[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 7, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3922-S3937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in a moment, I will ask that the Chair 
grant 35 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Iowa. Before that, I 
ask unanimous consent that the next Republican speaker after Senator 
Grassley be Senator Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the manager 
of the bill can request whoever he wants, but I note that Senator Akaka 
wants to be put in the mix. I know Senator Harkin spoke for quite some 
time. I do not know if we want to try to balance out the time. Senator 
Akaka also wishes to speak.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Senator Akaka only wants 5 minutes. After Senator Grassley 
finishes, would the Senator from Indiana have any problem with Senator 
Akaka speaking for 5 or 10 minutes?
  Mr. LUGAR. Fine.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Might I get in the chain as well? I know after Senator 
Grassley----
  Mr. REID. He is going to speak for about half an hour.
  Mr. CONRAD. It will be Senator Akaka on our side, and Senator 
Domenici will be next?
  Mr. REID. How long will Senator Domenici speak?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Twenty minutes.
  Mr. REID. Can we set it up so Senator Conrad follows Senator 
Domenici, whenever that might be?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I amend my request so that Senator Grassley 
will speak, then Senator Akaka will be recognized, then Senator 
Domenici will be recognized, and then Senator Conrad will be 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. I note to my friend from Indiana that Senator Akaka will 
not spend his time on the bill, but it will be counted against our 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today is a very bad day for the family 
farmer. I am extremely disappointed by the effort that was made by the 
Senate conferees to maintain the provisions that were added to the 
Senate version of the farm bill on the floor.
  A number of folks have been saying this is a good bill, and I would 
say those folks are part right, it's a good bill if you are a cotton 
and rice producer. The problem is we don't grow those commodities in my 
state of Iowa. I plan to vote with the family farmers from Iowa.
  I'll sum it up in four words to explain why this is a bad bill for 
Iowa and why I'm so adamantly opposed to this conference report: 
competition, competition, competition, competition.
  My first reference to competition pertains to competition for grain 
farmers. The conferees threw out my amendment on reasonable payment 
limits. In fact I think what they did will cause more harm than good 
because the Senate Democrats are calling it legitimate reform. If this 
is their version of ``legitimate reform'' they're not talking to and 
representing the same farmers I'm listening to and representing.
  The American people recognize the importance of the family farmer to 
our nation, and the need to provide an adequate safety net for family 
farmers. In recent years, however, assistance to farmers has come under 
increasing scrutiny. Critics of farm payments have argued that the 
largest corporate farms reap most of the benefits of these payments. 
The reality is, 60 percent of the payments have gone to only 10 percent 
of our Nation's farmers.
  What is more, the payments that have been designed to benefit small 
and medium-sized family farmers have contributed to their own demise. 
Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land prices and 
cash rents and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity 
prices, driving many family farmers off the farm.
  What is really disturbing though it the fact that the conference 
report failed to address this issue and even worse, the authors are 
acting like they did.
  This conference report fails to address the use of generic commodity 
certificates which allow farmers to circumvent payment limitations. The 
supposed ``reform'' in this bill is worthless due to the lack of 
generic certificate reform. In recent years, we have heard news reports 
about large corporate farms receiving millions of dollars in payments 
through the use of generic certificates. Generic certificates do not 
benefit family farmers but allow the largest farmers to receive 
unlimited payments. This bill will not even make the big corporate 
farmer blink.
  The Senate agreed, by an overwhelming vote of 66 to 31, to a 
bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senator Dorgan and me to target 
federal assistance to small and medium-sized family farmers. The 
amendment would have limited direct and counter cyclical payments to 
$75,000. It would have limited gains from marketing loans and LDPs to 
$150,000, and generic certificates would have been included in this 
limit. No subterfuge. The amendment would also establish a combined 
payment limitation of $275,000 for a husband and wife.
  This amendment was critical to family farmers in Iowa. I feel 
strongly the conference report failed Iowa when it failed to 
effectively address the issue of payment limitations. This will do 
nothing to help restore public respectability for federal farm 
assistance by targeting this assistance to those who need it the most.
  The second reference to competition refers to the independent 
livestock producer being almost completely ignored in this bill. Iowa's 
independent livestock producers had clearly made the elimination of 
packer ownership their number one priority. The conferees threw it out.
  The president of the Iowa Pork Producers had stated: ``It [the packer 
ban] was our number one issue for the Farm Bill and we are extremely 
disappointed it didn't survive.''
  The Iowa Cattlemen released a statement which read:

       The Iowa Cattlemen's Association Executive Board . . . 
     expressed their frustration with a missed opportunity for new 
     legislation regarding a ban on packer ownership in the final 
     version of the Farm Bill. . . . We believe the Farm Bill 
     Conference committee has overlooked and ignored the family 
     farmer and small livestock producer in failing to adopt 
     appropriate packer limitations.

  It's clear that is what Iowa's livestock producers wanted and this 
farm bill doesn't deliver. It's that simple!
  Also, in regard to livestock producers, the bipartisan amendment I 
offered with Senator Feingold which would have eliminated the ability 
of packers to force livestock producers, into mandatory arbitration was 
dropped in conference.
  We finally had the chance to give farmers an opportunity to choose 
the best dispute settlement mechanism available for their individual 
situation. But instead of fixing the problem--and let me remind 
everyone that this passed by an overwhelming vote on the Senate floor--
we've locked independent livestock producers into binding arbitration 
instead of mediation or civil action which could have given family 
farmers a fighting chance to succeed in a dispute with a packer.
  Who wants a pat on the back from the packers for dropping these items 
from the conference report? I am sure the packers are really proud of 
you, whoever you are. Don't worry about

[[Page S3923]]

