[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.

                          ____________________