[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 7, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3904-S3922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  FARM SECURITY AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2002--CONFERENCE REPORT--
                               Continued

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand that the conference report 
before the Senate is the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002. As I understand the unanimous consent agreement, there are 6 
hours of debate evenly divided today and 6 hours of debate evenly 
divided on tomorrow.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the bipartisan farm bill conference report 
now before us has been approved overwhelmingly in the House of 
Representatives by a vote of about 2 to 1, and President Bush has 
pledged to sign it, calling it a significant piece of legislation and, 
of course, touting the great efforts we made to reach agreement.
  Now we have the crucial bill before us, and the Senate has the 
opportunity to join the House and the President with our approval of 
this legislation.
  The President said he wants this bill on his desk promptly, and I 
hope we

[[Page S3905]]

can do that. I intend to do all I can to make sure that happens. I am 
sorry we could not have taken this up last week and passed it on 
Thursday. The President could have signed it this week. But, as I 
understand, the other side insisted on having a minimum of 12 hours of 
debate on this. If that is what they want, that is certainly their 
right. So we are going to have another 2 days of debate on this farm 
bill.
  As the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am proud to 
sponsor it. I am proud of all the hard work the conferees and our staff 
have done. I am proud of the work that the farm groups, conservation 
groups, anti-hunger, and others across the country have done in seeing 
this bill through to the end. I am proud of those who lent their ideas 
in support of this bill. I am especially proud of all the members of 
the Senate Agriculture Committee on both sides of the aisle who worked 
diligently last year through some very trying times--need I mention the 
period of time after September 11 when our attention was focused on the 
terrorist threat to our country? But the members of our committee, 
including the Presiding Officer, continued to work to make sure we met 
the business of our country's agriculture and to make sure we came up 
with a farm bill that addressed a broad variety of needs all over 
America.
  I compliment and commend all of the members of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, as I said, on both sides of the aisle who worked very hard 
to get this bill both through the committee and to the floor of the 
Senate.
  I compliment all the conferees for making sure we have a good 
product--a product that was reached by compromise between the House and 
the Senate. The bill is truly a product of cooperation and 
collaboration across party lines--and across the Capitol between the 
two Houses.
  I commend my colleague and ranking member, my good friend, Senator 
Lugar from Indiana, for all of his courtesy and cooperation throughout 
the process of developing this bill.
  To be sure, we have some very substantial disagreements on the 
conference report. But Senator Lugar and his staff have been closely 
involved and have made major contributions throughout the provisions of 
this bill.
  I also thank Chairman Combest and Congressman Charlie Stenholm for 
all of their hard work and cooperation through the course of a 
challenging conference. I compliment publicly Congressman Combest for 
his fair and diligent leadership and for his chairmanship of the 
conference committee as we worked through this bill. This conference 
report reflects a tremendous amount of work and careful consideration 
by both the Senate and House of Representatives.

  The House Agriculture Committee began hearings on the new farm bill 
in 2000. Our committee began hearings on the new farm bill, under the 
leadership of Senator Lugar, in January of 2001. When the leadership 
changed hands, under my chairmanship we continued to hold an aggressive 
schedule of hearings over the summer. We marked up the bill in November 
and reported it to the Senate on November 27.
  Final Senate action was delayed because we were repeatedly unable to 
obtain cloture before the holiday recess. But we came back and passed 
the bill on February 13.
  Since then--up until May 1--we have been in conference. We began the 
conference with a very large number of critical issues in disagreement 
between the Senate and the House on this comprehensive, complicated, 
and far-reaching bill. We worked long and hard and made our way through 
disagreements to produce this new, strong farm bill.
  I will be the first to admit that this conference report is not any 
one person's idea of perfection. It is, however, a very good bill. It 
is a solid, balanced piece of legislation, a product of the crucible of 
rigorous debate, hard work, and tough negotiating.
  The conference report also reflects the necessary give and take of 
the conference on a major piece of legislation and the imperative of 
reaching compromises and settling differences for the sake of the 
larger objective of getting the bill completed and passed. The bottom 
line is that there is far too much at stake in this bill for farm 
families, rural communities, and our Nation as a whole, for us to let 
this bill die over a stalemate or to send it back and deadlock in 
conference.
  For anyone looking for faults to criticize, they are there. I could 
get points for several myself. Each of us could. But given the rigor of 
the negotiations and the strongly held views on each side, I can assure 
you that further negotiation--if this bill were to be sent back to 
conference--would not and cannot produce an outcome appreciably 
different from that which is now before the Senate. I can say that if 
this conference report is defeated and sent back to conference, there 
will not be a farm bill this year.
  As I said, each of us can look and say: Well, I don't like the 
specifics, or, I don't like these two items which I voted for in the 
Senate, or which I voted for in committee, and it is not in there. Yes, 
we can all do that. We can pick it apart. But, again, if you look at 
the overall aspects of the farm bill for commodities, for nutrition, 
for conservation, and for rural development, when you look at it in its 
broad aspect, this is a bill worthy of support.
  This trial by fire of going through the procedures means we have a 
comprehensive and forward-looking bill. This bill restores sound farm 
income protections. It offers predictability and stability to 
agricultural producers, suppliers, and others. It greatly strengthens 
our commitment to conservation, to investing in jobs, to economic 
growth, and to the overall quality of life in rural communities. And, 
for the first time ever, we have an energy title in this farm bill to 
boost farm-based renewable energy.
  Last week, President Bush said this bill has ``the strongest 
conservation provisions of any farm bill ever passed by Congress. The 
final provisions of the farm bill are also consistent with America's 
international trade obligations, which will strengthen our ability to 
open foreign markets for American farm products.''
  That is a quote from President Bush.
  (Mr. WELLSTONE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HARKIN. Rural America is waiting for this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to send this critical legislation to the White House without 
further delay.
  Again, I am proud that we have got this bill through. When we look 
back to 1996, that farm bill was signed into law about 6 months after 
the previous farm bill expired. I am proud to say we have this farm 
bill before us 5 months before the present farm bill expires.
  I would like to go through, as briefly as I can, the various titles 
of the farm bill.
  First, I will go through the commodity programs. Then we will take up 
the different areas of energy and conservation, and some other aspects 
dealing with trade and WTO just to set the record on where we are with 
this conference report before us.
  The conference put together a balanced package that includes three 
elements of support: direct payments, countercyclical payments, and 
marketing assistance loans.
  The first chart I have in the Chamber shows the protection levels for 
different commodities: corn, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, and barley. This 
is not all of the commodities; this is just representative of many of 
the commodities we cover.
  The income protection levels are shown in green on the chart for the 
present 1996 farm bill, plus the emergency payments are in kind of a 
purple color. What it shows is that for all these major crops, the farm 
bill before us will provide much higher income protection levels than 
the existing farm bill.
  For example, on soybeans, the income protection level under the farm 
bill before us is $5.80 per bushel. Under the farm bill we are now 
operating under--the old farm bill; the 1996 farm bill--it is $5.04 a 
bushel. And going on through all the rest: for wheat, the income 
protection is $3.86 a bushel under this bill. It is only $3.24 under 
the previous farm bill.
  The next chart shows the commodity program spending by crop-year. 
There has been some talk that we are somehow cheating farmers out of 
money, that we are spending less. But that is not true. This chart 
shows the spending by crop-year from 1996 on through 2002. The total 
includes AMTA payments, the marketing loss assistance and 
countercyclical payments, LDPs, marketing loan gains, and certificate

[[Page S3906]]

gains. We have bundled everything together to show the total income.
  After enactment of the 1996 farm bill--and we had all these emergency 
procedures--the high water mark was $19.73 billion in 2000. Last year--
2001--that dropped to $16.17 billion. And in 2002, we bring it back to 
$17.91 billion in spending for the total amount of crops. So you may 
hear arguments that the total spending this year is less than before, 
and that simply is not true.
  I have heard some talk that a typical farmer would get less this year 
than they got under the farm bill before, the 1996 farm bill, plus the 
double AMTA payments they got last year. So we took an Iowa farmer--I 
did not do any other State--with 1,000 acres, growing corn and 
soybeans. And it was assumed that the loan rate would be frozen at the 
current levels for the 1996 farm bill, which basically the Secretary 
did.
  For that typical Iowa farmer, under the farm bill now before us, the 
payments would total about $83,884. Under the old farm bill, it would 
total about $73,987--a difference of about $10,000. So a typical Iowa 
corn farmer this year is going to be a heck of a lot better off under 
this bill than if we were to continue with the old bill, even plus all 
of the double AMTA payments and the emergency payments.

  This chart shows an even more drastic difference. Again, the $83,884 
is the payment to that typical Iowa farmer this year. The $57,947 would 
represent the 1996 farm bill and a loan rate that was at the lowest 
rate. In other words, if the Secretary lowered the loan rate, that 
would be the payment to an Iowa farmer.
  I must say, there has been a lot of talk that the Secretary has 
talked about lowering their loan rates. That would be $1.67 a bushel 
for corn, for example, and $4.92 for soybeans. What we did in this farm 
bill, Mr. President, as you well know, is we not only raised the loan 
rates but we removed the ability of the Secretary to lower those loan 
rates. That provision has been in the law, and this is how low we would 
go if the Secretary exercised it. In this farm bill, the Secretary does 
not have that discretion.
  I am going to talk about the WTO aspects in a moment, but let me 
comment a little bit further about the present farm bill.
  We continue the planting flexibility in the current farm bill. The 
1996 farm bill allowed farmers to plant however they wanted to, on 
whatever acres they wanted. Farmers liked that, so we have continued 
the planting flexibility.
  The producers will be eligible for direct and countercyclical 
payments as long as they comply with soil conservation and wetland 
protection, use the land for an agricultural or conserving use, and do 
not plant prohibited fruits and vegetables on base acres.
  The countercyclical program is a major improvement over the 1996 farm 
bill. Owners of farmland will have a one-time opportunity to update 
their crop acreage base and to partially update their payment yields 
for countercyclical payments. The countercyclical program is designed 
to supplement farm income during times when commodity prices are low.
  As I said, we have rebalanced the commodity loan rates to minimize 
market distortions. Loan rates under the conference agreement are not 
as high as in the Senate-passed bill, but the loan rates in this bill 
will provide an adequate level of support for crop producers without 
stimulating surplus production. We have tried to assure that producers 
can choose to produce alternative crops, such as minor oilseeds, dried 
peas, lentils, and small chickpeas. Producers will be able to 
demonstrate minimal price supports for these alternative crops, which 
can make all the difference to their lenders.
  The conference report includes allotments to limit U.S. sugar 
production to keep production in line with demand and ensure that the 
sugar program can operate without cost to the Federal Government.
  The conference report also includes a major reform of the peanut 
program to help U.S. peanut producers and processors survive in a 
changing world market and trade environment.
  This bill complies with all of the WTO commitments. I would refer to 
this chart in the Chamber. There has been some talk--and we may hear 
some talk in the ensuing 12 hours of debate--about the possibility that 
we could violate WTO. We have looked at this very carefully. Under a 
worst case scenario, there is only minimal possibility that we violate 
our WTO agreements. Right now, as you well know, we have a provision 
under WTO that puts things in amber boxes, green boxes--and I don't 
need to belabor what that is all about. Let's just say, under the green 
box, you can spend as much as you want. That does not violate any of 
our trade agreements. Under the amber box, for specific payments, we 
have a $19.1 billion cap. In other words, if we go above $19.1 billion 
in any year in spending, then our trade partners could, if they want, 
take us to a dispute settlement panel in terms of violating the WTO 
agreements.
  So here, under the amber box, as you can see, is the $19.1 billion, 
as shown on the chart, that we are allowed in a year. Right now we are 
spending about $11 billion a year in that amber box. The likely effect 
of the bill before us--the conference report before us--is about $12 
billion a year under likely scenarios.
  Under a situation with very low prices, such as we saw in 1999, when 
payments went up, we faced absolutely devastating circumstances and the 
rest of the world had strong production--under that, we get about $16.7 
billion under the amber box. So we are still nearly $3 billion below 
the ceiling we are allowed under the amber box.
  Under the green box, we are about $13.3 billion. We have come up, 
with our conservation programs, to about $16.3 billion under the green. 
That doesn't violate anything. It just means we are giving farmers more 
non-trade-distorting protection under the green box, which is not only 
allowed but encouraged under WTO. We are giving them more support under 
the amber but not to the extent it is very likely that we would violate 
our trade agreements. I will get to conservation. But before I do, I 
wanted to specifically talk about the fact that we will not in any way 
be violating our WTO agreements.
  When the Senate considered this bill, it adopted stricter commodity 
program payment limitations. The House bill not only did not reduce 
payment limits, it expanded them. In conference we argued aggressively 
for the Senate's position of stronger payment limitations. The House 
conferees took an extraordinarily strong stance against lower payment 
limits. So it should be no surprise to anyone that the conference 
report contains a compromise.
  Under existing law the limit is $460,000. The House bill had a 
payment limit of $550,000 for an individual or a married couple. The 
Senate bill contained a $225,000 limit for an individual or $275,000 
for a couple. For the past several years, under the previous farm bill, 
the limit has been set at $460,000.
  So the conference agreement includes a limit of $360,000 for an 
individual or a couple--well below the House bill level. Again, the 
present level is $460,000. The House went to $550,000. We reduced that 
down to $360,000--much closer to the Senate-passed level of $275,000.
  I just saw a press report the other day that a Congressman, a Member 
of the other body, had specifically lambasted this bill because of the 
high payment limits. He pointed out that Ted Turner, Scottie Pippen 
and--I forget who else he mentioned--a couple of other wealthy people 
could still continue to get all these big payments. Nothing could be 
further from the truth, I am sorry to tell the Congressman. In the 
conference report, we changed one other provision, another reform in 
payment limits.
  We include a new eligibility test that will prevent any individual or 
entity--that is very important, individual or entity--with an adjusted 
gross income of $2.5 million or more from receiving any commodity or 
conservation payments--$2.5 million. If that person is actively engaged 
in agriculture and their income all comes from agriculture, then that 
does not apply. But for someone like Scottie Pippen and Ted Turner--
obviously their income comes from other places--they not only would not 
be eligible for the payment limits, they are not eligible for any 
payments, period, zero. So that was another reform we made.
  In addition--this is most significant--under our compromise, the

[[Page S3907]]

USDA will be required to track payments through entities such as 
partnerships and corporations, cooperatives, so that we can determine 
exactly what amounts an individual is receiving. This transparency will 
provide much more accurate data for Congress in order to make better 
informed decisions about payment limit issues in the future. Again, for 
the first time ever we are going to have full transparency. The 
Secretary is required to come up with a methodology so that we can 
track payments through any kind of partnership, cooperative or 
corporation, so that we can find out exactly who is getting what. We 
have never had that before.

