but it also said Amendment E was a
restrictive law that was responsible for diminishing the
supply of South Dakota hogs to its Sioux Falls plant.
But what has caused the decline of the hog industry in
South Dakota was not the law that banned corporate hog farms
in the state, but the vertical integration business practices
of companies such as Smithfield Foods that seek to dominate
the industry from the gate to the plate.
The ``it's either our way or no way'' business philosophy
of giant agricultural corporations seeks to industrialize the
agricultural industry at the expense of independent farmers
and ranchers and rural communities.
Smithfield, which is already the world's largest producer
and processor of hogs, also reflects a corporate philosophy
that is troubling to independent producers and rural
communities.
Grassley recently spoke of a conversation he had with the
head of Smithfield, Joe Luters, when Luters said that the
average farmer isn't sophisticated.
``I wish we could remember the exact words because it was
very denigrating to the family farmer, not being smart enough
to run his operation,'' Grassley said.
The objectives of this amendment are to increase
competitive bidding, choice, market access, and bargaining
power to farmers and ranchers in livestock markets.
Now, does that sound like that would destroy the pork and
beef industry? Or does it sound like it would threaten large
corporations in their bid to decrease independent producers'
ability to have competitive bidding, choice, market access,
and bargaining in livestock markets?
PLANNING GRANTS FOR RURAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased that Chairman Harkin and
Senator Lugar accepted my amendment on rural telecommunications to the
Farm Bill that passed the Senate yesterday.
My amendment simply adds a small planning component to the scope of
acceptable activities for grants in the bill to help rural communities
get connected to broadband telecommunications services.
Specifically, my amendment would provide access to broadband planning
and feasibility grants to rural communities, with a maximum of $250,000
for statewide grants and $100,000 for regional grants. The total
resources would be no more than $3 million per year for this purpose.
State governments, regional consortia of local governments, tribal
governments, cooperatives, and State and regional non-profit entities
would be eligible to receive the grants.
As small and rural communities across the country try to get
connected to advanced telecommunications services, they need help in
the planning stage. And this amendment will give them the help they
need.
Three years ago, I formed several working groups in my state to
identify the primary needs of our rural communities and to find ways
that our government can help meet those needs. We learned that many
rural communities don't have access to advanced telecom services, like
high speed Internet access. That lack of access is hampering their
economic development and quality of life.
So I developed another working group to look for ways to help
communities get connected to advanced telecommunications services. The
members of my Rural Telecommunications Working Group held forums around
the state that attracted hundreds of people. We tapped the ideas of
experts, service providers and people from across the State who are
working to get their communities connected.
They found that while urban and suburban areas have strong
competition between telecommunications providers, many small and rural
communities are far removed from the services they need.
We must ensure that all communities have access to advanced
telecommunications like high speed Internet access. Just as yesterday's
infrastructure was built of roads and bridges, today our infrastructure
includes advanced telecom services.
Advanced telecommunications can enrich our lives through activities
like distance-learning, and they can even save lives through efforts
like telemedicine. The key is access. Access to these services is
already turning some small companies in rural communities into
international marketers of goods and services.
Unfortunately, many small and rural communities are having trouble
getting the access they need. Before areas can take advantage of some
of the help and incentives that are out there, they need to work
together and go through a community planning process.
Community plans identify the needs and level of demand, create a
vision for
[[Page S849]]
the future, and show what all the players must do to meet the telecom
needs of their community for today and tomorrow.
These plans take resources to develop. This amendment would provide
those funds.
Providers say they're more likely to invest in an area if it has a
plan that makes a business case for the costly infrastructure
investment. Communities want to provide them with that plan, but they
need help developing it.
Unfortunately, many communities get stuck on that first step. They
don't have the resources to do the studies and planning required to
attract service.
So the members of my Working Group came up with a solution: have the
Federal Government provide competitive grants that local communities
can use to develop their plans.
I took that idea and put it into a bill that I introduced in June
2001, S. 1056, the Community Telecommunications Planning Act of 2001.
The basic structure of that amendment was incorporated into the Farm
Bill.
When you think about it, it just makes sense. Right now the Federal
Government already provides money to help communities plan other
infrastructure improvements, everything from roads and bridges to
wastewater facilities.
The amendment would provide rural and underserved communities with
grant money for creating community plans, technical assessments and
other analytical work that needs to be done.
With these grants, communities will be able to turn their desire for
access into real access that can improve their communities and
strengthen their economies. This amendment can open the door for
thousands of small and rural areas across our state to tap the
potential of the information economy.
I will work to ensure this provision is included in the final bill
along with the other critical telecommunications initiatives that
passed the Senate yesterday.
butter/powder tilt
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA,
sets a price for the purchase of non-fat dry milk and the economic
impact of USDA's decision is very important to California dairy
farmers. On May 31, 2001, USDA made a decision to drop the price at
which it will purchase non-fat dry milk as part of the dairy price
support program.
USDA did not provide the dairy industry with an opportunity to
provide information or comment on the Department's recommended
decision. There was no advance notice or public hearings.
USDA conducted an economic analysis and all of the options may have
been analyzed. But this information has not been released to the
public, even though it was requested under the Freedom of Information
Act.
In the first 6 months after USDA's decision to lower the price for
non-fat dry milk took effect, California's dairy farm families lost
tens of millions of dollars. In meetings with USDA, California farmers
learned that another drop in the price is under consideration, which
would result in millions more lost to dairy farmers. California
produces 40 percent of the nation's supply of non-fat dry milk and so
California could be hit hard yet again.
Transparency is a critical part of a fair and equitable decision-
making process and it does not currently exist in the USDA process for
setting the non-fat dry milk price. The Secretary is currently required
to make a decision that includes factors such as cost reduction to
USDA. The Secretary also must consider other factors that the Secretary
considers appropriate. I believe additional steps should be taken
during the conference to assure tranparency in the Secretary's
decision-making process.
Factors that may be important to a decision to change the prices for
butter and non-fat dry milk include: whether the decision will result
in an intended change in milk production, whether the change will
actually reduce government purchases and related costs, whether it will
change producer milk prices, and whether other market factors, such as
imports, have an effect.
Milk Protein Concentrate, MPC, is of particular concern. A recent GAO
study documented significant increases in MPC imports that may be
displacing domestic milk protein products. Since USDA is not releasing
its economic analysis, we cannot know whether this important issue is
being properly considered.
I would like to ask the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee,
Senator Harkin, if he would be willing to work with me on additional
language to address this issue during the conference?
Mr. HARKIN. I would be pleased to work to address the concerns of the
Senator from California regarding USDA procedures for the dairy support
program.
____________________