the independent livestock producers, they won't be around much longer 
anyway.
  My third reference to competition pertains to competition for funds. 
Specifically, when the next round of payments will be made.
  Sticking with current law and passing a supplemental would provide a 
net benefit to Iowa farmers of approximately $662 million in the first 
six months if the supplemental was only equal to the levels of support 
offered within the last supplemental package, according to the Center 
for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University. If a 
farmer has the ability to pay down his debt earlier in a loan cycle 
than later in that same cycle that money goes much further for the 
individual producer, everyone knows this. Instead, under the bill as 
currently constructed, Iowa producers will be waiting till sometime 
between December and March for the first round of sizable payments. It 
won't be this fall as it has been for the last three years.
  I have read in the press that some Members of this body are trying to 
claim that this is beneficial to farmers in short term. I guess the 
question is what's ``short term'' to those folks, but the better 
question is, what's short term to Iowa's family farmers?
  In the next 6 months. I think it would be fair to say that Iowa 
farmers are concerned how they will be treated under this program for 
the next six months. The benefits to Iowa farmers from implementation 
of the new farm bill in the current fiscal year would include increased 
LDP rates for corn because of the increased corn loan rate. Nationally, 
corn farmers received less than 14 percent of a crop year's LDP payment 
in the same fiscal year since 1997. For Iowa, the amount is clearly 
less than one percent. This means that Iowa farmers would gain 
essentially nothing from the higher loan rates in the current fiscal 
year.
  Iowa farmers would find that their soybean LDP rates would decrease 
under the new farm bill because of lower soybean loan rate. But for 
soybeans, less than 5 percent of LDPs were collected in the fiscal year 
as the crop year. Thus, Iowa farmers would not lose much at all from 
implementation of the lower rates in the current fiscal year.
  So where is the benefit to this approach? Is there a payment hidden 
in the conference report I have not seen yet? I guess that those in 
favor of this bill could say that there is a fixed payment available to 
family farmers that will hopefully be made available in October, but 
then you have to remember to reduce that payment by the amount a family 
farmer has already received this year. In Iowa, that means your net 
benefit for the fixed payment is 1.9 cents per bushel of corn.
  How can anyone defend 1.9 cents as a substantive fixed payment? How 
does that compare with the Robert's supplemental? Well, he had 33.4 
cents per bushel available for corngrowers in Iowa, and there was no 
slight of hand to force you to reduce it, or pressure to manipulate 
your reportable base, to improve your payment. Does anyone actually 
think 1.9 cents is better for family farmers than 33.4 cents per 
bushel?
  My fourth reference to competition is trade, specifically trade 
compliance. I offered an amendment during the Senate floor debate that 
would have reinforced the importance of ensuring that the farm bill 
which passes the Senate complied with our Uruguay Round trade 
commitments, and the conferees stripped it out.
  As I have said before, our family farmers depend on foreign markets, 
exporting about one-quarter to one-third of the farm products they 
produce. For the past 25 years, the U.S. has exported far more 
agricultural goods than it has imported.
  The Uruguay Round negotiations improved conditions of market access 
for American farmers. For the first time, the agreement reached during 
the Uruguay Round capped the level of trade-distorting support that WTO 
members can provide to producers. Worldwide, agricultural tariffs were 
reduced by an average of 36 percent over a 6-year period. The United 
States agreed to reduce its own amber box spending to $19.1 billion per 
year.
  Because agricultural domestic support commitments are now ``bound'' 
under WTO rules, the United States and its trading partners can be 
subjected to harmful trade retaliation if they exceed their WTO 
limitations.
  If a WTO complaint were brought against the United States for 
exceeding its domestic support commitments, it is possible that many 
countries could become complainants in the cases and allege injury.
  If the U.S. were found in violation of our trade obligations, we 
would be expected to change our current farm program, `midstream'. If 
we were not able to, the complaining countries would receive 
authorization to retaliate by raising duties on U.S. goods.
  Our agricultural goods would likely be the first target of 
retaliation as the products chosen for retaliation are often the most 
successful exports.
  Retaliation by our trading partners would cut our exports, forcing 
surplus commodities onto the domestic market. An increased domestic 
surplus would place downward pressure on domestic prices, increasing 
the need for additional assistance. At the same time, we would not be 
allowed to provide our family farmers any support. The result is that 
the conference report would fail family farmers when their need is the 
greatest.
  That is why I offered my amendment to provide reassurance that we 
would not have to cut the legs out from under our nation's family 
farmers if the funding provided by this legislation exceeds our Uruguay 
Round commitments. In the event that a provision of this farm bill 
would have threatened to break our amber box caps, as determined by the 
Secretary of Agriculture, my amendment would have sunset the offending 
provisions after 18 months.
  In order to continue funding at a level that is consistent with our 
Uruguay Round commitments, Congress would have been required to pass a 
readjustment resolution until the offending provision could be 
rewritten by Congress. Unlike the conference report, which gives the 
Secretary of Agriculture sweeping authority to reduce or suspend 
payments, this amendment would ensure that farmers can count on the 
assistance they need until Congress agrees that we will potentially 
violate our trade commitments.
  In addition, USDA would have determined what program played a 
significant role in potentially violating our trade agreements and 
within 18 months that program would have been suspended, hopefully to 
be reformed in a trade compliant fashion.
  But now, we wrote a new farm bill that will undercut our negotiators 
before the negotiations even get off the ground.
  That is because this farm bill we are discussing today, has, 
according to its own supporters, a 19 percent chance of violating our 
Uruguay Round Amber Box commitments. We have never violated those 
commitments. And we have certainly never publicly announced an 
intention to violate those commitments. To violate those commitments 
now, or to threaten to do so, is a tremendous shift in long-standing 
United States agricultural trade policy.
  Some of my colleagues might claim that this bill has improved from a 
1 in 3 chance to a 1 in 5 chance of sabotaging our rural economy, and 
they might even be proud of the improvement. But even these dismal 
percentages get worse when we learn the details.
  FAPRI--The Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute--used their 
existing 2001 baseline to determine this percentage. By FAPRI's own 
admission, the 2001 baseline does not take into account the full impact 
we are seeing in the market of many commodity prices trending downward. 
FAPRI qualified their analysis by explaining:
  Over the next few weeks, FAPRI intends to conduct an updated analysis 
of the bill that will incorporate more current market information. The 
new analysis will result in different estimates of prices, production, 
Government costs, farm income, and other indicators. Without prejudging 
results of the forthcoming analysis, please note that market prices for 
several commodities are currently lower than FAPRI had projected in its 
2001 baseline.
  So get ready folks, when the 2002 baseline is completed and the 
analysis is run later this month we could very

[[Page S3924]]