  The conference report also establishes a commission to review who 
receives benefits and to recommend changes in the law regarding how 
payment limits operate. As I understand it, the Senate will get three, 
the House gets three, and the President appoints four. That is how the 
commission will be set up, if I am not mistaken.
  Some will argue and will continue to argue that the Senate conferees 
brought back too little on payment limitations in this conference 
report. However, this is the reality: If we Senate conferees had issued 
an ultimatum on our position, we would not be here today with a 
conference report on the farm bill. That was clearly indicated to us by 
House conferees and, quite frankly, by some on our own side.
  I am greatly disappointed this conference report does not contain 
stronger payment limitations. But failing to produce this farm bill 
would have been far worse for farm families, rural communities, and our 
country as a whole than getting the compromise we did on payment 
limitations. Simply put, it would have been irresponsible to walk away 
from this new farm bill over the failure to reach a compromise on 
payment limitations and thereby forfeit the desperately needed farm 
income protection our bill contains for farms of all sizes, including 
small and modest-sized farms.
  As far as this Senator is concerned, this bill is far from the final 
word on payment limitations. We will continue to examine this issue. We 
will get our commission established. We will continue to look, through 
the transparency, at exactly who is getting these payments. At some 
point down the road, I am sure this committee will come up with further 
legislation to refine and reform payment limitations.
  We made some important strides in this bill regarding specialty 
crops. Not only did we provide funding for farmers' market nutrition 
programs and for commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program 
and the School Lunch Program, a portion of which are specialty crops, 
we also directed USDA to increase their average spending on specialty 
crops by setting a floor of $200 million annually for the amount of 
funds that must be devoted to the purchases of fruits and vegetables 
each year.
  This is vitally important, both for our specialty crop producers, and 
for the health of our kids and low-income individuals. Before we didn't 
have a floor. Some years we went as low as $100 million a year in the 
level of spending for fruits and vegetables. This bill sets a floor of 
$200 million minimum. We can go higher than that, but we can't go lower 
than that. I believe that is going to be good for our fruit and 
vegetable farmers and also good for nutrition of all Americans.
  Mr. President, on the dairy issue--this is one that always perplexes 
and bedevils us in this country, but I believe we have come out with a 
dairy provision that represents, as best as possible, all the interests 
across our country. I think it is a significant victory for our smaller 
dairy farmers. We maintain a permanent $9.90 price support for milk. We 
established a new 3.5-year national dairy program to provide assistance 
to all U.S. producers. This national dairy program will provide a 
payment based on the difference between $16.94 and certain prices in 
the Northeast, but I will try not get into the convoluted details of 
it.
  Basically, we said that for up to 2.4 million pounds of production 
per dairy farm per year, we will support your prices up to about 
$16.94. So really, this is targeted to helping our smaller dairy 
farmers. That 2.4 million pounds of production per dairy farm per year 
is about 137 cows--or 125 to 140 cows. That is really our smaller dairy 
farms.
  The conservation section is one of which I think all of us can be 
proud. It is the one section that President Bush highlighted in his 
comments when talking about this bill. In addition to producing food 
and fiber, America's farmers and ranchers play a critical role as 
stewards of our natural resources for today and for future generations. 
The conservation title in the farm bill recognizes conservation as a 
cornerstone of sound farm policy, adding $17.1 billion in new funding. 
It is an 80-percent increase above the baseline. This reflects a strong 
commitment to helping agricultural producers and landowners conserve 
and improve water, air, plants, and wildlife. The bill strikes an 
important balance between conservation programs that idle land, such as 
the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program, and 
programs that focus on lands of production, such as the EQIP program--
Environmental Quality Incentives Program--and the new Conservation 
Security Program. Together all the programs in the conservation title 
provide the full array of options to producers who voluntarily 
incorporate conservation practices on their lands.
  The Conservation Reserve Program is expanded to 39.2 million acres 
from the current cap of 36.4 million acres. The WRP program--Wetlands 
Reserve Program--cap is more than doubled to 2.275 million acres. EQIP 
funding--so important to our livestock producers, our dairy farmers--is 
increased 5.5 times, from a 10-year baseline of $2 billion, to $11 
billion.
  The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program is so important to our 
sportsmen all over America for increasing and preserving wildlife 
habitats all over this country. Funding for the WHIP program is 
increased 14 times--fourteen-fold--to $700 million, from a total of $50 
million over the life of the last farm bill.
  Funding for the Farmland Protection Program, to provide protection 
for farmland around some of our urban areas and keep it in farmland 
rather than being developed--funding for the Farmland Protection 
Program jumps nearly thirty-fold--nearly 30 times--from the $35 million 
in the last farm bill, to nearly $1 billion in this bill.
  The farm bill contains important, new programs as well as increasing 
funding for existing ones. To address the growing need for water 
conservation, the bill contains $600 million for a national ground and 
surface water conservation program, including $50 million for producers 
located in the Klamath Basin in California and Oregon.

  The new Grassland Reserve Program will help conserve and restore 2 
million acres of grassland across the country. This important new 
program is funded at $254 million. The bill also contains $275 million 
for the Small Watershed Dam Rehabilitation Program, to restore ailing 
dams across the country. Many of these dams out in Iowa, and in 
Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, are rapidly deteriorating. This 
program will rebuild those dams to preserve, to protect the safety of 
those living near them and save our precious water.
  Finally, an important, new component in our conservation bill is the 
new Conservation Security Program. Through the CSP, all agricultural 
producers who can receive payments for implementing conservation on 
working lands. By encouraging producers to address critical resources 
on their operation at a non-degradation level, CSP will lead to 
substantial, new environmental benefits and help maintain those gains 
already made.
  The time has come to recognize farmers and ranchers as good stewards 
of the land, the basic stewards of our Nation's natural resources. The 
importance of maintaining the conservation achievements of the past 
cannot be over-stated. Paying good stewards to maintain their good work 
is clearly the right thing to do. And now we can do that through the 
Conservation Security Program.
  In order to ensure successful implementation of the conservation 
programs, we include funding for technical assistance, including for 
education, monitoring and assessment activities, directly from the 
conservation programs. Without strong technical assistance, 
conservation programs could not be fully implemented. This farm bill 
recognizes that and provides for funding for technical assistance.

[[Page S3908]]

  Overall, the conservation title provides a balanced approach to 
conservation--the largest increase in a farm bill ever--and provides 
critically important resources for our agricultural producers.
  I will point to this chart, which gives an official representation of 
what we have done in conservation. Under the 1996 farm bill, we have a 
total 10-year baseline of $21.4 billion. That provides $19.4 billion 
for land idling programs, like CRP and WRP, and only about $2 billion 
for conservation programs directed toward working lands to help farmers 
become better stewards. The new farm bill tries to restore a balance 
that ensures strong land-idling and working lands programs. Of the 
nearly $17.1 billion in new funds, we put $14 billion in new funds in 
working land programs and $3 billion in new funds in land idling 
programs. That gives us a more balanced approach.
  In this farm bill, we have a total of $38.5 billion for conservation. 
Of that total, there is about $16.1 billion that will go to 
conservation on working lands and about $22.4 billion that will go to 
land idling. Again, you get back a historical balance of what we had in 
the past and recognize that as farmers produce crops across our country 
they are stewards of the land. There are some people who seem to think 
that if you raise corn or soybeans or rice or cotton--whatever--if you 
are growing crops or raising livestock, then you are destroying the 
land, the soil, the water and other natural resources. Well, that could 
be true, depending on how you farm.
  If you farm up and down the hills, in the gullies, and you don't put 
in grass strips or buffer strips, or you don't ridge till, perhaps, or 
no till, you are right; you can lose a lot of soil. If you do it in the 
right way, you can grow crops and you can preserve soil, water and 
wildlife habitat, our natural resources. That is why we directed much 
of the new funding toward working lands programs--to help farmers be 
those good conservationists, yet still produce the food and fiber we 
need for our country. This balance was struck while ensuring that 
programs like WRP and CRP remain strong.
  Mr. President, as I said, we have strong spending for the existing 
programs: Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program; 
Farmland Protection Program; Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; and 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program. These are all the programs 
that are in existence in the present farm bill. We strengthened and 
expanded them, as you can see. The Farmland Protection Program is 
increased from $35 million to nearly $1 billion--$985 million.
  The wetlands reserve has been increased from 975,000 acres in the 
1996 Farm Bill to 2.275 million acres. Even with the addition of 
100,000 acres through a appropriation bill, that is still more than 
double the current level.
  EQIP has been increased from $2 billion to $11 billion.
  We heavily boost existing programs.
  We added new programs. The Ground and Surface Water Conservation 
Program was not in the last farm bill. We have $600 million in this 
bill for that program.
  For the Conservation Security Program, there is a $2 billion 
estimated cost.
  For the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, there is $275 
million.
  For the Agricultural Management Assistance Program for certain under-
served States, there is $50 million.
  We have a provision that helps at-risk natural desert terminal lakes. 
We need to protect and preserve those lakes. There is $200 million in 
the bill for that program.
  I want to put up the last chart again. I heard and read some reports 
that because of the new conservation programs we put in this bill, 
especially the Conservation Security Program and others, we are taking 
money out of EQIP or we are hurting funding for existing conservation 
programs. In fact, there is a conservation group--I am sorry, I cannot 
remember the name now--that basically is saying that we are taking 
money out of these programs.
  Again, the facts are just the opposite. We have increased many 
existing programs. As I said, the Wetlands Reserve Program has been 
increased from 975,000 acres to 2.275 million acres. EQIP has a 5.5-
fold increase. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program has a fourteen-
fold increase. The Farmland Protection Program has nearly a thirty-fold 
increase. We are not taking money away from any of these programs. We 
enlarged the pie. When people say we are hurting existing programs, 
that simply is not true. We are providing more options for producers 
and opening conservation programs to all those producers who are 
currently left out of conservation programs because they are already 
doing the right thing. Or, out of commodity programs because they do 
not grow a covered crop. The CSP reaches all of those producers--it 
expands the conservation programs and is money well spent.
  Let me talk about trade. The trade title offers major gains to 
agricultural producers and agricultural export industries. The Market 
Access Program will be ramped up to a $200-million-a-year program by 
2006. This is the level that has been sought by supporters of the MAP 
program. It represents a 122-percent increase over the current funding 
level of $90 million a year.
  The trade title also provides additional funds for the Foreign Market 
Development Cooperators Program--otherwise known as the FMD Program--
from $27.5 million to $34.5 million annually.
  The trade title of the farm bill also expands use of U.S. commodities 
in food aid shipments both under the existing Food for Progress Program 
and to continue the pilot International Food for Education Program, 
otherwise known as the International School Lunch Program.
  The bill provides an increase in transportation spending for the Food 
for Progress Program from its current level of $30 million to $40 
million and increases funds to cover administrative costs for these 
organizations running the projects within country from $10 million to 
$15 million.
  The conference report provides $100 million to be available next 
fiscal year to continue support for existing projects under the GFEI 
Program established in 2000.
  Lastly, there are two other issues I want to mention. The nutrition 
title is a very strong part of this conference report. We can all be 
justly proud of that title. The House bill provided $3.6 billion in new 
funding for nutrition. The Senate bill had $8.4 billion, as we reported 
it out of the Senate. The compromise is $6.4 billion for nutrition and 
food assistance. That is a level that is much closer to the Senate 
position and not quite as close to what the House had in their bill.
  We restore food stamp benefits to legal immigrant adults who have 
lived in the United States for at least 5 years, and to legal immigrant 
children and the disabled without residency requirements. President 
Bush wanted the first part of the provision, and we complied with his 
wishes and put it in the bill. The second part of the provision 
restoring food stamp benefits to children and the disabled without a 5-
year waiting period originated in the Senate.
  We provide transitional benefits for people moving from welfare to 
work, and we increase the benefits for families with children.
  We have simplified some food stamp program rules and have reduced the 
administrative burden for States.
  We have increased funding for commodity purchases and distribution to 
these programs. The nutrition title is certainly a part of the bill we 
can all proudly support.
  Again I thank all of the members of the committee. I especially 
commend Senator Lugar for his contributions to this title, both in the 
committee and on the floor, and as we went through conference.
  I want to remind everyone that the food and nutrition assistance 
programs affect our entire country. A lot of people say this is just 
the urban portion of the bill. Again, nothing could be further from the 
truth. Hungry people do not know city boundaries. They live in our 
small towns and communities. They live in the most rural areas in our 
country--in all parts of our country. In fact, ten percent of America's 
households face hunger. They include the working poor, single working 
mothers with children, seniors forced to choose between paying for food 
or paying for prescription drugs, families forced to choose between 
heating and eating.

[[Page S3909]]

  The cornerstone of our safety net, the Food Stamp Program, is the 
most effective and efficient program ever for low-income families, the 
elderly, and the disabled. It is a critical work support program, one 
that boosts low-income families' wages and helps them make ends meet 
every month and put food on the table.
  We have successfully addressed these issues head on and have produced 
a nutrition title that stands out in several respects: We have improved 
accessibility; we facilitate the transition from welfare to work; we 
reduce paperwork and redtape; and, as I said, we correct one of the 
harsh aspects of welfare reform, and that is, we restore food stamp 
benefits to legal immigrant children and the disabled right away and to 
legal immigrant adults who have been here at least 5 years.
  The title includes other important provisions as well. It includes 
funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program to help food banks 
and food pantries meet the needs they face, and it re-authorizes a 
number of other commodity distribution programs. It includes funding 
for both the WIC and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Programs. It 
provides additional money for commodities for schools with a focus on 
speciality crops.

  Again, our bill also directs USDA to increase their average spending 
on speciality crops by setting a floor of $200 million a year for the 
amount of funds that must be devoted to fruit and vegetable purposes.
  We succeeded not only in maintaining but enhancing the nutrition 
safety net for families around the Nation. I say to my colleagues, yes, 
you may pick one or two parts of this bill you do not like, that you 
wish were different; but think about the families in this country who 
rely upon food stamps; think about those making the transition from 
welfare to work, the fact they need additional assistance as they 
provide more income for their families; think about the children and 
the disabled all over this country; think about the people who go to 
food banks and food pantries who need this just to keep food on their 
table every month. That is in this bill.
  Do we want to vote this bill down and send it to a conference and 
never have it come back? Because that is what will happen. Mr. 
President, I say to my colleagues, when they vote on this bill, think 
about the tremendous work we have done and the increases in nutrition 
we have provided.
  The credit title reauthorizes farm money programs. We provide greater 
access for beginning farmers and ranchers by doing a number of things, 
such as increasing the percentage that USDA may lend for downpayment 
loans for beginning farmers and extending the term of those loans. We 
also take the opportunity to improve a number of the administrative 
provisions in farm lending programs.
  There is a very strong rural development title in this farm bill. 
Rural communities really are part of the backbone of our whole 
agricultural structure, but they have not fully shared in our Nation's 
prosperity. For too long they have lagged behind. Rural America needs 
facilities and services that meet the standards of the 21st 
century from basic services such as sewer and water, to full broadband 
Internet access. Without them, the quality of life in rural communities 
will be impaired and businesses will not thrive.

  One of the largest obstacles facing rural businesses and job growth 
is the lack of adequate equity capital. To help generate the investment 
needed in rural America, this bill funds a new rural business 
investment equity program. While many rural businesses are not directly 
associated with agricultural ventures to increase the value of 
agriculture, commodities in rural areas hold great potential as an 
engine for growth. When these value-added enterprises are owned by 
agricultural producers, there is a double benefit of economic growth 
and increased farm income. This bill provides $240 million for value-
added agricultural product market development grants to help develop 
solid new enterprises owned by producers for adding value to 
agricultural commodities.
  This program can also be used to support farm-based renewable energy 
projects, an important new provision to help stimulate a wider variety 
of value-added enterprises owned by farmers.
  The bill includes $360 million to reduce significantly the backlog in 
the applications we already have on hand for drinking water and 
wastewater projects, crucial basic needs for rural Americans.
  We also have critical provisions in this bill which will help ensure 
that rural America is not left behind in the information age. 
Currently, the Rural Utilities Service has a small pilot program that 
provides loans to those that want to provide broadband services to 
areas that do not have it. The farm bill would authorize this 
initiative and provide $100 million in mandatory spending over the next 
6 years. This would translate into at least $400 million a year in 
direct loans for private and nonprofit entities to provide high-speed 
Internet service in rural America. This is a critically needed service 
that will not come to rural Americans anytime soon if we wait for the 
market to take care of it.
  A recent report found less than 5 percent of towns of 10,000 or less 
have access to broadband technology. In Iowa, more than 50 percent of 
rural communities do not have access to broadband services, according 
to the Iowa Utilities Board. This loan program provides the incentive 
needed to ensure all Americans have the opportunity to be full 
participants in our digital economy and the information age.
  I might add that this provision on broadband access was in the Senate 
farm bill. We provided this money for broadband in the Senate farm bill 
as it was marked up in committee. We kept it through floor debate. The 
House farm bill did not have this provision, but were able to keep the 
Senate provision on broadband in conference. I feel very strongly that 
this is one of the most important aspects of this bill in terms of 
rural economic development.
  We also provide a program of $10 million per year for firefighter and 
first responder training. That is very important for our rural 
communities.
  In research, the bill continues the process we began in 1998 of 
trying to increase the amount of money directed toward agricultural 
research. Over the life of the bill, funding for the Initiative for 
Future Agriculture and Food Systems will increase from $125 million per 
year to $200 million per year.
  We have included a new title in this farm bill that began in our 
committee, came through the floor, and survived in conference. It is a 
new energy title which has never been in the farm bill. It is the first 
time it has ever been done. Not only do we have an energy title, but it 
includes over $400 million in mandatory spending, for renewable energy, 
biofuels, energy efficiency, the development of biowaste programs, as 
well as research on climate change. The energy title will help reduce 
the use of oil and gas by promoting alternative energy sources on farms 
and in rural communities. The energy title is a major victory for our 
farmers and rural communities, for national security, energy 
independence, and the environment.

  Think again about this bill and what may happen. If this goes back to 
conference, if the conference report is defeated, there goes the energy 
package and all that we have to start producing renewable forms of 
energy.
  In competition, the conference report includes a number of provisions 
that address the issues of fairness and transparency in the 
agricultural marketplace. The measure includes two important measures 
affecting livestock and poultry producers. The first provision amends 
the Packers and Stockyards Act to provide protections from unfair 
practices for swine contract producers. The second provides that all 
livestock and poultry producers have the right to discuss contracts 
with close advisers and family members.
  In a major victory, the agreement includes a provision that will 
finally provide consumers with the information on the country of origin 
of meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, and peanuts. This has been 
championed by consumers and family farmers alike. A country of origin 
label will provide crucial information sought by advocates for years.
  After months of fighting, we were not able to retain the provision 
that prohibits packers from owning livestock. The House was simply 
intransigent on this issue. Not one House conferee indicated support 
for the Senate ban on packers ownership. We had our votes in the 
Senate, but the House would not

[[Page S3910]]

budge. As I could detect, not one of the House conferees on this issue 
supported the measure. Although we lost the ban on packer ownership, we 
got country of origin label and we now put swine production contract 
growers under the Packers and Stockyards Act. And farmers have the 
right to discuss their contracts with their advisers, their families, 
their bankers.
  However, I will say for the record, the ban on packer ownership is 
not a conclusion; it is just the beginning. As chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, for however long I am privileged to have the 
chairmanship, we will continue to fight intensely against unfair 
practices in agriculture markets and, perhaps looking down the road, we 
will have specific legislation targeted just at this one issue of 
ensuring that packers cannot own livestock prior to 14 days before 
slaughter.
  In conclusion, this is a sound, comprehensive farm bill that will 
benefit all Americans--rural, urban, and suburban. It restores a sound 
system of countercyclical income protection for our farmers. It makes 
the greatest investment of any farm bill in history for the 
conservation of our natural resources. It promotes our exports. Our 
nutrition provisions go a long way to keep Americans from going to bed 
hungry at night. We include rural development policy that will promote 
economic growth, jobs and a higher quality of living in small towns and 
rural communities. We continue our strong support of agricultural 
research, and for the first time ever, an we include an energy title 
that will promote the development and use of farm-based renewable 
energy and other products.
  All in all, this is a strong new farm bill for this new century. As I 
said at the beginning, I know people will say they don't agree with 
this or that. I have indicated some issues I don't agree with in the 
bill, but it has to be looked at overall. It is a product of compromise 
and hard work over a long period of time. We are a large country. What 
is best for my farmers and farm families in Iowa may differ for farm 
families in Washington State or Mississippi or Alabama or Florida. We 
don't grow citrus in Iowa; that is in Florida. We have to balance all 
of the interests of this country to come up with a bill that meets the 
legitimate needs of our farmers and farm families and our people in our 
small towns and communities, that provides a safety net, provides a 
better ability for our farmers to have a better income and a better 
life, yet reaches out to make sure people who need food assistance get 
the food assistance they need.
  This conference report is on the verge of becoming law. The only 
thing that is needed now is a Senate vote. The President has already 
said that he supports it and will sign it, and that he wants it on his 
desk promptly.

  As I said, this conference report restores predictability and 
stability. It will replace this ad hoc system of emergency payments 
that every year we have come out here on the floor and passed.
  Those who propose to send this bill back to conference are proposing 
to take the new stability and predictability away from America's 
farmers and ranchers and rural communities and throw the entire 
situation into turmoil and chaos. Those who would defeat this and send 
it back to conference will introduce a whole new dimension of 
uncertainty into American agriculture at just the time that farmers, 
ranchers, and rural America are within a hair's breadth of a new 6-year 
farm bill.
  The conference committee has been dissolved. If this bill were to go 
back, we would have to reconstitute the committee. Beyond that, there 
is no indication that a new conference would lead to any different 
result than what we have before us now. It is not in the interests of 
our farmers and ranchers to have no new farm bill. They do not want to 
watch as we struggle on through the summer on the farm bill, and into 
the fall, to try to patch something together. They want and they need 
this bill now. If we delay this bill any further, we stand a high 
likelihood that we will lose some of the money in the budget that we 
used to write this bill. We would lose an important part of the $73.5 
billion that should go to agriculture.
  If we do not have this in place. We will have to have yet another 
emergency bill, which will leave even less money to write a new farm 
bill. Again, if we pass this up, we forego the opportunity for better 
conservation, for better rural development, and a better safety net for 
our farmers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a number of letters in support of the farm bill.
  First, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of the President of 
the United States be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  The White House,


                                     President George W. Bush,

                                                      May 2, 2002.

                      President To Sign Farm Bill

       I congratulate Chairman Combest and the other House and 
     Senate conferees for a job well done in completing the Farm 
     Security and Rural Development Act of 2002.
       I am pleased that the compromise agreement on the farm bill 
     resulted in better balanced commodity loan rates; spending 
     that is no longer front-loaded; and the strongest 
     conservation provisions of any farm bill ever passed by 
     Congress. The final provisions of the farm bill are also 
     consistent with America's international trade obligations, 
     which will strengthen our ability to open foreign markets for 
     American farm products. While this compromise agreement did 
     not satisfy all of my objectives, I am pleased that this farm 
     bill provides a generous and reliable safety net for our 
     Nation's farmers and ranchers and is consistent with the 
     principles I outlined.
       I thank the conferees for their hard work and urge Congress 
     to send the farm bill to my desk promptly for signature to 
     help ensure the immediate and long-term vitality of our farm 
     economy.

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to enter a statement by the 
Secretary of Agriculture, the Honorable Ann Veneman, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Statement of Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman, Regarding 
        Conference Committee Farm Bill Agreement, April 26, 2002

       We are encouraged by the efforts of the House and Senate 
     Conferees in reaching an agreement on the framework of a new 
     farm bill. As President Bush said on Wednesday, ``the farm 
     bill needs to be completed quickly.'' With this action, 
     farmers should soon know the details of the long-awaited farm 
     bill, which would bring certainty in the coming years.
       We commend Chairman Combest for his leadership in achieving 
     a compromise agreement. Many objectionable provisions have 
     been eliminated that we believe would not have been in the 
     best interests of America's farmers and ranchers.
       While details still need to be completed, the agreement 
     appears to include more market-oriented and rebalanced loan 
     rates as well as increased emphasis on conservation programs 
     for working lands. However, we look forward to examining more 
     closely the specific provisions of the agreement, including 
     final cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office to 
     ensure the agreement adheres to the intent and the spirit of 
     the Congressional Budget Resolution.
       This is a most critical time in regard to farm bill 
     implementation for the 2002 crop year. Final action must be 
     concluded now to enable farmers and ranchers to make the 
     necessary business decisions. While USDA has been working 
     hard to prepare for implementation, there is no doubt that 
     this will be a formidable task in the coming months.
       Again, we are pleased that an agreement has been reached 
     and look forward to continuing our work with the Conferees 
     for a timely resolution to completing this important 
     legislation.

  Mr. HARKIN. I have a letter signed by 30 organizations. I will not 
read all of them, but I will read a couple of paragraphs.

       The organizations listed below extend our gratitude to 
     members and staff of the Farm Bill Conference Committee for 
     their tireless efforts in achieving a workable compromise. . 
     . . It is imperative that the Senate also take immediate 
     action and adopt the farm bill conference report.

  As I said, this is from 30 organizations, from the Agricultural 
Retailers Association to the American Farm Bureau Federation, American 
Soybean Association, the American Sugar Alliance, the American 
Sugarbeet Growers Association, American Sugar Cane League, Co-Bank, 
National Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers 
Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Cotton 
Council, the National Farmers Union, the National Grain Sorghum 
Producers, the National Milk Producers Federation, the National Pork 
Producers Council, the National

[[Page S3911]]

Sunflower Association, Ocean Spray, Inc., Rice Millers' Association, 
South East Dairy Farmers Association, the Southern Peanuts Farmers 
Federation, the U.S. Canola Association, U.S. Rice Producers 
Association, the United Egg Producers, and the Western United 
Dairymen--30 broad-based farm groups supporting this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      May 7, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: The organizations listed below extend 
     our gratitude to members and staff of the Farm Bill 
     Conference Committee for their tireless efforts in achieving 
     a workable compromise for comprehensive reform in our 
     nation's farm policy.
       In response to the critical need of farmers and their 
     lenders to immediately know the rules and regulations under 
     which they must operate, the House of Representatives acted 
     swiftly to adopt the farm bill conference report to H.R. 
     2646, by a vote of 280-141. With farmers in their fields now 
     planting this year's crop, it is imperative that the Senate 
     also take immediate action and adopt the farm bill conference 
     report. Adoption of this farm bill will assure them that they 
     will have an adequate, long-term safety net in place now and 
     in the future.
       This farm bill has been debated in field hearings 
     throughout the country, in House and Senate committees and on 
     the floor of both chambers for more than two years. It is now 
     time to end debates as well as farmers uncertainty. We urge 
     the Senate to immediately adopt the farm bill conference 
     report and send it without unnecessary delay to the President 
     for his signature and implementation for the 2002 crop.
       Sincerely,
       Agricultural Retailers Association.
       Alabama Farmers Federation.
       American Cotton Shippers Association.
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers.
       American Soybean Association.
       American Sugar Alliance.
       American Sugarbeet Growers Association.
       American Sugar Cane League.
       CoBank.
       Fresh Solutions.
       National Association of Wheat Growers.
       National Barley Growers Association.
       National Corn Growers Association.
       National Cotton Council.
       National Farmers Union.
       National Grain Sorghum Producers.
       National Milk Producers Federation.
       National Pork Producers Council.
       National Sunflower Association.
       Ocean Spray, Inc.
       Rice Millers' Association.
       South East Dairy Farmers Association.
       Southern Peanuts Farmers Federation.
       U.S. Canola Association.
       U.S. Rice Producers Association.
       U.S. Rice Producers Group.
       USA Dry Pea & Lentil Association.
       United Egg Producers.
       Western United Dairymen.