likely see a huge swing in the wrong direction. The percentage of non-
compliance could very possibly be upward of 35-40 percent. We will not 
have solid figures until the next baseline is completed though because 
of the enormous impact the LDPs will have on 2002 projections.
  We seem to be rushing to milk the Federal cow before anyone checks 
the breed, or much less the gender of the cattle. This is not how you 
establish prudent, or even satisfactory policy, but it doesn't seem 
like many Senators care about that right now.
  We have achieved a great deal at the negotiating table in the past 50 
years because we have credibility. Our trading partners respect the 
fact that we stick to our guns and do what we say we are going to do. 
In turn, we expect them to do the same.
  But passing a non-trade compliant farm bill seriously damages our 
credibility.
  And it does so right at the time when we are poised to launch new, 
comprehensive global trade talks largely built around our own 
agricultural negotiating objectives.
  I cannot think of a more effective way to undermine everything we 
have worked for, and everything we hope to accomplish at the 
negotiating table during the next 3 years, than to pass a farm bill 
that we know might break our WTO obligations.
  The advocates of this approach might say, well, it is only a one-in-
five chance that we will not be trade-compliant under this farm bill.
  But would we accept that argument in discussing, say, education 
policy, and go forward with an education program that had a one-in-five 
chance of failure? Or a defense program?
  I do not think we would. And it does not make any more sense to go 
forward on that basis here, especially if those odds might actually be 
much worse than we realize.
  Competition is and for a very long time will be the number one issue 
for family farmers. We should all think back to Secretary Veneman's 
confirmation hearing. During the question and answer period before the 
Senate Agriculture Committee she said something that a few of my 
colleagues have seemingly already forgotten. She said that the one 
topic she had heard the most about while visiting Senators and House 
members was the issue of competition. It was the most mentioned issue 
and the issue that we generating the most concern in rural America.
  What did we leave out of this conference report? Competition, 
competition, competition, competition. The glaring lack of strong 
provisions regarding competition is why The Organization for 
Competitive Markets, and the Center for Rural Affairs oppose this 
legislation. These groups supported the legislation when family-farmer-
friendly provisions were added on the Senate floor, but they are now 
opposed because they support family farmers and independent livestock 
producers and this bill does not do that.
  As I look at the conference report before us I have to admit I have 
lost a little bit of faith in the process. We put a good bill together 
on the Senate floor. It came out of committee with ridiculously high 
payment limits, nothing on livestock competition, a complete disregard 
for trade compliance, deficiencies in the nutrition title, etc.
  But on the floor of the Senate we all worked together to make it a 
bill that was acceptable, and I would say that bill was very good for 
Iowa's family farmers because it had in it the issues Iowans wanted us 
to address, specifically payment limits and packer ownership. This bill 
does not do what Iowans wanted it to do, plain and simple. It skipped 
Iowa's top priorities.
  In addition, let's not forget about the administrative nightmare that 
this conference report will create. Everyone should be well aware of 
how difficult implementation will be for USDA. Don't blame the Bush 
administration if payments don't get out time. I hope that the Senators 
that are more interested in immediate implementation, than passing a 
supplemental are not going to be disingenuous in the future and attack 
the administration because implementation takes awhile to accomplish.
  Let there be no question that if there is fault to assign regarding 
implementation it lies with the authors of the bill, not the 
bureaucrats required to decipher the intent of the authors. This will 
not be an easy task.
  So I hope that Senator Daschle's comments yesterday in the Daily 
Monitor ring true. He was quoted as saying, ``you're not going to see 
these disastrous supplemental requests in the future.'' But then I 
wonder what ``future'' means because the next sentence reads, ``We'd 
still like to get one for 2001, but in the future you're not going to 
see them.''
  The thing I just cannot understand is why, if you just had the money 
and the willingness of Republicans to write a supplemental that would 
be beneficial to family farmers, why did you forsake the opportunity to 
put money in farmers hands right now, and trade that benefit for 
immediate implementation? It's a risk that family farmers should not 
have to take.
  To conclude, I would agree with those that claim this is a historic 
farm bill, but in my opinion it might be historic for all the wrong 
reasons. We are losing support in the urban sectors for future farm 
bills by not reforming the existing abuses that have been made 
abundantly clear by media. Even farmers want us to fix the payment 
problems by implementing reasonable, legitimate payment limits, but 
instead the conferees ignored this issue.
  This bill will do nothing to restore integrity to the programs, 
reduce pressure on rents and land prices, dampen overproduction, and 
help maintain family farms and the culture that surrounds our rural 
communities, isn't that our goal? Why is this conference report ``good 
enough'' to some when it does very little for our family farmers?
  Has anyone read the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street 
Journal, or the San Francisco Chronicle? These are urban newspapers and 
they are up in arms over this farm bill. What happens if urban folks 
decide they cannot hold their noses regarding the subsidy abuse down 
the road?
  But, I guess I am assuming there will be a rural community to serve 
in 6 years. There is a possibility we will not have a rural community 
to serve due to the consolidation, concentration, increased land 
prices, and cash rents.
  When I was in the well for the final vote I told my colleague I was 
going to support the Senate bill and I did. I said if those provisions 
were maintained, the provisions Iowa's family farmers wanted in this 
bill, I would support the conference report. But those provisions are 
not in this conference report, so I will not support it.
  This bill does not accomplish Iowa family farmers' highest priorities 
so I am opposing the conference report. Anyone representing Iowa's 
interests should. We can do better, we must do better if we want family 
farmers and independent livestock producers to survive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 262 
are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and 
Senate Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are now debating the farm bill 
conference report. I have some serious concerns about the policies 
embodied in this conference report. I will speak to those concerns 
shortly, but, first, I want to address another concern. My concern is, 
where is the budget? Where is the budget that we will use to judge not 
only whether we can afford this farm bill, but other legislation that 
might come before the Senate during the remainder of Congress?
  Interestingly, the tortuous path that this farm bill has taken to get 
to a final vote tomorrow began exactly 1 year ago this week when we 
adopted the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. That budget resolution 
was adopted prior to us knowing that we had an economic downturn and 
obviously, prior to the September 11 attacks on the United States of 
America.
  At the time the budget resolution was adopted, the projections 
indicated there would be a general budget surplus of $5.6 trillion over 
the next decade, and that after the tax cuts there would still be a 
very large surplus. We now know that the economic downturn, increased 
emergency defense, homeland security spending that followed the 
September 11 attacks, and

[[Page S3925]]

the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act enacted last winter to 
assist workers impacted by the economic slowdown, have all combined to 
lower the general surplus outlook to about $1.7 trillion over a 
comparable 10-year period.
  This farm bill agreement that is before us today seems to be 
blissfully ignorant of the events over the last year. It embodies 
commodity policies that return us to business as usual, high subsidies, 
distorting trade provisions, and increasing Government costs.
  Those who do not follow the intricacies of the budget process might 
say: This makes no sense. Don't we have a budget by which to judge this 
legislation?
  Yes, the one we adopted 1 year ago this week. It is not the budget 
resolution for the year 2003; it is the budget resolution for 2002, 
adopted when Republicans were still in control of the Senate by one 
vote. Yes, that budget provided for increases in agricultural spending 
and other spending, such as prescription drugs. Specifically, that 
budget that authorized the chairman of the Budget Committee to allocate 
$73.5 billion to the Agriculture Committee, so long as it did not come 
out of the Social Security or Medicare trust fund.
  Can anybody stand on the floor and honestly say that the expenditures 
in this farm bill will not come out of the Social Security trust fund 
or the Medicare trust fund? I have not been raising this issue, but it 
is interesting that the current chairman of the Budget Committee, who 
usually raises this issue while trying to ensure we do not spend the 
Medicare and Social Security trust fund is not raising it now.
  And now we see the bigger, more serious problem. The problem will not 
be just with this farm bill; it will be with the other spending and tax 
legislation we consider in the remaining days of this Congress. These 
measures will be judged against an outdated budget plan, one adopted 
last year when the Republicans were in control of this body, not one 
for current allocations and current needs, which has not been adopted 
on the floor of the Senate as of this date.
  The question is asked again, Where is the budget? Where is the budget 
against which we are going to judge this farm bill and other 
legislation that I have just iterated that are certainly going to come 
before the Senate?
  Until we agree to a new updated budget that reflects the dramatic 
changes that have occurred over the last 12 to 18 months, the old 
budget, the one I was responsible for getting adopted by the Senate and 
conferenced--that budget remains in effect until replaced by an updated 
budget. And until that time, any Budget Act points of order, any 
allocations to authorizing committees, any reserve fund releases, such 
as prescription drug spending or health insurance for the uninsured, 
will be judged not by what is reality today but by what we thought it 
would be before the economic downturn and before the terrorist attacks 
on the United States just prior to mid-September.
  Some may wonder, why have a budget resolution? I do not have to 
wonder. I only have to see what is happening on the floor of the 
Senate. Anyone can predict what is going to happen in the next few 
months--not years, the next few months--in fact, some of which has 
already happened prior to taking up this conference report on 
agriculture.
  We cannot, and we should not, legislate, in my opinion, without a 
budget blueprint. Every year, since the Budget Act became law in 1974, 
the Senate has adopted a budget resolution, as required, and in some 
years more than one. In some years we missed the deadline, but we 
always adopted a budget resolution in the Senate.
  Only once in the nearly 28-year history of the act has the House of 
Representatives and the Senate failed to conference their budget 
resolutions. In 1998, the year following the balanced budget agreement 
of 1997, Chairman John Kasich and I were unable to bridge the 
differences in the two resolutions. Rather amazing--we were both 
Republicans, and that was the one year we could not bridge the 
differences. All other years, regardless of the makeup of the two 
bodies, we did arrive at a conclusion.
  Let me repeat, the Senate has passed a budget resolution every year. 
There was one time when we did not have a conferenced budget blueprint, 
and we agreed here in the Senate to follow the Senate-passed resolution 
as our blueprint for spending and taxing. But, we had what would amount 
to a budget by concurrence of the Senate.
  I have been on that Budget Committee for 27 years. I was not a member 
in the first organizing meeting in 1974, when Senator Muskie was 
chairman, though there was a Senator Peter Dominick who was Senator 
Muskie's ranking member that year, and some historians get me confused 
with him. In those 27 years, my colleagues have honored me by allowing 
me to serve as committee chairman for 12\1/2\ years and as its ranking 
member for 9.
  In all those years, we adopted a Senate budget resolution. It was not 
easy. Sometimes I thought we would fail, but we stuck with it, and many 
times on a bipartisan basis we prevailed and the blueprint to guide 
fiscal policy was achieved. A budget resolution takes care of many 
things automatically and with precision. Right now there is no 
precision, there is no decision, and we are flying essentially by the 
seat of our pants on many issues.
  Every year under the leadership of Chairman Muskie, Chairman Chiles, 
and Chairman Sasser, the Senate has adopted a budget resolution. Today 
the House of Representatives has passed a budget resolution for next 
year. Today the President of the United States has submitted a budget 
to Congress for next year. Today we do not have a budget in the Senate.
  Beginning today, we legislate a major spending bill, a farm bill, 
that is based on a budget I admittedly helped craft last year, but also 
I freely admit is outdated and needs to be revised. It is time that be 
done. It is obvious that the Senate thinks it should be done. I truly 
doubt that we have been as omniscient as one may think. Had we been 
able to foresee the events of last year when we were crafting that 
budget, we would not have allocated the level of spending we did to the 
farm bill; of that I am almost certain. That is why we need a new 
budget, and that is why this decision we make tomorrow can send a 
signal to the country and our trading partners throughout the world 
that we know it is not business as usual. We need to craft a new budget 
for these new times.
  For just a few moments, I will talk about a couple of New Mexico-
specific concerns. In addition to my objections to this conference 
report on budget and trade grounds, I must note that this legislation 
is especially harmful to one of the most important parts of the 
agricultural economy of my State of New Mexico--dairy farmers. New 
Mexico's milk producers are hurt more by this bill's provisions in my 
State than any other State in the Union. Our producers will lose 
between $4 and $5 million a year compared to current law. And that is a 
conservative estimate.
  Just today, there is a FAPRI estimate that indicates the losses would 
be as high as $51.2 million over the life of this program. Regardless, 
this means that at least $30,000 per dairy farm in New Mexico will be 
lost because of this bill. New Mexico, which has climbed to the seventh 
largest milk-producing State in the Union, will see minimum losses over 
the life of the program of at least $125,000 per farm, and most will 
likely suffer larger losses.

  My dairy farmers want a market-driven system. They can compete on 
quality and efficiency with any other dairy farming group in this 
Nation. If we just let them do their job under a free market. These 
producers will supply plenty of milk and it will be of the highest 
quality.
  My dairy producers are opposed to direct payments. They also oppose 
the caps in this bill. And they are punished because this legislation 
contains both--direct payments and caps. And neither is predicated upon 
large dairy farms but, rather, is predicated upon the small milk farms. 
Most of our farms are 1,500 head or more and are becoming more 
efficient every year. They welcome competition from anywhere. They are 
efficient. They are innovative. They do great things. Yet, they are 
punished. We come along and say this is not the American way for the 
farm bill. We are going to punish you because you are efficient, 
because you produce, because you are highly innovative.
  Instead of saying: You are going to get as good a deal as you 
deserve, as

[[Page S3926]]

fine a return as you deserve in the American market, we are going to 
tell you what you get. In this instance, we are going to take away from 
you between $4 and $5 million a year, perhaps as much as $125,000 per 
farm during the time this bill exists.
  The dairy industry in my State--and we are a small State in terms of 
business--has revitalized large parts of the New Mexico economy. Nearly 
4,000 New Mexicans earn a living directly from dairy, with payrolls in 
excess of $90 million a year. New Mexico's dairies and producers spend 
nearly $400 million annually for labor and feed. For our State, which 
lags near the bottom of per capita income statistics, this conference 
report is a direct attack. I cannot support such a conference report. I 
will not.
  I know there are predictions of how bad it would be if this did not 
pass. I have studied it all. I think I know as much as anyone here 
about it. It would be a great signal if it did not pass. Then we could 
produce a budget and decide how much money should be put in for the 
agricultural community under a budget that is current.
  This wrongheaded agricultural policy promoted by this conference 
report is especially tragic in light of the real progress that was made 
in this bill in the area of nutrition. Many do not know that this bill 
called agriculture is also the principal nutrition legislation for our 
country. The bill retains the Domenici-Durbin amendment to restore food 
stamp benefits to eligible legal immigrants who have been in our 
country for 5 years. This policy will help feed an estimated 360,000 
people per month.
  In addition, the bill simplifies and streamlines the application 
process for food stamps. It increases funding for the Emergency Food 
Assistance Program and makes it easier for nonprofit participation in 
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to feed the elderly and small 
children. In total, the legislation provides for $6.4 billion in food 
stamps and other nutrition programs. This amount falls short of the 
$8.9 billion provided in the Senate-passed version of the farm bill. At 
least we are making some progress toward eliminating involuntary hunger 
in America.

  So this Senator finds himself in an unusual position of voting no on 
this farm bill. The good things in nutrition fail to outweigh the bad 
agricultural policy positions envisioned by this bill. I will remind my 
colleagues that we have spent an enormous amount of money in the last 2 
years on agriculture with the ``emergency'' funding for $27.3 billion, 
as well as $5.5 billion in new agriculture commodity support payments 
just last July.
  I am fully aware of that. I understand the threats--veiled or 
otherwise--that if we don't get this bill now, we will have a 
repetition of what I have described in the last paragraph of my 
comments. I don't believe so. I believe we understand clearly where we 
are, and I do believe that now is the time to say no to legislation 
that clearly doesn't fit a budget--at least we don't know that it 
does--and has the kind of policies adopted that I think are as 
counterproductive as they can be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have been listening to the Senator from 
New Mexico, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, former chairman 
of the Budget Committee, and a very valued member of that committee. 
But I must say I disagree with his conclusions about this farm bill. 
Let me just enumerate the reasons.
  First of all, while it is true a new budget resolution has not yet 
passed, it is also true under the rules of this body that the previous 
budget resolution guides our actions until the new budget resolution is 
passed. The budget resolution under which we are operating provides for 
the amount of money that is in this farm bill. This farm bill is 
entirely within the budget requirements under which we are operating.
  No. 2, every budget that has been presented for the next year 
includes this same amount of money. The budget the President has 
presented, the budget the House presented, the budget that has passed 
the Senate Budget Committee--each and every one of them has the same 
amount of money for a new farm bill that was in last year's budget 
resolution. So the question of what the budget resources are is not in 
doubt.
  The fact is, the Congressional Budget Office has provided an estimate 
of cost. That is always the case when the Senate and the House are 
considering legislation. They do an estimate of the cost. We operate 
under that cost until the job is finished. We don't change the 
estimates in the middle of the effort. We don't change the rules in the 
middle of the game. They made an estimate, and we are living with it 
today. We don't change estimates in the middle of a legislative agenda 
because to do so would make the work of Congress virtually impossible. 
If we changed the estimates every time the Congressional Budget Office 
made a new estimate, the committees would never know what resources 
they had to deal with. So this is a longstanding practice of the Senate 
and the Senate Budget Committee.