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent several statements from different 
U.S. commodity groups and broad-based groups be printed.
  I have a letter from the National Farmers Union that I ask be printed 
at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       National Farmers Union,

                                                      May 1, 2002.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: On behalf of the 300,000 family farmer and 
     rancher members of the National Farmers Union I write to 
     encourage your support of the conference report on ``The Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002'', the 2002 farm 
     bill adopted by the House and Senate conferees.
       Due to depressed commodity prices and failure of the 1996 
     Freedom-to-Farm legislation to provide an adequate safety net 
     for producers, approval of this legislation is of critical 
     importance to America's farmers, ranchers and rural 
     communities. The legislation represents meaningful progress 
     in providing a more stable and reliable farm income for 
     producers and greater certainty for their lenders. In 
     addition, it makes available significant additional 
     investments in the conservation of our natural resources, 
     research, development and commercialization of viable 
     renewable and bio-based energy production, enhanced rural 
     development programs, improved domestic and international 
     nutrition assistance and expanded consumer information 
     concerning the origin of their food supply.
       In short, it is a comprehensive measure that represents a 
     positive step forward on many issues important not only to 
     commodity producers but also rural communities and the 
     population as a whole.
       While we fully recognize that the legislation is not 
     perfect, and we will seek to correct those shortcomings in 
     the future, we believe the economic certainty the farm bill 
     provides farmers along with its renewal investment in rural 
     America warrants a positive vote for its adoption by the 
     Congress.
       Thank you for your consideration and support on this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                            David J. Frederickson,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                      May 7, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: The organizations listed below extend 
     our gratitude to members and staff of the Farm Bill 
     Conference Committee for their tireless efforts in achieving 
     a workable compromise for comprehensive reform in our 
     nation's farm policy.
       In response to the critical need of farmers and their 
     lenders to immediately know the rules and regulations under 
     which they must operate, the House of Representatives acted 
     swiftly to adopt the farm bill conference report to H.R. 
     2646, by a vote of 280-141. With farmers in their fields now 
     planting this year's crop, it is imperative that the Senate 
     also take immediate action and adopt the farm bill conference 
     report. Adoption of this farm bill will assure them that they 
     will have an adequate, long-term safety net in place now and 
     in the future.
       This farm bill has been debated in field hearings 
     throughout the country, in House and Senate committees and on 
     the floor of both chambers for more than two years. It is now 
     time to end debate as well as farmers uncertainty. We urge 
     the Senate to immediately adopt the farm bill conference 
     report and send it without unnecessary delay to the President 
     for his signature and implementation for the 2002 crop.
           Sincerely,
       Agricultural Retailers Association.
       Alabama Farmers Federation.
       American Cotton Shippers Association.
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       American Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers.
       American Soybean Association.
       American Sugar Alliance.
       American Sugarbeet Growers Association.
       American Sugar Cane League.
       CoBank.
       Fresh Solutions.
       National Association of Wheat Growers.
       National Barley Growers Association.
       National Corn Growers Association.
       National Cotton Council.
       National Farmers Union.
       National Grain Sorghum Producers.
       National Milk Producers Federation.
       National Pork Producers Council.
       National Sunflower Association.
       Ocean Spray, Inc.
       Rice Millers' Association.
       South East Dairy Farmers Association.
       Southern Peanuts Farmers Federation.
       U.S. Canola Association.
       U.S. Rice Producers Association.
       U.S. Rice Producers Group.
       USA Dry Pea & Lentil Association.
       United Egg Producers.
       Western United Dairymen.

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent a statement from the National 
Association of Conservation Districts, on behalf of the Nation's 3,000 
conservation districts, urging us and our colleagues to pass the bill 
be printed in the Record. I also have letters from The Nature 
Conservancy, Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, the National Rifle 
Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, International 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Quail Unlimited, The 
Wildlife Society and Wildlife Management Institute encouraging Senators 
to support final passage of this bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           National Association of


                                       Conservation Districts,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chair, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Harkin: On behalf of the nation's 3,000 
     conservation districts, I applaud your efforts in crafting 
     the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. This new 
     Farm Bill goes far beyond current law with an enormous 
     investment in private lands conservation and forestry 
     programs.
       We strongly urge you and your colleagues to pass H.R. 2646 
     today and oppose any motion to recommit this bill.
       Again, thank you for your continued support.
           Sincerely,
                                                    J. Read Smith,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent a letter from the Coalition for 
Food Aid, Adventist Development & Relief Agency International, 
Africare, ACDI/VOCA, CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Counterpart, Food 
for the Hungry International, International Relief & Development, Mercy 
Corp., OIC International, Save the Children, TechnoServe, and World 
Vision--a letter supporting this bill, asking for its immediate 
passage, be printed in the Record. That is from the Coalition for Food 
Aid.

[[Page S3912]]

  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       Coalition for Food Aid,

                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 2002.
     Hon. Larry Combest,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairmen Combest and Harkin: The members of the 
     Coalition for Food Aid would like to thank you and the 
     Conferees on the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
     2002, H.R. 2646, for strengthening and expanding US 
     international food aid programs. Coalition members are US 
     private voluntary organizations and cooperatives (jointly 
     called ``PVOs'') that conduct food aid programs overseas 
     directly engaging 30 million beneficiaries each year, with 
     collateral assistance reaching 200 million more. By providing 
     food aid through PVO programs, the assistance is leveraged 
     greatly through our networks in developing countries and 
     emerging democracies. We are grateful to work in partnership 
     with the US Government, and thank the Conferees for 
     incorporating provisions to strengthen the cooperation 
     between USAID and USDA with PVOs.
       The Trade Title of H.R. 2646 will increase the minimum 
     tonnage used for the PL 480 Title II program by nearly 
     500,000 metric tons each year. It also requires 75 percent of 
     that tonnage to be used in programs in persuasively poor 
     communities to improve people's health, living conditions and 
     incomes. To help populations that suffer from chronic hunger, 
     merely creating welfare programs of large-scale food 
     distribution is not the answer. Thus, we appreciate the 
     Conferees reassertion of the importance of using food aid in 
     programs that help people help themselves. We also appreciate 
     the increased availability of cash assistance to support 
     program management and logistics costs.
       In food deficit, import-reliant countries, monetization 
     provides a boost to the economy and allows needed commodities 
     to be provided through the market. The generated proceeds 
     supports the cost of program implementation and management, 
     and allows effective grassroots development in poor 
     communities. Where monetization is feasible, rather than just 
     exporting cash to support program costs, US commodities can 
     be exported providing an additional benefit to the US 
     agricultural sector. We appreciate the Conferees support for 
     uniform monetization procedures at USDA and USAID, including 
     sales for the local market price and sales for either dollars 
     or local currencies. This will allow the use of the 
     appropriate commodity for monetization, even if it is a 
     hi-value product.
       We are most grateful that H.R. 2646 sets a of 400,000 
     meteric tons minimum for CCC-funded Food for Progress 
     programs. We are greatly concerned, however, that the 
     Administration will no longer permit nongovernmental 
     organizations, such as PVOs, to carry out Food for Progress 
     programs. PVOs provide effectiveness and accountability to 
     the Food for Progress program. These organizations are 
     required under US law to have transparent management and 
     accounting procedures. Further, eliminating PVO participation 
     in Food for Progress would run counter to the intent of the 
     program, which emphasize private sector development in 
     countries that are making economic reforms in their 
     agricultural economies.
       We applaud the Conferees decision to include report 
     language informing the Administration that PVOs and other 
     nongovernmental organizations should continue to have access 
     to this program. We are still concerned that the 
     Administration's Food Aid Review concluded that USDA programs 
     should no longer involve PVOs. Before the Administration 
     finalized plans for FY 2003 Food for Progress, we ask that 
     you continue to urge the Administration to assure that PVOs 
     will be allowed to participate in this program.
       Moreover, we believe it would be very disruptive to remove 
     Food for Progress from the Secretary of Agriculture's 
     authority and shift it to USAID. USDA's Foreign Agricultural 
     Service is well-suited to manage these programs which 
     emphasize private sector and agricultural development in 
     emerging markets. Further, it would take a very long lead 
     time for USAID to establish procedures for administering a 
     new food aid program.
       One of the most beneficial aspects to the legislation is 
     its emphasis on flexibility for choosing the appropriate 
     commodities and interventions to meet local needs and to 
     require streamlined program management. If the flexibility 
     and streamlining provisions are implemented within the spirit 
     of the legislation, then the result will be more effective 
     programming and the elimination of redundancy and unnecessary 
     paperwork. These changes are particularly important for the 
     PL 480 Title II program, and we pleased that the Conferees 
     required USAID to implement changes within one year and to 
     keep the Congress informed of progress made.
       The establishment of the International Food for Education 
     and Nutrition program will allow the continuation of pilot 
     programs initiated under the USDA FY 2001 Global Food for 
     Education Initiative. PVOs have a great deal of experience 
     with food for education and look forward to participating in 
     this expanded pilot program. The legislation sets appropriate 
     objectives and focus for the program on young school children 
     and mothers and infants. Further, the objectives of improving 
     educational opportunities and food security, rather than 
     short-term feeding programs, would allow these funds to have 
     an impact beyond the short period in which the commodities 
     are made available.
       Overall, the legislation makes many improvements in US food 
     aid programs and requires higher tonnage levels for PL 480 
     Title II and Food for Progress. As organizations that conduct 
     food aid programs overseas, we wish to express our gratitude 
     and support for these changes.
           Sincerely,
                                                Ellen S. Levinson,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the American Public Human 
Services Association letter, on behalf of food stamp program directors 
around the country, asking we give immediate passage to this 
legislation, be printed in the Record. I also want to mention other 
letters we received in support of the nutrition title of the farm bill. 
These include letters from the Food Research and Action Center, 
America's Second Harvest, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the American 
Dietetic Association.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   American Public


                                   Human Services Association,

                                                      May 2, 2002.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Capitol Building, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Capitol Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Daschle and Minority Leader Lott: We 
     write concerning the conference report filed yesterday for 
     the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, H.R. 
     2646. The American Public Human Services Association, which 
     represents the nation's public human service administrators, 
     is very pleased with the nutrition title of this bill and 
     urges passage of this legislation.
       The nutrition title contains significant reforms and 
     improvements in the Food Stamp Program. These reforms are 
     consistent with the principles contained in APHSA's 2001 
     policy document, Crossroads--New Directions in Social Policy. 
     In Crossroads, we strongly advocated reforms that include 
     simplified eligibility; streamlined application processing; 
     restoration of benefits to legal immigrants; other benefit 
     reforms and updates; a rational resource policy; transitional 
     benefits and other strengthened supports for working 
     families; administrative flexibility; and other changes that 
     will make the program simpler and more accessible. The farm 
     bill has achieved many of these goals and represents a 
     milestone in the efforts to strengthen this vital safety net 
     program.
       Thank you for your consideration and for your efforts to 
     secure passage of this critical legislation. If you have any 
     questions, please contact me or Elaine Ryan, Director of 
     Government Affairs, at (202) 682-0100.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jerry Friedman,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. HARKIN. This is a letter from the Farm Credit Council asking we 
get this bill passed immediately. I ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                      The Farm Credit Council,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing in support of the 
     conference report on The Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002 and to urge its speedy passage in the Senate. The 
     conference report would provide much needed assistance to our 
     nation's farmers, ranchers and rural communities, many of 
     which have been suffering through the longest round of low 
     commodity prices in memory.
       We appreciate that the conference report is a product of 
     long negotiations and commend you and your colleagues for 
     shaping legislation that will provide a long-lasting safety 
     net for our nation's agricultural producers. With record low 
     commodity prices and sluggish export demand for U.S. farm 
     products, this legislation is critical to ensuring that U.S. 
     farmers and ranchers can continue to supply the world with 
     the safest and most cost efficient food and fiber.
       As you know, Farm Credit's mission is to maintain and 
     improve the quality of life in rural America and on the farm. 
     This legislation will help Farm Credit continue our mission. 
     We especially want to commend you for

[[Page S3913]]

     your leadership in building a strong rural development 
     component of the bill. Specifically, the Rural Business 
     Investment Company program, we believe, will spur needed 
     equity investment in rural businesses, particularly value-
     added agricultural businesses. For too long, our rural 
     communities have suffered from a shortage of equity capital. 
     The RBIC program will help alleviate some of this shortage.
       We also commend you and your colleagues for a sound, 
     constructive credit title. The changes made will help Farm 
     Credit maintain its commitment to provide reliable and 
     competitive credit to agricultural producers, rural 
     businesses and rural communities.
       Thank you for your leadership in advocating for rural 
     America.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Kenneth E. Auer,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. HARKIN. This letter is from the Environmental And Energy Study 
Institute pointing out the important energy title in this bill, asking 
this bill also be passed as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent 
it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 Environmental and


                                       Energy Study Institute,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.

           Innovative Energy Title Included in 2002 Farm Bill

       The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) today 
     congratulates the Senate and House Farm Bill conferees for 
     including an innovative new energy title in the conference 
     report, especially Chairman Tom Harkin and Senator Richard 
     Lugar for their leadership in crafting this important 
     legislation. The title provides $201 million over the life of 
     the bill to assist farmers and ranchers in making energy 
     efficiency improvements and developing their renewable energy 
     resources.
       ``While this small, bipartisan, non-controversial new title 
     has not gained much media attention, it is perhaps one of the 
     most important provisions in the Farm Bill for the future of 
     American agriculture. The only solution to the current farm 
     crisis is the development of new markets, new uses for crops, 
     and new revenue streams for farmers. Renewable energy can be 
     the new cash crop for the 21st Century,'' said Carol Werner, 
     Executive Director of the Environmental and Energy Study 
     Institute. The energy title:
       Establishes federal agency purchasing preference for 
     biobased products;
       Creates a program to educate the public about the benefits 
     of biodiesel (a renewable fuel made from vegetable oils);
       Provides financial and technical assistance to farmers, 
     ranchers and rural small businesses for the purchase of 
     renewable energy systems and to make on-farm energy 
     efficiency improvements;
       Extends and funds the Biomass Research and Development Act 
     through 2006; and
       Establishes new authorized programs to fund energy audits 
     and renewable energy assessments and to establish 
     biorefineries for the production of electricity, fuels, and 
     biobased products.
       The Farm Bill also opens up existing rural development and 
     ``value-add'' grant and loan programs to renewable energy 
     projects. In addition, it would allow wind energy and 
     bioenergy projects on Conservation Reserve Program lands 
     where compatible with the established conservation goals of 
     the program.
       ``EESI salutes the members of Congress and the diverse 
     coalition of groups we worked with to make the energy title a 
     reality,'' said Werner. ``Developing our nation's on-farm 
     renewable resources is key to diversifying our energy market, 
     enhancing national security, protecting our environment, and 
     revitalizing rural America by spurring development of new 
     businesses and jobs--truly a `win-win-win' opportunity that 
     is good for American farmers and good for the country.''