  Once the action has been taken in the Senate and in the House, as it 
has been, we don't change the estimates in the conference committee. 
That would create chaos. So the fact is, the estimates we were 
operating under when the bill was considered in the House, and then 
considered in the Senate, were the same estimates used in the 
conference committee, the same estimates being used today, and the 
reason there is no budget point of order against the farm bill that is 
being considered.
  Those are the facts. These budget estimates that were done by the 
Congressional Budget Office and were used by the Senate and House as 
they worked up a farm bill were made in good faith. Now, with later 
information, they may alter them somewhat, but we have to follow the 
assumptions that were made at the time the legislation was considered. 
We certainly don't change the estimates in the middle of legislative 
activity or in the conference committee to resolve the differences 
between the Senate and House farm bills.
  Let's lay the budget issue to rest. There is no budget point of order 
against this bill. This bill is in full compliance with the 
requirements of the Budget Act. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, why is this farm bill necessary? I read the eastern press, and 
they are panning this bill almost on a daily basis. I submit to you 
that many of these newspaper writers, editorial writers, have never set 
foot in my State. They clearly have not paid much attention to what our 
farmers are up against in this international environment. We are not an 
island unto ourselves in the United States. We are up against very 
tough, determined competition from countries all around the world that 
are doing much more for their producers than we are doing for ours. Let 
me repeat that. Our major competitors are doing much more for their 
producers than we are doing for ours. To abandon our producers is to 
put them on an unlevel playing field. To create a circumstance in which 
they cannot fairly compete would be a profound mistake for this 
country, for our producers and, ultimately, for our economy.
  Let me just direct people's attention to this chart, which says it 
very clearly and very well. Our major competitors are the Europeans. 
Their supports are far higher than U.S. supports for farmers. The most 
recent data available show the average support level in Europe is $313 
per acre. That is how much assistance the Europeans give their 
farmers--$313 an acre. Here is the comparable level of support in the 
United States: $38 an acre. It is $38 an acre in the United States and 
$313 an acre in Europe.
  It is no wonder there are hard times in rural America. It is no 
wonder there are hard times up and down the main streets of every rural 
city and town. It is no wonder if you go to the European countryside, 
it is prosperous. Why? Because our European friends have decided they 
are willing to put out a lot of money to have a prosperous rural 
countryside so everybody doesn't go to town. They don't want everybody 
to go to town. They want people out across the land. What else? They 
want to have an assured source of supply. The Europeans have been 
hungry twice. They never want to be hungry again, and they are willing 
to pay to make certain the productive capacity is out across their 
countryside and to make certain they are never hungry again.

[[Page S3927]]

  It doesn't end there. These are not Kent Conrad's numbers or Budget 
Committee numbers; these are from the Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development's analyses of the different support levels 
in different parts of the world. These are the numbers of the official 
scorekeepers internationally. They are the ones who do the 
determinations of actual support in various regions of the world.
  As I have indicated, it doesn't end there because if we look at 
export support, export subsidies, we find the European Union floods the 
world with agricultural export subsidies. This pie shows the amount of 
export support in the world. The blue part of this pie is Europe's 
share. Europe accounts for 84 percent of all the world's agricultural 
export subsidy--84 percent.
  Here is the United States' share: Less than 3 percent. Less than 3 
percent of the United States; 84 percent in Europe. They are outgunning 
us almost 30 to 1. That is what our competitors are up to.
  By the way, they have gone from being the biggest importing region in 
the world to being nearly the biggest exporting region in the world in 
20 years, and they did it the old-fashioned way: They bought the 
markets. They bought markets that were traditionally ours.
  Some of our opponents on the other side would say to American 
farmers: You go out there and compete against the French farmer and the 
German farmer, and while you are at it, you take on the French 
Government and the German Government as well. That is not a fair fight. 
Our farmers are ready, willing, and able to compete against anybody any 
time, but it is not fair to put them up against the treasuries of 
European nations. It is not fair to put them up against the Treasury of 
the Government of France and the Government of Germany and the 
Government of England. That leaves the playing field tilted badly 
against them. That puts American farmers in a circumstance in which 
they cannot possibly compete and succeed, through no fault of their 
own.
  To do something other than to try to level the playing field is to 
abandon our farmers. It is to wave the white flag of surrender and say 
to the Europeans: You just take it, take it all; take the agricultural 
base, and while you are at it, take the 20 million jobs that go with 
it; take the jobs in distribution, in transportation, in marketing; 
take them all. Because that is what they would like to do, and that is 
why they are spending so much to achieve that very result.
  We do not have to look very far to see what is occurring in world 
agriculture. All we have to do is study the annual statistics, and we 
can see very clearly the pattern and plan of the Europeans. We can 
either decide to wave the white flag of surrender, engage in what I 
call a unilateral surrender, or we can fight back.
  That is a fundamental question before this body as we consider this 
farm bill: Are we going to fight back, or are we going to roll over and 
surrender? That is a fundamental question for this country. Do we want 
to maintain the capacity to produce food in this country, or do we want 
to be dependent on foreign countries for our sources of food? That is a 
fundamental issue before this body in considering this farm bill.
  I pray this country makes the decision that we are going to try to 
level the playing field; that we are going to fight back; that we are 
going to give our farmers a fair, fighting chance. To do otherwise is 
to abandon them in this international competition.
  This farm bill has improved countercyclical support. That was a key 
failure of the last farm bill. The last farm bill said: The market is 
going to work even though other countries are not following it, even 
though other countries have these massive programs to intercede, to 
maintain a network of family farms across their countries. We know it 
did not work. How do we know? Because we had to pass economic disaster 
bills in each of the last 4 years, economic disaster bill after 
economic disaster bill because the previous farm bill was a disaster 
itself. This is an attempt to provide a stronger structure under 
agriculture so we do not have to repeatedly come back to our colleagues 
to ask for economic disaster assistance.
  Let me make clear, we may have to come back for natural disasters; 
indeed, I think we will because none of us can predict when a hurricane 
might strike, when we might have a tornado, when a part of the country 
might be hit by drought or overly wet conditions. Natural disasters 
often require a response. None of us can predict when they might 
strike, what their effects might be. But economic disasters, which were 
created in part by the last farm bill, hopefully we can prevent.

  We do it with higher loan rates, and with optional updating of bases 
and yields--those are the determinations of what a farmer's base is for 
support. We do it with a new marketing loan program for pulse crops: 
dry peas, lentils, and small chickpeas, which are important in crop 
rotations in part to break the disease cycles we have seen and that 
have contributed the need for disaster programs in recent years. There 
is the repeal of the sugar loan forfeiture penalty, a penalty that 
should never have been imposed in the first place.
  The bill has country of origin labels for imported meat, fish, 
produce, and peanuts. This is critically important. Have we learned 
nothing from what has happened in the rest of the world? Europe has 
been hit by mad cow disease and by hoof and mouth disease, and they 
have responded by creating a system that will allow them to know where 
each animal came from, the specific farm the animal came from, because 
they know they need to have that information.
  I had the Ambassador from Uruguay in my office just last week. They 
are creating a system to know the origin of the food they eat. In 
Uruguay, they are going to be able to track an animal back to the farm 
it came from, so if there is a problem, they can trace it and isolate 
it and prevent an expansion. That is just common sense.
  Think of how many times we have heard on the news that there is a 
recall of food products, and they provide you the listing of the number 
on the can so we know what to look for. What would they do if there 
were no numbers on the cans of processed foods and we did not know what 
to look for? What would we do when they found there was a problem of 
tainted product and they had no way to track it? We would either have 
to throw it all away or take our chances.
  There is a better way. We have found that better way. It is to know 
the source of the food. That is what we are doing in this bill. Yet 
there are people who are still railing against doing what anybody with 
any common sense knows we need to do. We need to know the origin of the 
food we are eating. That is basic. That is basic to dealing with foot 
and mouth disease, that is fundamentally important to dealing with mad 
cow disease, that is fundamentally important to dealing with possible 
terrorist threats, so that if any problem develops, we can trace the 
source of our food, we can isolate it, and we can eliminate the threat. 
That is common sense, and this bill provides it.
  This conference report also includes a strengthened commitment to 
rural development, conservation, trade, and, yes, nutrition programs.
  In conservation alone, I was amazed to read an editorial that 
suggested that somehow the commitment to conservation in this farm bill 
was inadequate. What farm bill are they talking about? This bill has 
increased the commitment to conservation by 80 percent, and yet they 
said it was insufficient. Mr. President, an 80-percent increase is 
insufficient?
  We need to do a better job of conserving our soil. We need to do a 
better job of conserving our precious water resources. This bill makes 
major strides in that direction.
  One of the key elements of the bill is the signature piece of the 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin of Iowa, who 
authored the conservation security program which is part of this bill. 
He has said something that I think is going to resonate in history 
because he has declared: We are not going to just continue conservation 
programs the same old way, we are going to make a departure. We are not 
going to just have the Federal Government pass laws that become 
regulations and then, if people do not follow them, we penalize them. 
Instead, he says: With the conservation security

[[Page S3928]]

initiative, we are going to establish what national priorities are in 
conservation, and then we are going to provide an incentive program for 
farmers to comply. That is a profound difference in the relationship 
between the Federal Government and agricultural producers. It is a 
profound change. It is precisely the right change. It says to farmers, 
when we identify a national priority, we will respond; we will respond 
with an incentive to encourage you to adopt that practice.

  That is important. That is important to the environment. That is 
important to producers. That is important to the Nation. That will 
provide a template for future Government relations with the people for 
whom we work. He has made an enormous contribution. This is a $2 
billion program that fundamentally changes the relationship between the 
Federal Government and producers across this country.
  This bill also includes a renewed commitment to rural development: $1 
billion in new funding to encourage and strengthen economic development 
in the rural parts of this country. It is badly needed. Certainly, in 
my part of the country, we continue to lose population.
  We also have the trade title. We are facing tough competition and we 
need to fight back. One billion dollars in additional funds is in the 
trade title. We will have an aggressive outreach to other countries to 
buy American products from American producers. That is what an American 
farm bill ought to be about.
  I saw with great interest what the Republican chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives said about this 
bill. He said this is not a bill for France. This is not a bill for 
Canada. This is a bill for American farmers and American consumers. 
This is an American farm bill.
  Chairman Combest has that exactly right. This is a bill for America. 
It is a bill that deserves our support. I was proud to work with the 
conferees on this bill. Chairman Combest, a member I developed great 
respect for in all the hours of negotiation, is truly an outstanding 
leader for American farmers, American consumers, and American 
taxpayers. He was concerned about them all in this conference.
  So was Congressman Stenholm, the ranking member of the House 
Agriculture Committee. No one would want to meet a tougher negotiator 
than Congressman Stenholm. He was very tough. He knew there was a lot 
at stake for this country, for our producers, for our consumers.
  To our own conferees, I want to say thank you. Thanks especially to 
Senator Harkin, who day after day after day stayed and negotiated and 
fought for a strong farm bill because he knew what would happen if we 
failed. If you are ever in trouble, you want someone like Tom Harkin 
fighting for you in the Senate because he is determined and he will not 
give up. This farm bill is a great testimony to his leadership.
  I could not leave out our own leader, Senator Daschle, who at key 
times came into the negotiations to help us over the rough spots. He 
showed great wisdom, great patience, and great leadership. We thank him 
for all he contributed. He represents a farm State. He knew what was at 
stake.
  Considerable thanks as well to Senator Leahy. I have never seen 
anyone more determined on behalf of his constituents than Senator 
Leahy. We listened to a lot of detailed debate on the merits of the 
dairy provisions of the bill. This bill was improved because of that 
determination.
  Now a word about those on the other side. Senator Lugar, the ranking 
member of the Agriculture Committee, disagrees with what we have 
produced. He has made that clear. I have enormous respect for Dick 
Lugar. He is one of the most knowledgeable Members of this Chamber on a 
wide range of issues. On foreign policy questions, there is nobody I 
would rather talk to or listen to before reaching a conclusion than 
Dick Lugar. He is an extraordinarily intelligent man, a person of great 
character. He speaks against this bill out of principle. I respect 
that. I don't agree with him in this case. I think I have outlined some 
of my reasons for disagreement, but he makes a very strong case, an 
intellectually honest case. I disagree with him. However, his argument 
is intellectually honest, and he has been very clear and forthright 
throughout the entire procedure. He made very clear he wasn't for this, 
every step of the way. I admire Senator Lugar. My respect for him has 
done nothing but grow, although I disagree with his fundamental 
conclusion.

  Others say this costs too much money, and I understand that. I am 
chairman of the Budget Committee. I wish we didn't have to spend this 
kind of money. Friends, our competitors are spending much, much more. 
To spend less is to say to our people, tough luck; you are out of 
business. That would be a profound mistake.
  Let me close by urging my colleagues to support this bill. It 
deserves their support. It is a balanced bill. It is within the budget. 
It is a bill that will make a difference for our country over time. Not 
immediately, no. It will not solve all the problems immediately.
  To our colleagues who say this bill costs way too much, we ought to 
present it in context. In the year 2000, we spent $32 billion helping 
our producers. In 2001, we spent $22 billion. This is on a fiscal year 
basis. That is different than on a crop-year basis. On a fiscal year 
basis, these are the numbers: $32 billion in 2000 and $22 billion in 
2001. In 2002, it will be $14.2 billion. In 2003, it will be $19.1 
billion. The red bars are the amount added over the current farm bill. 
So for 2002, without this legislation, it would still cost $12.7 
billion in that fiscal year. In the year 2003, it would cost $12.3. 
This bill adds $6.8 billion to take us up to $19.1 billion for fiscal 
year 2003, which will start October 1.
  Remember we are coming from much higher levels of expenditures when 
you count the underlying farm bill plus the economic disaster payments 
we have enacted. This chart shows that, although we have healthy levels 
of expenditures in this new farm bill--more than $70 billion more than 
we would have had under the old farm bill--we actually have less than 
was paid out by the Federal Government under the old farm bill plus the 
economic disaster payments made in each of the last 4 years.
  I conclude by reminding those who are listening that we are up 
against fierce competition from our major competitors in Europe who are 
spending much more than we are, providing much higher levels of support 
for their producers than we provide for ours, and on top of that, are 
spending much more to promote their exports than we spend to promote 
our agricultural exports. Those are the facts. I hope our colleagues 
will remember when we reach a conclusion that this is a bill that is 
critically important to American agriculture.
  A major farm group leader in my State responded tellingly when I 
posed the question, What happens without this bill? His reaction was 
immediate and strong: Senator, without this bill there will be a race 
to the auctioneer.
  That is exactly right. This bill is all that stands between a race to 
the auctioneer in every farm community in this country and the 
continuing viability of the family farm network that has served this 
country so well.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for his kind words. I thank my friend 
and my colleague from North Dakota for two things: First, for his great 
leadership as head of our Budget Committee and for giving the guidance 
and direction and providing the budget for what we need to do; and for 
being on the Agriculture Committee and providing his expertise on 
budget matters as we work through the farm bill, both in the committee, 
on the Senate floor, and in conference. He has been great. I compliment 
the Senator.
  I can say without fear of contradiction that many times we might have 
been persuaded to go in a different direction--let's say on the farm 
bill in the conference--had it not been for the Senator from North 
Dakota, whose expertise and knowledge of the budget came to the 
forefront and carried the day for us so we got the bill that we got.
  I thank my friend from North Dakota for, again, being there every 
day. The Senator said I was there every day. He knows because he was 
there every day that I was, on the farm bill conference. I thank him 
for that. I also thank the Senator for always pointing out in these 
negotiations, when we are talking about trade, what the Europeans