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have a broad array of producer groups 
supporting this bill, a broad array of human services organizations 
that recognize what we have done in this bill for nutrition and for 
food support and organizations involved in trade and export supporting 
this bill. We also have support from conservation and wildlife groups 
who work with producers participating in the conservation programs. 
Those involved in rural economic development broadly support this bill 
for the work we have done to invest in our rural towns and communities. 
I am not saying every single person or organization supports this bill. 
What I am saying is, if you look at the broad array of the groups I 
mentioned, you will see there is broad and deep support for passing 
this bill and sending it to the President as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Indiana is 
recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I yield myself as much time as I may 
require.
  Madam President, let me commence by thanking our distinguished 
chairman, Senator Harkin, for his leadership. It is not an easy task to 
be chairman of a committee during a farm bill consideration, given all 
of the requirements for equity and forethought throughout America. 
Equally, the chairman of the House committee and the ranking member, 
Mr. Combest and Mr. Stenholm, have guided a very large committee for 
its consideration and an equally complex conference.
  Those who have served on the staffs of both the majority and 
minority, in both Houses, have given extraordinary service in the past 
few weeks. Sometimes they alone, really, have understood how 
comprehensive and how complex this issue is, and they have been 
extraordinarily helpful to Members, members of the press, and other 
constituent groups.
  This bill comes to the floor with an extraordinary amount of work and 
devotion by persons who have strong motives and strong ideals. Let me 
point out, as I have during the debate in committee as well as on the 
floor, very strong achievements have occurred. The chairman has 
outlined a number of these in the areas of conservation and rural 
development and research and nutrition and energy. In the Senate 
committee and in our bill on the floor, Members included those items 
with a great deal more strength and money than our House colleagues.
  One of the predicaments from the beginning was that our bill, as it 
left the Senate floor, as it turned out, cost $6 billion more than the 
limits. So immediately a scaling back of those items in which there was 
strong bipartisan support had to occur, and further scaling back 
occurred as we tried to reach a compromise with House colleagues, who 
were much more focused on the commodity sections of the legislation.
  Let me outline the arguments I am going to make this morning and then 
return to fill in the details that I think would be helpful to Senators 
as they consider their vote on this conference report.
  I start with the thought that the Senate, in a very real sense, is a 
board of directors that has governing responsibilities for our country. 
Our responsibilities are broader than a corporate board and deal with 
the economic and humanitarian concerns of private firms. We really have 
a trusteeship regarding the funds, the security, and continuity of our 
country. Each of us takes that seriously. And each of our votes on this 
farm bill conference report we know must withstand the scrutiny of 
history. This is not a temporary bill; it is one of many in a long saga 
of developing farm bills, but it will have ramifications for millions 
of Americans.
  Second, most Senators--perhaps all of us--take very seriously the 
obligations we have as a part of that trusteeship to the Social 
Security trust fund and to the Medicare trust fund. From time to time, 
we have vowed merely to protect the importance of the so-called lockbox 
idea; namely, that these very important social funds and safety net 
funds for all Americans must be protected.
  That enters into this consideration because, very clearly, as this 
debate has continued, the estimates of the Federal deficit for the 
fiscal year in which we are now have grown to $100 billion. Pessimists 
believe the deficit for the fiscal year that ends September 30 may in 
fact be more than $100 billion. That means we are having this debate 
after a time in which there were budgetary assumptions--well over a 
year ago--that our country would have a surplus this year, in terms of 
our current accounts, and throughout many years. In fact, in the 
euphoria of those days, $3 trillion was often mentioned in discussions 
of a surplus, giving ample room to Social Security reform, Medicare 
reform, and such items as the farm bill. But those times are gone, and 
the cost of the farm bill still continues to rise with each subsequent 
estimate by the Congressional Budget Office or by others.
  I mean specifically that even as we completed our work in the Senate 
and believed that on a 10-year basis we were adding $73.5 billion of 
additional spending, in fact the Senate farm bill cost $6 billion more 
than we had been allotted by the Senate Budget Committee.

[[Page S3914]]

  Just yesterday--the Congressional Budget Office wrote to our 
chairman, Senator Harkin, indicating that, sadly enough, the conference 
report that we thought comprised $73.5 billion of spending in addition 
to the current baseline is, as a matter fact, $9.5 billion over what 
the Budget Committee allocated for additional spending. In short, this 
argument we have been having about holding spending below $73.5 billion 
is now rendered moot by the fact that, based on the most recent CBO 
estimates, we are talking about $82.8 billion.
  The Congressional Budget Office does not leave us in doubt as to what 
has occurred. It says essentially that the increase stems primarily 
from our current assumptions that prices for many commodities will be 
lower in 2003 and beyond than they had assumed just last year.
  But, in fact, I will argue in due course that it is very probable 
that prices will go lower still, that the effect of this farm bill is 
an inevitable vast oversupply of agricultural commodities and lower 
prices. Therefore, given the technical way in which the bill has been 
put together, we are almost bound to have increasing costs for the bill 
each year for the duration of the farm bill.
  Some would say that should this spending lead to humanitarian aspects 
for all Americans--better nutrition--better conservation of our natural 
resources, breakthroughs in terms of our energy dilemmas, opportunities 
for young farmers to come into agriculture--that these are important 
expenditures. And, as trustees for our national wealth, we have to 
balance them with Social Security and Medicare.
  Of course, overhanging all of this discussion, since September 11 and 
our nation being at war, there are vastly increased financial demands 
regarding our national security and homeland defense.
  But the moneys that are involved in this farm bill do not primarily 
go to considerations of conservation, nutrition, energy, and 
development of rural communities. This conference report costs an 
additional $82.891 billion on a 10 year basis. That is an increase of 
almost $9.5 billion since we finished the conference report. Of that 
$82.8 billion, $56.7 billion goes to the commodity programs--title I. 
That is roughly 70 percent of all of the spending. A specific area of 
commodity programs has almost all the additional money added to it; 
namely, the so-called program crops. It came out of conference at $41 
billion, and it is now about $49.5 billion. That is where the money is, 
and that is where the increases are occurring because of lower price 
estimates and policies that are almost guaranteed to lower the prices 
more.
  If this large expenditure for commodity prices were going in some 
equitable way to farmers throughout America this might be somewhat 
tolerable. It is estimated that there are roughly 2 million persons in 
agriculture, using a definition that each entity which has $1,000 of 
agricultural income is certified as a farmer. In our debates, we have 
noted that perhaps of these 2 million farmers, approximately 150,000 
produce as much as 80 percent of the value of all agricultural 
commodities produced.
  I am not here to debate about the structure or definition of 
agriculture. But a lot of the rhetoric that has accompanied this bill 
and previous farm bills revolves around trying to save the small family 
farmer, or even the medium-sized family farmer, or even the very large 
family farmer. In fact, two-thirds of the payments under this program 
crop section--$49.5 billion on a 10-year basis--are going to go to 10 
percent of farmers who are in the commodity row crop business. That is 
a minority of the farmers in America about whom we are talking. Only 40 
percent of farmers, in fact, are going to be involved in producing 
program crops. Sixty percent of farmers are not in that ball game at 
all.

  So when we talk about $49.5 billion going to program crops, we are 
talking about 40 percent of farmers, and we are talking about the fact 
that two-thirds of the money goes to 10 percent of the farmers.
  Any way you look at it, this is a highly concentrated system of 
payments. It is not new. We did not just discover this. The evidence 
was very clear, as conferees looked at the figures of the past, even as 
they projected these payments into the future.
  Therefore--and here there are winners and losers--if you are now a 
landowner in America, it is highly probable that your land will 
increase in value. Why? Because with some predictability, as the 
chairman pointed out, with some degree of certainty, you can count upon 
receiving substantially more money. If you own the land, that will be 
of benefit to your banker if, in fact, you borrowed to put the crop 
in--the banker having some certainty that the collateral, namely, the 
land behind the loan, will be worth more year by year.
  If you are one of 42 percent of farmers in this country who rent land 
as opposed to owning land, you face a very tough set of circumstances. 
Your rents are very likely to go up each year as the value of the land 
goes up. Worse still, if you are a young farmer who hopes someday to 
own land, then your prospects of getting the money to do that, and 
being able to pay the price, of course, diminishes year by year. And 
that has been occurring in America. As a result, there are young 
farmers who are in farm families who are hopeful that with the 
reduction or, hopefully, the repeal of Federal estate taxes, that they 
might inherit the land. Others who are not in such situations are 
likely to be out of luck. So as a result, it is predictable that the 
average age of farmers in this country will continue to increase, as it 
has been increasing in recent decades. That contributes, in part, to 
the consolidation in farm ownership.
  In spite of all of the rhetoric and all of the attempts to talk about 
perpetuating the small family farm, or the medium or even the large 
farms, the facts are, that consolidation is increasing, and this bill 
will increase it by leaps and bounds.
  Some have pointed out--I heard this in the conference committee--we 
are not discussing a welfare bill, we are not talking about everybody's 
plight. We are talking about agricultural policy principally for those 
who have some power and authority in America now and who have expressed 
that through farm organizations and commodity groups. Their voices have 
been heard, and their views are reflected in this conference report.
  Word of all of this has gone abroad. Our world trading partners are 
already outraged. Some members of the conference have already dismissed 
this and said, essentially, that is simply too bad, what we are talking 
about are American farmers, not European farmers or South American 
farmers or Australian or New Zealand farmers. We are talking about 
Americans who need this money and need it in a hurry. They have simply 
indicated that already we are discriminated against by countries abroad 
and blocked at almost every turn as we try to export more; and, 
therefore, if the rest of the world is outraged, so be it.
  I understand that feeling and the frustration that each one of us has 
in seeing the lack of success that our trade negotiators have had in 
recent years in this administration and the last. That frustration is 
very great. But it does not hide the fact we have to be successful in 
exporting much more agricultural produce into this world, or the 
surpluses that we build in this farm bill will come up around our necks 
with much greater tragedy not only for farm families but, I believe, 
for the American people as the cost of this bill continues to rise and 
prices continue to fall.

  Perhaps worse still, I believe a pattern has been perpetuated in the 
consideration of this farm bill that is very serious for this body and 
for the American people to consider. Essentially, this bill is largely 
an attempt to respond politically to deeply felt economic issues in 
specific States and districts. It is an attempt, in a very closely 
divided Congress, to try to think through individual situations of 
Senators and Members of the House, with the thought that party control 
of either body may be a much more important objective than careful 
economic analysis or maybe even careful stewardship of the funds for 
which we are responsible.
  Therefore, my prediction would be that this farm bill does not bring 
stability, certainty, or finality. The criticism has been that the last 
farm bill was overtaken by events and, thus, we

[[Page S3915]]

came to the floor for the last 4 years with supplemental farm 
legislation, meaning more money, supplemental funds to augment whatever 
was in the bill. This was followed--usually in the appropriations 
cycle--by our colleagues in the agriculture subcommittee noting 
disasters around our lands: sometimes weather disasters, sometimes 
disasters of whatever may have come along the pike. So at least we have 
become accustomed to two additional rounds of farm spending annually. 
It may be that I have misread the situation. If so, the history of the 
next few years will indicate that. But I would predict, given the 
highly politically competitive, sensitive aspects of this bill, and the 
fact that the bill is likely, in my judgment, to lead to overwhelming 
surpluses, continually lower prices, and expressions of agony by 
farmers who say, ``What are you going to do to raise prices?''--that 
despite the thought that there is certainty involved in this, the most 
certain fact is that we are likely to return with proposals to spend 
more money on farm programs, and principally programs in the commodity 
areas, which are deserving of 70 percent of the attention or more in 
this farm bill.
  Meanwhile, the bottom line is that a large transfer payment of money 
in this country will occur if this farm bill reaches conclusion, is 
passed, and signed. The money that Americans hold, on which they are 
taxed, the money going through the taxation process, goes from a 
prohibitive majority in this country to very few persons in this 
country.
  That is important to note because if, this transfer from the many to 
the few produced stronger farm prices and prospects for greater trade 
success, perhaps one could argue that this approach is justified. What 
I am arguing is precisely the opposite.
  This large transfer of money from ordinary taxpayers to a very few 
taxpayers is going to result in lower prices, overwhelming surpluses, 
and aggravated trade circumstances that are not going to be healthy for 
American agriculture, that will attract fewer young people coming into 
farming, and mean higher rents for those who do not own land. The value 
of land based upon annual, sometimes biennial appropriations by the 
Congress that has poured more and more money into farming situations 
that have the greatest loans, that have the greatest output of 
production. At some point there may come a year in which the public 
understands the farm bill situation and says: Enough. And at that 
point, land values will come down, as they have again and again in the 
history of American agriculture.
  My experience on the committee spans about 25\1/2\ years. I can 
recall the excitement in my home State of Indiana and throughout the 
country as land values rose in the 1970s, in some cases doubling and 
tripling. I can remember likewise the terrible jolt brought by the very 
high interest rates in the latter part of the 1970s and early 1980s as 
well as other factors that led to a decline in those very same land 
values by 50 and 60 percent on average and worse in some cases. Now we 
have noted steady accumulation of values over the course of time.
  I have had the good fortune, at least with regard to my own land, of 
farming throughout that period and watching the prices of land go up 
and go down and go up again and so forth, without being hurt in the 
process. Most other people in agriculture have not been so fortunate.
  I would simply say that we are headed for economic disaster if--for 
the farm bill that we are about to pass in the commodity area--high 
land values are based upon the political competition--as has happened 
in this farm bill.
  Let me review quickly some arguments that buttress this general 
outline. First of all, we got into the farm bill debate this year with 
a very unusual budgetary estimate. By that I mean, in a bipartisan way, 
Senators and members of the administration were deeply excited over the 
fact that our country was beginning to run surpluses; that is, we were 
spending less money than we were taking in. We seemed to have stronger 
economic growth, much higher productivity in the entire economy.
  As a result, I remember the President's State of the Union Address in 
which he discussed the broad objectives that might be met; namely, a 
strong safety net under Social Security, allaying the anxieties of 
middle-age and young people; even more complex, that Medicare not only 
might be shored up but prescription drugs for the elderly might come to 
pass.
  There were a whole raft of other reforms that are terribly important 
to a population of this country that grows older, that has more people 
in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and that is likely to be our situation 
because of medical miracles and better health care. These are very 
expensive situations involving hundreds of billions of dollars. But 
nevertheless, those were days in which it appeared that those 
objectives were on the horizon and might be met.
  We are not debating those issues in this session of the Senate, 
important as they are to the American people. Again and again, we are 
reminded, whether it is by the pollsters or by advisers and so forth, 
that these are the issues the American people want to talk about. We 
can't talk about them because we are running a deficit. That deficit 
continues to grow.

  That was apparent in the early fall when the House of Representatives 
passed the farm bill. One of the reasons suggested for such early 
passage of that farm bill, a full year before the current farm bill 
runs out, was that some Members said: ``Listen up, in the event you do 
not pass a farm bill quickly, the $73.5 billion allocated by the Budget 
Committee back in the spring of 2001 is likely to be revised, 
downgraded to a much smaller number.'' In essence, there will be much 
less money to spend on a farm bill. So, therefore, get on with it. Pass 
it, and pass it quickly to pin down that money.
  We heard the same argument on the floor of the Senate during the 
latter part of the fall. Something had changed in the interval that was 
very fundamental for our country; namely, we were at war. We were 
having simultaneously debates, as the Chair will recall, on upgrading 
the defense budget, on a loan situation to shore up the airlines so we 
would not lose that service, the first outlines of a huge new category, 
homeland defense. All of that was occurring as economists pointed out 
month by month, we think we may be in a recession.
  By the time we finished at least last year's session and had our last 
debate on the farm bill in December, economists said: We are in a 
recession. We are experiencing recession, in addition to war.
  I noted at the time we debated the farm bill, whether it was in the 
House or in the Senate, an almost Alice-in-Wonderland world prevailed 
in Congress, as if somehow the war, the recession, the problems of 
Medicare and Social Security were for some other group to talk about 
but not this Congress. We were intent upon talking about additional 
subsidies for farmers. We already had, as people point out, the so-
called baseline of about $100 billion for agricultural spending over 10 
years. We developed a habit of having additional debates and adding to 
that baseline--now at $73.5 billion over 10 years.
  That situation has continued. As a matter of fact, the recession and 
the Government's deficit have become reality. And the assumptions that 
were made in the farm bill debates of last fall have all led to much 
higher scoring, which means the Congressional Budget Office finds that 
things we thought would cost X number of dollars inevitably cost a 
whole lot more.
  Prices deteriorated further during the debates, and that led to 
urgency on the part of some who have said: ``Don't stand there, do 
something about it--shore up those prices, give greater certainty to 
farmers.''
  Madam President, the deficit is not going to go away. As we now 
observe on the Senate floor, we have yet to discuss a budget for this 
year, and some suggest we may not. This means that the appropriations 
committees will move ahead without at least the mild restraint that a 
budget resolution might give to our work. In fact, we know that in the 
supplemental appropriations bill that is coming up for defense 
expenditures of an emergency nature, we are going to spend a lot more 
money. We know that because of the discussion all over the country in 
the 50 States about the requirements for homeland defense.

[[Page S3916]]

  Now, at some point, some Senator will arise--certainly not in a farm 
bill debate, but in another debate, and point out: ``Whatever happened 
to the Social Security lockbox? How secure is Medicare? What are we 
going to do about prescription drugs for the elderly?''
  What indeed. We are about to spend those moneys--or simply run up a 
deficit that is huge. That is the message of this conference report to 
the American people. Whatever may be the desire for some certainty that 
a farmer can get almost $2 a bushel for corn, the certainty for all 
other Americans is that we are going to have a larger deficit; that the 
prospects for solving Social Security and Medicare are set back; that 
we as trustees for the American people either do not understand that 
farm bills cannot be discussed in a vacuum, divorced from the rest of 
the world, or that we are so deliberate about our intent to spend this 
money, come hell or high water, that we plunge ahead.
  I mentioned some specifics, and I will not get into the program 
details that the distinguished chairman pointed out. Let me tell from 
my own anecdotal experience as a farm owner--one who participates in 
the management of my farm through the farm plan, through the 
bookkeeping, the legal work, and the other things that need to be done 
for a family farm situation. I am aware that, at least in Indiana, if I 
produced corn in the last few years, I could get $1.89 a bushel for 
every bushel under the so-called loan deficiency payment. That meant 
simply if the market price was $1.75, at some point I was going to get 
the other 14 cents through the loan program. Now, most farmers would 
testify that $1.89 is a pretty low price. In fact, some have come into 
the Agriculture Committee and said our average cost per bushel is 
closer to $2.50 a bushel. But others have mentioned that, in fact, the 
marginal cost--that is, the next bushel if they were to add it to their 
farm operation--frequently costs less than $1.89. That is true of many 
of the largest, most efficient farms in the country that have the 
equipment and the capital to do that kind of a job. I am suggesting 
that even at the current $1.89 loan rate, inadvertently--because most 
of us felt that, at $1.89, this would be a floor--we have set up an 
incentive. Farmers were beginning to produce more and more corn 
because, at $1.89, they were guaranteed a price and they went for it. I 
can understand that and so can you.
  In this current bill, however, we have said that this is not enough. 
First of all, we will set the loan rate up higher, at $1.98 for the 
first two years, and $1.95 for the remaining 4 years.
  Madam President, for each farmer--myself included--attempting to 
calculate the best interest of whether to use past history with regard 
to acres planted, with regard to yields and the percentage of those who 
were allowed into this bill, to apply the target price, this is not an 
easy task. Once you make the decision, you are stuck with it.

  My judgment is that a great number of farmers are going to believe 
they made an error, and that they are going to want relief. Every FSA 
office, and other groups in the country that help farmers, are going to 
spend a great deal of money trying to figure out what the situation is 
for these individual farmers long before payments can be made.
  I do not fault the authors of the bill. In order to keep scaling down 
the costs, they had to keep making it more and more complex--almost to 
the point that Senators sitting around the conference table found it 
very difficult to calculate and to understand precisely what we were 
doing--quite apart from members who must vote on this conference 
report, and apart from farmers throughout America who must somehow 
figure out what it all means.
  But what most farmers will think it means is that out there somewhere 
is $2 loan rate for a bushel of corn. That is quite an incentive. That 
is well beyond $1.89. As a matter of fact, it was interesting; last 
Thursday, in commodity trading in America, the futures prices of almost 
all farm commodities went down, largely under the assumption--which I 
think is correct--that if this bill passes, the prices of everything 
are going to go down, and stay down. Nevertheless, there was some 
glimmer of hope. If you were a cotton farmer taking a look at this bill 
on the date the bill passed the House, for early contracts on cotton, 
it was about 33 cents a pound. Well, the target price for cotton in 
this bill is 72.4 cents a pound. That is double the current market 
price.
  How could this be? How could we have something that is so divorced 
from reality in terms of supply and demand in this country and in this 
world? Well, we can have it because there were sufficient votes on the 
conference committee, and in the House, to put 72.4 there as a target 
price and, further, on top of that, to offer subsidies to some 
industries that are attached to cotton.
  One can say that things have not been going well for cotton farmers 
and for the communities and the infrastructure that support them. I 
understand that. One can say the same for rice farmers, wheat farmers, 
corn farmers, and soybean farmers. In fact, such things have been said 
about all five of them. But that is where the money is, that is where 
the trail went from the beginning.
  I can remember in the Agriculture Committee, the chairman was trying 
to patiently conduct the markup dealing with areas in which both he and 
I believed we were on the threshold of doing some very important 
things. Some of this, in fact, was accomplished, and still is 
preserved. The chairman wanted to discuss conservation. He has been 
discussing that for some time. I share his enthusiasm. He wanted to 
discuss energy and young farmer loans and community development. Before 
long, there got to be a rumbling around the committee table and people 
said: When do we get to the money? Where is the money?
  Well, they were not talking about money for conservation, although 
the chairman pointed out some might come to farmers who did the right 
thing on their land; and, likewise, there might be real help for most 
of rural America who will not be involved in farm payments. A majority 
of our members, were intent upon targeting the money on commodity 
payments and subsidies.
  Then the question was, How much does that cost? And, therefore, as 
some suggested, we were spending too much money and time on 
conservation, on nutrition for the poor, on problems of young farmers.
  The House of Representatives did not have those problems. They fairly 
rapidly put the money in commodity supports, and filled in as 
afterthoughts, in my judgment, funding for other issues such as 
conservation, etc. I congratulate specifically Congressman Dooley, a 
Democrat on the conference committee, who held firm to a research 
initiative that I think is vital and that the chairman of our 
committee, Senator Harkin, agrees is important.
  There were a few valiant spirits. On a bipartisan basis, however, 
clearly those thinking about the other aspects of the farm bill were in 
a distinct minority. This bill was guided by how do we fill in the 
commodities and not do so in a way in which we keep exceeding the $73.5 
billion which I kept pointing out simply was not there. The refutation 
to that was by the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, one 
of the conferees, Senator Conrad, who said, ``It was there; it was in 
the budget a year ago.'' I said all the assumptions are gone, life has 
changed--war, recession, homeland defense. To which the stalwarts said: 
``It is still there, every penny of it.''
  How they dismiss the new estimate, this $9.5 billion overage, I do 
not know. I simply say they will have to keep explaining this as the 
cost of their bill increases year after year, as lower prices, 
inevitable given these new loan rates target prices, just 
arithmetically cause it to expand.
  Therefore, I come back to the initial thought I had of the Senate as 
stewards of our security, of our moneys, of the rights and privileges 
of all Americans, not specific ones that we happen to be discussing on 
one day or another.
  It is a coincidence that on this very day the distinguished chairman 
of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator Levin of 
Michigan, is conducting a hearing in which a number of the witnesses 
are directors of Enron. Enron came up during all of this and so did a 
whole spate of articles that continue on corporate governance. Business 
Week has a headline across the front of it: Is Wall Street corrupt?
  The question is raised: Are our boards of directors of our major 
firms

[[Page S3917]]

to be trusted, quite apart from the chief executives, who supposedly 
the boards supervise or oversee, quite apart from all the practices of 
the firms, whether it be accounting practices, which are dubious, the 
information that goes out to ordinary investors in the country about 
which many now have severe doubts? We have been having a shakeup in 
this country of thoughtfulness, of about telling the truth, about what 
is involved in governance.
  We have that responsibility here. Senators can take the position that 
because this new farm bill is so complex, there is no conceivable way I 
can understand it; therefore, I will rely upon the Agriculture 
Committee, or at least a few people in the Senate who generally seem to 
have good judgment on these issues, sort of wise men. Many Senators 
take that position with regard to other types of legislation from time 
to time.
  That is not going to be good enough for those who are testifying 
before Senator Levin on Enron. The questioners will say: Why didn't you 
know about strange practices in which assets left the balance sheet, in 
which strange loans were made, options were issued, and extraordinary 
payments?
  The front page of the papers today suggest Enron, in fact, may have 
manipulated the power situation in California, the allegation of 
persons for some time. Maybe so, maybe not.

  This is serious business. I am simply charging that each one of us 
who is going to vote on this conference report needs to at least take 
responsibility. We go into this with eyes wide open. Many people have 
pointed out, and I have given a number of speeches at every stage along 
the way, that the money was not there. It was not there for a long 
time, even though a fiction exists that $73.5 billion over 10 years was 
there at one time. Nor is it $82.8 billion over 10 years, $9.5 billion 
more. It simply was never there.
  Second, even if we knew it was not there, we could still have said: 
This has the same urgency as the war, as homeland defense, as 
prescription drugs for the elderly. It is so urgent and the ability we 
have to transform 2 million farmers and farm families and the 
infrastructure that supports them in America, is that imperative, if we 
are going to do it anyway with eyes wide open?
  In fact, it has been clear that the bulk of the money goes to a very 
few farmers--a very few. That has been clear throughout. This is not a 
great humanitarian effort. Granted, the Senate finally got $6.4 billion 
in the nutrition section. We started out in the Senate, in fact, with 
well over $10 billion.
  This is a bill that is targeted for farms in America that are large. 
I hope we all understand that because it is not obscure. One of the 
things that occurred during this debate was that a group called the 
Environmental Working Group--and universally despised by many people in 
the agricultural community--got through the Freedom of Information Act 
information about the subsidies paid to farmers all over the country 
during the years 1996 to 2000; they published this on a Web site--
ewg.org. You can find out what your neighbor received. I found out in 
Marion County, IN, that our farm got the 22nd largest amount of 
payments. There are not many farms in Marion County because it is a 
farm inside the city. The fact is, we now know exactly who got what. 
This is not obscure.
  The Senate responded by saying ``no farmer ought to get more than 
$275,000 in any 1 year--not in 10 years, but in 1 year.'' We passed 
that, but it went the way of all good things in this conference report.
  I pointed out during the debate on the floor, that in my State of 
Indiana, only six farmers could possibly have exceeded the $275,000 out 
of 50,000 who are receiving payments. Yet the debate on payment limits 
reached such a volatile situation that people claimed the South would 
be abnormally hit, that a good number of apparently medium-size or even 
large farms would be decimated in the process, this even at the time 
that the target price for cotton was being raised 72 cents plus with a 
market price of 33.
  I hope as Senators we go into this with eyes wide open. We clearly 
must understand our responsibility. Whether we understand all the 
complexities of the program, we know where the money went. We know in 
this bill where the money will go. We even know it is money we do not 
have, and if we thought we had it, it has to have a priority with 
regard to Medicare, Social Security, homeland defense, defense of our 
country, and some other areas that are very vital in a year in which we 
have a recession and declining tax revenues.
  Therefore, Madam President, I respond to my distinguished colleague 
who says: What if this conference report fails? My own judgment is it 
should. I will vote against it. I would advocate every Senator who sees 
his or her responsibility, vote against it.