[[Page S3929]]

are doing compared to us. We cannot ever forget that. This farm bill 
that we passed, this is for our farmers, for our ranchers. This is not 
for the European farmers and the European ranchers and the South 
American farmers. This is for our farmers. We ought to make no excuse 
for it, none whatsoever. We are sticking up for our producers in this 
country.
  I have one last thing to say to the Senator from North Dakota about 
the chart he had up recently about the money we are spending on 
agriculture. I think I read an editorial, maybe it was in the Wall 
Street Journal--or someplace else--going after how much money we are 
spending on agriculture. I asked to get a run here from CBO on their 
baseline projections from now for the 10 years of this farm bill 
compared to the total outlays of the Federal Government. If you take 
the outlays of the Federal Government for the next 10 years, CBO says 
that comes to $22.245 trillion. Add up all the spending on agriculture 
for everything; that comes to $206.2 billion--.93 percent of all the 
spending the Federal Government is going to do in the next 10 years 
goes for agriculture.
  That is a small price to pay, I say to my friend from North Dakota, 
for having the best food supply, the most productive capacity in the 
world, the cheapest food, and the safest food anywhere in the world. I 
think when the American people see that, they will say: Yes, this is 
the kind of farm bill we need. Ninety-three percent? I say to my friend 
from North Dakota, I believe the average American will say that less 
than a penny out of every dollar to keep our farmers in business is a 
very small price to pay.
  I thank the Senator from North Dakota, again, for his wisdom, 
guidance, and judgment on these matters as we work through this farm 
bill.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I conclude by thanking my colleague, 
Senator Harkin, the chairman of the committee, who really did an 
outstanding job getting this bill through the committee, through the 
Senate, and through the conference. Certainly, thanks also go to our 
colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Lugar, for his 
passionate position and his wisdom. Even when he disagreed, he would 
provide us with observations that guided us in terms of altering what 
would otherwise have been a weaker bill. So I thank him and recognize 
his very professional staff as well.
  Senator Lugar, we thank you and your staff.
  On Senator Harkin's staff, I want to thank Mark Halverson. Mark, who 
is the staff director of the Agriculture Committee, showed enormous 
diplomacy going through this process. This is tough stuff. It is 
extraordinarily complicated. There were hundreds and hundreds of hours 
of deliberation. I thank Mark Halverson for always keeping his cool and 
for his wisdom in keeping a focus on the ultimate goal.
  I also thank Susan Keith as well, who worked so hard on this bill. We 
appreciate all that she meant to its conclusion.
  On my staff, I thank Tim Galvin and Scott Stofferahn. Tim Galvin and 
Scott Stofferahn were an extraordinary team. They played a key role 
throughout this process.
  Tim Galvin, who used to be on the staff of former Senator Bob Kerrey 
of Nebraska, who served as head of the Foreign Agricultural Service in 
the Clinton administration, joined my Budget Committee staff more than 
a year ago. I could not have chosen better. He has been absolutely 
outstanding.
  Scott Stofferahn, who is on my State staff, commuted--and this was 
truly a case of long distance commuting--to participate in the 
deliberations on this bill because he headed the Farm Services Agency 
in North Dakota under the previous administration for 8 years and knew 
the details of farm programs backwards and forwards. He was really 
indispensable to our efforts. So special thanks to Tim and Scott, to 
the staff members of Senator Harkin and the staff members of Senator 
Lugar, and certainly to our colleagues on the House side.
  There were times we had very deep disagreements in the conference 
committee, but one thing you never questioned was that each and every 
Member was doing his or her level best for the farmers of this country, 
for the taxpayers of this country, for the consumers of this country. 
We had different ideas about what that represented, but I never 
questioned the good faith of any member of that conference committee, 
including those who disagreed with us.
  Certainly to Congressman Combest and Congressman Stenholm, we 
appreciate your patience. The patience of each of us was tried at 
times, but it was an important effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, earlier today I asked unanimous consent to 
have some letters printed in the Record, letters of support for the 
bill.
  I have three others I would like to have printed. The first is a 
letter from the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation saying they urge strong 
passage of the conference report for the 2002 farm bill. I ask 
unanimous consent the letter from the Iowa Farm Bureau be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             Iowa Farm Bureau,

                                                      May 1, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the 150,000 plus members 
     of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, the Iowa Farm Bureau 
     Board of Directors urges you to support passage of the 
     conference report for the 2002 farm bill. We are generally 
     pleased with the provisions in the conference committee 
     report including a stronger safety net for our producers and 
     an increase in conservation spending. Iowa farmers will 
     benefit from the additional safety net features and are 
     seeking your support for this legislation.
       The conference committee report contains many of the 
     features of the current farm program and improves upon the 
     safety net by instituting a counter-cyclical payment when 
     prices fall below certain levels. It provides for a strong 
     commitment to trade, rural economic development and 
     conservation. In particular, the $9 billion in additional 
     spending for the environmental quality incentive cost-share 
     assistance program will mean that Iowa farmers have access to 
     the much-needed resources to address environmental concerns. 
     We are particularly pleased that the conferees agreed to fund 
     the Conservation Security Program. This new conservation 
     program will be important to compensate farmers for the 
     ongoing costs of conservation practices.
       In addition, we are pleased that the conference committee 
     included the Senate's version of the energy title and 
     provisions designed to enhance protections for livestock 
     producers. The conference committee agreed to prohibit 
     confidentiality provisions in production contracts. These 
     provisions have limited the ability of producers to seek 
     legal and financial advice about the terms of a contract 
     before entering into it. This provision does not preempt 
     stricter state laws; thus, Iowa's law will not be negatively 
     impacted. In addition, hog producers with production 
     contracts will have additional protections under the Packers 
     and Stockyards Act.
       Despite our disappointment that a ban on packer ownership 
     was not included in the final version, we are pleased that 
     the committee included country of origin labeling. This 
     provision will ensure that consumers have an opportunity to 
     choose between domestically produced beef, fruits and 
     vegetables and those produced overseas. We believe that U.S. 
     consumers will choose to purchase products produced by our 
     farmers if this information is made available to them.
       The farm bill conference committee report is a consensus 
     document that balances the needs of the program crops and 
     other agricultural commodities. It provides the additional 
     safety net that producers have been seeking and maintains the 
     strengths of the current farm program. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Craig Lang,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Next, a letter from the Iowa Farmers Union. They also 
sent a letter of support urging passage of the bill. I ask unanimous 
consent that letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Iowa Farmers Union,

                                            Ames, IA, May 1, 2002.