  We have a farm bill on the books now--sometimes it is dismissed--
based on a $100 billion baseline. The distinguished Senators have 
pointed out we could have a debate, if Senators desire, for 
supplemental payments that we have had for a while at much less expense 
than what we are about to enact, with all the rigid formulas that 
deliberately stomp down prices and will stomp them down for the 
duration of the entire bill.
  I hope we understand that. It is a basic principle of supply and 
demand. This farm bill provides huge incentives to produce more. 
Regarding exports, we can see the outrage of our exporting partners. 
Some Senators have given the impression that: ``We could not care less 
about them.'' This conference report is a recipe for a great deal of 
hurt and sadness in the wake of the huge transfer payment from the 
majority of Americans to a very few producers.
  Finally, in committee deliberations--whether Chairman Harkin was 
presiding or whether I did in the previous 6\1/2\ years--we had some 
very important discussions about agricultural income and the future of 
agriculture in this country. That means a great deal to me, to the 
chairman, and to the members of our committee. Not a single member 
around the table is not committed to trying to think through how we 
make the process better. Agriculture is a tough business. I have stated 
on this floor, that in the last 45 years of my stewardship of Lugar 
farms, we have had about a 4-percent return on invested capital. Many 
farmers have said: That sounds too high. In almost any other business 
meeting, people ask: Why have you stayed at it for 45 years? You could 
have gotten 6 percent on government bonds or 30 year treasuries without 
the problems of weather, risk of exports, and so forth.
  We stay at it because we believe in farming, we believe in the soil, 
we believe in the life, in the tradition of our families. But we are 
going to have to improve our ability to make money. That comes down to 
research, development of good practices, proper conservation, a number 
of fundamental issues that are tough properly address, but are 
essential.
  Unhappily, in this farm bill our farm associations and commodity 
groups have chosen an easy way out. They have said: Let's not worry 
about the market--which is always spiraling down. Just pay an 
arbitrarily high price for cotton, rice, corn, wheat, or soybeans. The 
American people will fill in the gap.
  As I have illustrated, the gap will not be filled in that easily 
without the loss during the course of this bill of tens of thousands of 
farms, of the folks who will never get into the game, of those who will 
pay more, and of a distortion upward of land values.
  I ask for Senators to give thoughtful consideration to these 
arguments and to a vote to reject the conference report.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank the chair of the committee.
  I thank my colleague and very good friend, Senator Harkin, for his 
work on this bill. I thank Senator Lugar for his work, especially in 
the area dealing with nutrition, and for his thoughtful comments.
  I will start out with just a practical Minnesota point of view and 
then review broader questions.
  This coming year, Minnesota farmers will see $1.16 billion in 
assistance from

[[Page S3918]]

this legislation--an increase of approximately $395 million over the 
1996 farm bill. Over the next 6 years, my State will see about $5.7 
billion from this farm bill. Or about a $2 billion increase above the 
1996 farm bill for the State of Minnesota.
  Now, if I had my way--and I don't think my colleague would disagree 
with me--I would love to have higher loan rates and rely less on direct 
payments so that farmers would have more leverage to get a better price 
through the marketplace.
  However, the 1996 farm bill or the ``Freedom to Fail'' bill was one 
of the worst things that ever happened to Rural America. I went home 
the day it was passed, and I said to my wife Sheila: This is the worst 
thing that has happened in the Senate. This year, without a new farm 
bill, the Freedom to Farm bill would give us a 20-percent drop in farm 
income. All that has kept farmers going is all the AMTA payments and 
the Government subsidy.
  If Members are worried about payment limitation, which I am and which 
my colleague said we will come back to again, this fight is not over. A 
lot of these direct payments to the largest producers have been the 
epitome of subsidy in inverse relationship to need.
  However I don't make apologies as a Senator from Minnesota for 
supporting this bill. I would have liked to have had the ban on packer 
ownership. I tried to pass that amendment in committee. We lost. Then I 
joined Senators Johnson, Grassley, and Harkin to offer a ban on packer 
ownership on the Senate floor. We won. Then it was knocked out in 
conference. Unfortunately the House conferees refused to support it. 
However, we will come back to it again.
  In the Senate, we passed a bipartisan payment limitation amendment. 
The Senate bill established a reasonable limitation on payments to the 
very largest farming operation, that would have affected fewer than 100 
farms in my State of Minnesota. My colleague from Indiana has spoken to 
that. It was the right thing to do, and I continue to strongly support 
those payment limitations. I regret what came out of conference, but 
again we were blocked by the House conferees. But as Senator Harkin 
said, are we going to let a conference committee stop a whole farm bill 
and continue with ``freedom to fail''? There is too much economic pain 
in the countryside.
  I didn't like what happened with the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program. I passed an amendment in the Senate that limited payments to 
$30,000. The amendment, which Senators Harkin and Lugar supported, also 
said: Do not let the Smithfields of this world own six, seven, eight 
confined animal feeding operations and get a big subsidy for every one 
of them. I would preferred that EQIP, an important environmental 
program, be targeted to our family farmers. There are certainly some 
missed opportunities. But, on the positive side, my colleague from Iowa 
already talked about the dairy front. This is hugely important for my 
State of Minnesota. This is the first really good, positive thing I 
have seen happen in dairy for over a decade.

  In addition, while I will continue to fight for higher loan rates, in 
the House bill, the Secretary of Agriculture had the discretion to 
lower loan rates. This administration, the President in his budget 
proposal, went on record in support of lower loan rates. So at least 
the loan rates go up for the first time in a couple of decades and the 
effective safety net or target price is much higher. I am hoping and 
praying our producers can cash-flow so they will have a future. I think 
this legislation will give them that opportunity.
  Again, for this coming year, to talk about $394 million of addition 
assistance to Minnesota agriculture, I make no apologies for that as a 
Senator from Minnesota. Over the next 6 years, an average of $330 
million more of it is targeted to Minnesota family farmers so they can 
continue to farm. You better believe I support that.
  An increase of net farm income averaging $4.5 billion a year for the 
Nation--you better believe I support that. It is a darned sight better 
than ``freedom to fail.''
  When I hear some of my colleagues say actually supporting family 
farmers is in competition with the Social Security trust fund or making 
sure we support Medicare, I just have to smile and say: Wait a minute. 
Where were you when you voted for these Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts 
which bleed the economy of trillions of dollars? Where were you?
  Don't be pitting family farmers in Minnesota against Medicare or 
against Social Security. We are not going to let you get away with 
that, not in this debate and not ever.
  On the plus side, above and beyond arguments made already, I would 
like to thank the chairman, Senator Harkin, and I am proud to be part 
of this effort as well. I would also like to thank the other Senate 
conferees--Senators Daschle, Conrad, and Leahy.
  Senator Harkin's success on this bill is irrefutable. Senator Harkin 
from Iowa, with the Conservation Security Program, he led the way. The 
Conservation Security Program will provide assistance to producers who 
adopt conservation practices on working lands. I love the Conservation 
Reserve Program, which we were able to increase with this bill. I love 
the Wetlands Reserve Program, which we were also able to increase. I 
love working with Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and other great 
conservation groups. Now, with the Conservation Security Program we 
will be focusing on land in production with economic incentives for 
farmers to utilize wise conservation practices. This is win-win-win.
  I have loved seeing Senator Harkin, the environmental community, and 
the agricultural community working together. This is really a sea 
change for the better. It is a huge change for the better and the 
Senator from Iowa deserves all the credit in the world for this.
  Above and beyond that we have Country of Origin Labeling, that was an 
amendment I did in committee. I am proud to pass that amendment. I 
thank the conferees for keeping it in.
  I know these big conglomerates don't like it because it gives our 
independent producers a leg up, because these big conglomerates are 
shipping out and shipping in and not relying on our independent 
producers here in this country. In addition consumers have a right to 
know what they are eating and where it is from. It is hugely important. 
Frankly--I can say it now because the conference report is over--I am 
amazed it is in the conference report, but I thank the Chairman for his 
help.

  Then for the first time ever we have an energy title. People are 
excited in Greater Minnesota, in rural America, about this energy 
section, because rural America has part of the answer. We talked about 
ethanol and biodiesel, but there is another part of this--it's wind, 
solar, and biomass. In Minnesota it is a no-brainer. We are a cold 
weather State at the other end of the pipeline. We import barrels of 
oil. We export $11 billion a year, but we are rich in wind and biomass 
to electricity; we are rich in saved energy, we are rich in clean 
technology, small business. This is a marriage ready to be made in 
heaven. This bill moves us down that path--a clean energy path.
  It is respectful of the environment, keeps capital in the community, 
it is small business intensive, jobs intensive, keeps capital in our 
States--this is great.
  The economic development piece is hugely important. I heard my 
colleague, the Senator from Iowa, talking about telecommunications, 
that we don't want to be left out. I am so pleased my Rural Telework 
Initiative has been included. Again, it is my work and I am bragging 
about it, but setting up a telework institute is a major victory for 
rural communities. Information technology companies, have said: Listen, 
we know the work ethic of people in rural America. We want to make 
sure, if the Federal Government is willing to provide the grants and 
willing to get this going--then we have a real opportunity for people 
to be able, out of their homes, out of a satellite office, to work for 
companies halfway across the world much less halfway across our own 
country.
  People do not have to leave our rural communities. Our young people 
do not have to leave. I meet so many young people in Greater Minnesota, 
in our rural communities. Basically they are following the advice to 
get ahead, get a good education, which means get out of here. That is 
the death knell for our communities.

[[Page S3919]]

  One thing they are asking about is whether or not they could stay in 
the community. Are they going to be able to? If they farm, are they 
going to get a decent price, job opportunities, a small business going? 
Will there be good education and health care and environment?
  And on the job opportunities--I love this--the Rural Telework 
Initiative means people in our rural communities can work for companies 
halfway across the world. Let's make sure this happens. We don't want 
rural America left behind with this information technology economy. We 
can be a part of it. I think there is huge bipartisan support for this.
  Of course I am bragging, but I want my State of Minnesota to be the 
leader. I think we can.
  My final point: We are going to be back on this fight on packer 
ownership. We are going to be back on this fight on payment 
limitations. I talked to the chairman and he said we are going to do 
additional investigative work, we are going to do additional public 
hearings. In addition, one of the things I can't wait to do, and albeit 
it is easier said than done, I want to write an antitrust bill looking 
at the food industry.
  In summary, this conference report perfect, but I do not want to keep 
going on with this ``freedom to fail'' bill. I want to see a change. 
This bill represents that change.
  I agree with some of the critiquing from some of my colleagues, but 
all in all, this is a step forward for agriculture in Minnesota. It is 
a big step forward for the farm structure in Minnesota. It is a big 
step forward for the environment. It is a big step forward for a better 
energy policy. It is a big step forward for economic development. It is 
a big step forward for people who live in Greater Minnesota and live in 
our rural communities.

  I am willing to come out here and debate and fight for this bill and 
support this bill. An finally would like to ask for a commitment from 
Senator Harkin that we are not done with this battle on the reform 
battle on payment limitations, and on the ban on packer ownership. 
Let's go after some of these conglomerates. It's the right thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself the time I consume.
  First, I thank my colleague and friend from Minnesota for all of his 
work on this farm bill and for being such a valuable member of our 
committee. It was the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, who first 
offered the country of origin labeling in committee and won it in 
committee and we kept it on the floor. Consumers need to thank Senator 
Wellstone for making sure our they will have the right to know where 
their meat and fish, fruits and vegetables come from. And for the 
record, another great champion of country of origin labeling, and he 
has been for years, is Senator Johnson. These two have fought 
tirelessly to bring this measure into law.
  We were able to keep it in there. I think the Senator is right, this 
is going to be a very important provision for our producers in this 
country--and for our consumers. So I thank him for that.
  I thank the Senator also for all his strong work on conservation and 
on rural development.
  Again, I say without any fear of contradiction that the people in 
Minnesota--people in rural America, but I say Minnesota because that is 
the State the Senator represents--and the people who live in small 
towns and communities all over rural America have no better fighter for 
their interests and no better friend they can count on consistently 
than Senator Wellstone of Minnesota.
  When it comes to the things we have in this bill that invest in rural 
economic development, rural equity funds, broadband access, taking care 
of the backlog on sewer and water grants, and providing for value-added 
grants for small towns and communities--all of these bear the imprint 
of the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone.
  I thank him so much for that on behalf of all who are interested in 
the environment and in conservation.
  I say to the Senator before he leaves the Chamber that he has this 
Senator's ironclad commitment. As long as I am privileged to chair this 
committee, we are not going to give up on the fight to ban packer 
ownership of livestock prior to 14 days before slaughter. We are going 
to get to that.
  We are also going to continue to fight on better payment limitations 
in the future.
  Again, the farm bill is before us. It represents a very balanced 
compromise. Again, we need to get this to the President as soon as 
possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, Senator Grassley has been waiting for an 
hour and a half to speak but knew there wouldn't be time for his 
comments before the 12:30 recess. So I ask unanimous consent that 
following the recess he be allowed to be the first speaker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Madam President.
  I would like to yield myself such time as I might have for comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the farm 
bill conference report. The opportunity to write a farm bill comes 
along rarely in a Senator's career on Capitol Hill. It is an 
opportunity to survey the road and set the course for agriculture and 
rural America, in this case, for the next 6 years. And in the next 6 
years, we will stick to that course and walk that road. In studying the 
conference report we have before us today, I fear that we have 
engineered agriculture's road through the swamp. Once in the mud, it is 
going to take more than a new farm bill in 6 years to unstick our 
wheels, pull us out and reverse the damage to America's food and fiber 
policy.
  We have a bill before us that ramps up the subsidies farmers are 
receiving to extraordinary amounts. Now, there is nothing wrong with 
helping our farmers and guaranteeing a safe and sufficient food supply. 
However, we should fairly and equitably assist all of agriculture. The 
House Agriculture Committee says that this bill will cost $45.1 billion 
of additional spending in the next 6 years. Of that amount, $31.2 
billion is going to commodities. The largest portion is for our 
traditional crops: wheat, corn, cotton and rice. Now in Wyoming, 
agriculture means more than just farming. Producers are farmers, but 
they are also ranchers. And the ranchers in Wyoming don't see much 
benefit to this bill.
  Seventy percent of the new spending is going to commodities. The rest 
of the money is being split between other things the farm bill funds 
like nutrition programs, research and conservation, all important 
things. I am pleased with the increase in Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program--EQIP--funds. However, even these are cost share 
funds and not the direct payments that so many farmers will receive.
  Ranchers like their independence from government handouts and they 
usually wouldn't mind being overlooked in the farm bill, but they have 
a need this year. That need was ignored.
  There was a proposition that would have given $7,000 to a rancher to 
feed the best of his breeders from the herd throughout the drought. 
Talk about extreme cases, we put them at zero. Yes, my State is 
entering the third year of a drought. Yes, in response to the disaster 
in my State and other States, I, along with a majority of this body, 
added an amendment to the farm bill that would have provided $500 
million to livestock producers for feed shortages.
  That amendment passed 69-30. Compared to the billions spent on 
commodities, this was a small package of assistance for an industry 
known for refusing Federal assistance. In this farm bill, commodities 
are the focus of 70 percent of the additional funding. The amount that 
I wanted to devote to livestock producers is a mere 1 percent of the 
additional spending. One percent! And the assistance was refused in 
this final conference report.
  The conference refused ranchers assistance the same month they are 
being prevented from moving to their drought-stricken Federal grazing 
allotments. Since they can't feed their livestock, they must consider 
selling their

[[Page S3920]]

herds in a cattle market that is no longer rational and with tax 
benefits that have run out. The safety net and benefits of the farm 
bill are not being shared with the ranchers.
  The producers in my State do have a reason to be thankful. Country of 
origin labeling is a part of the bill. This is a victory that I have 
been working toward since I entered this body. It is my fervent hope 
that the forces that rose unsuccessfully to defeat this program in the 
farm bill do not undermine the provision in the rulemaking process 
during the initial, 2-year voluntary period.
  Also, the conference report does not contain the language that would 
have appropriated my State's water rights. We fought against this 
harmful provision that in my State would have allowed the Federal 
Government to usurp State water rights through implementation of the 
Endangered Species Act and done it at bargain basement prices.
  For ranchers, this bill should be labeled, ``Do no harm, do no good'' 
because another provision vital to ranchers in my State was pulled from 
the final report. The ban on packer ownership of livestock more than 14 
days before slaughter was removed. This tells my producers that the 
U.S. Senate is unconcerned about the impacts of market manipulation on 
their family ranches. Not only are we unwilling to provide them 
financial assistance when they need it in the third year of the worst 
drought, we won't give them the opportunity to extract their own 
livelihood from an open and fair market. They are trapped on every 
side. We had an opportunity to assist all of agriculture with this farm 
bill, but we did not take it.
  I have been discussing the repercussions of this bill on my State. 
There also are repercussions to our national budget. I previously said 
that this bill is being quoted as costing $45.1 billion in additional 
spending in the next 6 years. Based on the April 2001 budget resolution 
baseline, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill 
would increase direct spending by $73.5 billion in budget authority 
through 2011. This spending under the fanciest of accounting definitely 
affects the budget parameters.
  However, this is 2002 and crop prices are lower this year. A CBO 
estimate using an April 2002 baseline would add several billion dollars 
over $73.5 billion in the next 10 years, but the latest numbers are not 
being taken seriously. When my staff contacted the Senate Agriculture 
Committee to ask about the April 2002 CBO cost estimate, they were told 
that it did not matter. In fact, the committee staff said an estimate 
based on the April 2002 baseline was an ``academic exercise.'' This is 
real money. This is not an academic exercise. We cannot use accounting 
to ignore the exorbitant cost of this legislation.
  For example, I have been discussing the farm bill's additional 
spending. It hasn't been heard often, but this additional spending is 
being added to a huge base of current spending on agriculture. When we 
add the $73.5 billion of additional spending, this bill will cost us 
over $180 billion throughout the next 10 years. Now that is a number 
that is flung around these halls flippantly, but $180 billion in 
Wyoming is a big deal. I think it is probably a big deal all over the 
country. It is a big deal to our trading partners, too.

  Madam President, $45.1 billion, $73.5 billion, $180 billion, that is 
more than a rounding error, that is a gross misstatement of the facts. 
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to 
their own facts.
  There are repercussions to this bill that move beyond our borders to 
other countries and our trading partners. We have a WTO responsibility 
to our trading partners to keep our agricultural subsidies below $19.1 
billion. Did any of those numbers I used before sound anywhere near 
$19.1 billion? I don't think so. In the past years, we have stayed far 
below that level, but this bill threatens to send us over the top. It 
will be very difficult to convince our trading partners to lower their 
own subsidy levels--and they are starting to talk about that--and 
increase our access into their markets if we so boldly ramp up our own 
subsidy levels. They are watching.
  The Australian Agriculture Minister, Warren Truss, said our farm bill 
``sends an appalling signal to agricultural trade negotiators seeking a 
freer and fairer international trading regime.''
  Canada's Agriculture Minister, Lyle Vanclief, said: ``The farm bill 
is a serious blow to the US's credibility in the current round of World 
Trade Organization negotiations.''
  Do not fool yourself, they are watching us this moment to see if we 
are really interested in fair trade. What signals are we going to send 
them?
  I know what signal we will send if we accept this conference report. 
We are signaling that the United States really isn't interested in 
increasing our agricultural exports to other countries. Realizing this, 
I look down the road we have surveyed for agriculture. We are 
significantly expanding our commodity subsidies, the great incentive 
for overproduction. We already know we cannot possibly consume what is 
produced in this country. With this subsidy increase, we are 
systematically closing the doors on increased exports. With no outlet 
for their production, we are condemning our farmers to a downward 
spiral of prices. And countercyclical payments will not stop that 
spiral. In fact, they intensify the spiral.
  So we have a conference report before us that will eventually harm 
the farmers it is trying to help and that ignores the plight of the 
other half of agriculture, the livestock producers. And it does it with 
phony and illusive numbers that will appall everyone else.
  For these reasons, I am voting against this conference report. I urge 
my fellow Senators to seriously consider whether this is the road they 
will condemn their farmers and ranchers to for the next 6 years. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. Feinstein. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed beyond 
the hour of 12:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished chairman of 
the Senate Agriculture Committee for the farm bill before us.
  As one of seven Senate conferees on the farm bill, I want to make a 
few initial remarks today about this major effort.
  First, I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report. This 
farm bill helps farmers by providing a safety net; it helps consumers 
by keeping our food costs low; it expands our nutritional safety net to 
those most in need; it will mean cleaner waterways, better soils, 
protected open space, and the preservation of family farms; it will 
make our drinking water safer, improve the environment, and will give 
rural America a strong economic boost.
  I thank Chairman Harkin who worked day and night on this effort.
  As I know from being chairman of the committee during the 1990 farm 
bill, it is no easy task to balance the needs of various regions, 
various commodities and various other priorities within a fixed budget.
  Make no mistake--this bill is great for all regions, it represents a 
well-balanced effort.
  I enjoyed working with the chairman of the conference, Larry Combest. 
He was fair and patient, and strove to listen to all sides of an issue 
and to offer helpful ideas as we sought to craft the final product.
  His chief of staff, Bill O'Connor, has worked on many agriculture 
issues with me. He is one of the finest examples a truly professional 
hill staffer--smart and tough, and able to get the job done for his 
chairman. Also, Lance Kotschwar, the chief counsel for Chairman 
Combest, deserves a great deal of credit.
  Ranking member Charlie Stenholm, also an expert on farm bill details, 
was very helpful in trying to work through some of the complex issues. 
He is well served by his senior agriculture staff, including Vernie 
Hubert.
  I will have more kind words to say about the other body, but I want 
to

[[Page S3921]]

make a couple points regarding the Senate. I will have more to say at 
another time about Ed Barron and his team from my office. Many parts of 
this bill would not be here without them.
  The Democratic conferees in the Senate consisted of three chairmen of 
major committees, and the majority leader. That is quite a batting 
lineup. We had the majority leader and the chairmen of the Agriculture, 
Budget, and Judiciary Committees.
  Leader Daschle, and his superb staff Bart Chilton, Jonathon Lehman 
and Bev Paul--did a tremendous job trying to balance everyone's 
interests.
  Chairman Conrad helped get us the budget to complete a farm bill--and 
provided the conferees with valuable insights, as did his able staff 
aide, Tim Galvin.
  I will make more extensive remarks later in this debate but I want to 
focus on a few highlights today.
  This farm bill provides--for the first time--strong provisions for 
all regions of America.
  The farm bill provides regional equity--all of America will share in 
its benefits.
  For example, for the first time, ever, we have a farm bill which 
provides national counter-cyclical support for dairy farmers. I have 
voted many times for programs which have helped cotton, rice, wheat or 
soybean farmers.
  This farm bill continues to help them--but also creates a national 
safety net for all family-size dairy farmers--whether they live in 
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, or 
Vermont.
  I am pleased that we were able to forge bipartisan coalitions in the 
Senate and the House, from many states, and from all regions, in 
working out this national effort.
  Dairy farm families work very hard they get up at 5 in the morning 
whether it is freezing cold, whether it is a Sunday or a Tuesday, 
whether they are feeling fine or lousy that day, whether it is a 
holiday or not.
  They need a safety net or America may lose its fresh, local supplies 
of milk.
  America can not afford to take the risks involved in concentrating 
dairy production in just a couple areas of the country.
  Snowstorms, floods, earthquakes, or other emergencies could disrupt 
transportation or production facilities.
  This farm bill is not just about farmers. It is about assisting rural 
towns and communities, and families in need.
  The Food Research and Action Center notes that:

       Given the scope of the hunger and food insecurity problem 
     facing our nation's people, we believe that passage of the 
     Farm Bill Conference Report with its investments in the 
     nutrition safety net must be a very high priority for the . . 
     . Senate.

  They are right. This farm bill provides $6.4 billion to help the 
neediest families. Most Americans do not realize that the food stamp 
program is America's largest child nutrition program with the great 
bulk of assistance going to families with children.
  In her letter of endorsement, Marian Wright Edelman points out that:

       We also strongly support the improvements for working 
     families in the Food Stamp program. Adjusting the standard 
     deduction for cost-of-living increases and family size will 
     help the value of food stamps keep pace with inflation. Many 
     provisions in the nutrition title will make it easier for 
     working families to apply for or renew benefits, and will 
     streamline requirements on states so they will find it easier 
     to serve working families.

  Bob Greenstein, with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes 
that: ``Many of the title's provisions are targeted toward low-income 
families with children, particularly the working poor.''
  This farm bill includes President Bush's strong proposal to assist 
legal immigrants who--throughout history--have come to America in 
search of a better life, and have made America a stronger nation.
  The bill also improves America's first line of defense against 
hunger--the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
  Also, the farm bill saves two great farmers' market programs from the 
chopping block.
  The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, and the much newer 
farmers' market program for seniors, has provided tremendous incentives 
for local communities to create local farmers' markets. Anyone shopping 
at these hundreds of new farmers' markets knows that these programs are 
great for local farmers, families on WIC, our seniors, and the local 
communities.
  On a international theme--I am very pleased that the farm bill 
includes $100 million in guaranteed funding for the McGovern-Dole 
Global Food for Education Initiative which I authored with Senator 
Harkin and others in the Senate.
  This initiative taps America's agricultural bounty to become a 
catalyst for lasting change in many struggling nations.
  Former Senators McGovern and Dole supported this vision and pointed 
out that this initiative would ``help our farmers while putting food in 
the stomachs of desperately hungry and malnourished children.''
  It has been pilot-tested, and enrollment by children, especially 
girls, has dramatically increased in the poorest areas of the world.
  Clearly, the events of September 11, make this initiative even more 
important.
  The final bill also contains an unprecedented $1 billion in mandatory 
funds to assist rural areas in improving the rural infrastructure, 
attracting jobs, and improving high-speed internet access to businesses 
and homes.
  Our farmers and small businesses will get a boost from $240 million 
included for value-added market development grants.
  Modeled after the successful pilot program currently run by USDA, 
this program will provide grants up to $500,000 to help develop, 
promote, and market, value-added goods--to help build their wealth and 
expand their enterprise.
  The bill reauthorizes important water programs that are critical to 
the infrastructure of rural America--over $360 million will be 
available nationally to reduce the backlog of loan and grant 
applications for construction or expansion of water and wastewater 
systems.

  Even our firefighters and emergency personnel will receive much 
needed assistance to help provide for critical training in rural areas. 
These men and women work tirelessly, often on a volunteer basis, to 
protect our families and our homes. I am pleased that $50 million has 
been included to give these forces a boost.
  Also within the package of conservation programs lies an historic 
increase in the Farmland Protection Program--which was first pilot-
tested in Vermont under a provision which I wrote for the 1990 Farm 
Bill.
  Previously funded at only $35 million, and hugely oversubscribed by 
interested farmers, the Farmland Protection Program will now be funded 
at almost $1 billion over the next 10 years.
  Since 1996, the FPP program in Vermont has protected more than 80,000 
acres of the State's most precious farmland. It can preserve farmland 
in many other states under this new farm bill.
  I am very pleased that this bill sets forth several new initiatives 
for organic agriculture.
  This coming October, the National Organic Standards Program will be 
fully implemented and will create tremendous possibilities for organic 
producers by enhancing national and international market opportunities 
for organic products.
  This farm bill makes strides toward providing the information and 
resources needed to continue to grow this industry. For the first time, 
dedicated funding is provided for the organic research and extension 
initiative, which is also expanded in this bill.
  In addition, in this farm bill we provided for new organic production 
and market data initiatives and we establish an organic certification 
cost-share program.
  As more and more farms transition to organic production methods, 
there is a substantial environmental benefit. In many cases organic 
farming also provides sustainability to the profession of farming, and 
offers rewards to small farms in particular. In Vermont, the growth of 
the organic industry means that more farmers will be able to make a 
decent living doing what they love.
  The New York, Washington State and Vermont delegations, among others, 
worked to add $94 million to the bill for direct aid for apple growers 
who have suffered crop losses in recent years. National apple growers, 
including several

[[Page S3922]]

orchards in Vermont, have sustained losses totaling $1.5 billion over 
the past five years, including an estimated $500 million during the 
past year.
  The farm bill also invests $1.3 billion in research to help keep 
America's farmers competitive in world markets.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this farm bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, speaking only as the Senator from 
Iowa, thanks the distinguished Senator from Vermont for all his great 
support and work on this farm bill. It is unprecedented.

                          ____________________