Iowa Farmers Union Reacts to the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
                                of 2002

       Ames, IA.--Over the past few years, Iowa Farmers Union 
     (IFU) has been working intently with our elected officials to 
     vastly improve farm legislation. Now, after weeks of 
     deliberations, the farm bill conferees have reached an 
     agreement on a new farm bill entitled ``The Farm Security and 
     Rural Investment Act of 2002''
       ``We are still waiting for the final details, but what we 
     have seen so far indicates the new farm bill provisions will 
     be a definite

[[Page S3930]]

     improvement over the former `Freedom to Farm' program that 
     was a disaster for farmers and taxpayers alike,'' said Gary 
     Hoskey, IFU President.
       The agreement, while short on specifics, should provide 
     certainty to farmers and lenders because of the new safety 
     net provisions of the law. Under the old program, farmers and 
     lenders were forced to make production decisions that would 
     not cash flow, in hopes that Congress would pass emergency 
     supplemental aid legislation long after the crops were 
     planted.
       ``The Iowa Farmers Union joins all Iowans in extending our 
     thanks to Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin for his 
     efforts in this new farm legislation,'' said Hoskey. ``Not 
     only did Senator Harkin succeed in getting a much improved 
     safety net for family farmers, he was also successful in 
     getting significant increases in conservation programs and 
     rural development funding.''
       ``And, for the first time ever, there is an Energy title in 
     the farm program that will encourage research and development 
     of renewable and bioenergy resources. Hopefully our country 
     will now look more to agriculture for renewable energy 
     sources instead of imported oil from the Middle East.''
       ``We are also glad to see Country of Origin Labeling 
     included in this law. It is something we have worked on for a 
     long time,'' added Hoskey
       ``We are disappointed that the payment limitations were not 
     lowered more and the packer ban on owning and feeding 
     livestock was not passed,'' said Hoskey. ``We will continue 
     to work with Senator Harkin and our other legislators on 
     these and other important issues.''

  Mr. HARKIN. And the Iowa Soybean Association in applauding the 
completion of the bill and urging its passage and signature by the 
President.
  I ask unanimous consent the letter from the Iowa Soybean Association 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Iowa Soybean Association,

                                    Urbandale, IA, April 30, 2002.

 The Iowa Soybean Association Applauds the Completion of the 2002 Farm 
                Bill by U.S. Senate and House Conferees

       Urbandale, Iowa.--The Iowa Soybean Association (ISA) 
     applauds the completion of the 2002 Farm Bill by the U.S. 
     Senate and House conferees today.
       ISA President John Hoffman said, ``Soybeans are treated 
     more equitably in relation to other program crops in this 
     legislation, and Iowa soybean farmers are provided better 
     income protection. ISA is pleased with the inclusion of 
     expanded conservation programs, an energy title, which 
     increases opportunities for soy biodiesel, and increased 
     funding for important trade title programs in the Bill.''
       ``On behalf of ISA, let me thank Chairmen Tom Harkin and 
     Larry Combest and their colleagues on completing this 
     demanding process in time for programs to be effective for 
     2002 crops,'' Hoffman added.
       The completion of the bill comes after much diligent work 
     by both ISA and American Soybean Association (ASA) directors 
     on behalf of Iowa soybean producers with key legislators. 
     Good farm policy is the goal of the lobbying efforts by 
     members of both ISA and ASA. ISA will continue to be a leader 
     in efforts such as these to ensure equitable treatment in the 
     2002 Farm Bill and other soybean policy issues.

  Mr. HARKIN. These three farm groups in Iowa all support this farm 
bill.
  I listened to the debate on the floor. I listened to my colleague 
from Iowa earlier. This is the first opportunity I have had to respond.
  My colleague and I have been friends for 28 years now, I guess it is, 
since we both came to the House in 1974. We worked very strongly 
together on issues of concern to our State and Nation. We do not always 
agree on things, I understand that, but we do work together.
  I think we have a pretty big disagreement on this farm bill. I say to 
my colleague from Iowa--he went on about the trade portions of the bill 
and whether or not it is going to violate WTO. I want to set the record 
straight one more time. This bill will strengthen our position in the 
WTO negotiations. It will strengthen it. If we go down towards zero in 
amber box payments, that weakens our bargaining position. The closer we 
get to $19 billion, that strengthens our position. It strengthens it 
basically because of what Senator Conrad from North Dakota was talking 
about--how much the European Union supports its agriculture.
  Second, my colleague from Iowa said there was a one in five chance 
that we would violate the WTO. That is a statistic that has come from 
the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute. That said they 
estimated about a 19-percent chance, I guess, of this violating the 
WTO.
  FAPRI also said the present law, the law we have been under since 
1996, has a 14-percent chance of violating WTO. So the present law is 
14 percent, this is 19 percent; that is a very modest change, a very 
modest amount difference. So we should not be worried about that. We 
are well within the bounds of WTO.
  I reaffirm that this farm bill is for our farmers. We stick up for 
our farmers. We stick up for our ranchers. We stick up for our people 
in rural America. Through the process of our committee and the House 
process and the conference committee process, we work out what we 
believe is best for our producers, our farmers, and our ranchers--not 
what is best for Germany, France, Brazil, or China. That is their 
business. As long as they do it within the WTO, it is their business. 
How we seek to address our problems and to help our producers is our 
business. It is not the business of France, Germany, Italy, England, 
Brazil, China, or Japan. That is our business.
  I hope people understand and recognize that, yes, we have a WTO, but 
our first obligation, as we held up our hand and swore our oath of 
office here, our first obligation is to our people, to make sure we 
take care of our people first.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield time to my distinguished colleague 
from Montana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a consent 
request?
  Mr. LUGAR. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow the 
remarks of the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, how many minutes does the Senator request?
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am going to keep it as short as I 
possibly can. I want to make a couple of comments, and then I will fade 
away into the past. How is that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, and the ranking member.
  I start off by thanking them for the work they did on this bill.
  Agricultural legislation is, of course, very important to the State 
of Montana. There is no question about a changed policy on how we serve 
agriculture. There is no doubt in my mind that this bill will not bring 
lower prices for food commodities. Agribusiness will continue to buy as 
cheap as they can. The taxpayer will continue to pay their prices, and 
also the taxpayer will continue to participate in the income of 
American agriculture at the production level. That is not going to 
change. What has changed a little bit is that we are into price support 
protection of a commodity. We are not in the business of guaranteeing 
the income of the farmer.
  This will allow us to make a strong argument for a market-driven 
economy on the global scene.
  It will have trade impacts. There is no question in my mind.
  Even though we have dealt with this kind of situation before, it is 
my belief that we will drive up the cost of land. When we do that, the 
bigger producers will buy out the lower producers. So we don't save a 
lot of small producers--the people we are trying to help out.
  That is what farm bills do. That is what price supports on 
commodities do.
  I will vote for this bill. But it is hard to stand up here and talk 
philosophy and about a direction when you are in the middle of a 5-year 
drought. Montana needs some help.
  Will this bill help those who are in a drought? No, it will not. We 
will have to get some supplemental money somewhere for drought relief. 
I think we can do that, if we work very hard.

  The total cost is over budget--as submitted by the Congressional 
Budget Office--by $80 billion. We thought we were operating within 
around a $70 billion or a $72 billion budget. We know we are over 
budget for this particular piece of legislation.
  In spite of all of these loan rates and targets, there is a strong 
suspicion on my part that we will be back in the

[[Page S3931]]

business of overproduction. If there is a strong conservation title in 
this bill, it will be hard to implement with soil conservation and 
water conservation with an enticement to overproduce. I have a 
suspicion that it is in here.
  We didn't do anything about insurance. We didn't look into that to 
see how it is used in unusual ways to enhance the purchase of revenue 
insurance for farms. We need to look at that.
  We didn't get the packer concentration legislation that we wanted, 
nor did we prevent the USDA from using a USDA stamp on meat products 
imported into this country. We did get a country of origin label.
  That may be a slippery slope. There is a downside to that. But for 
every upside there is always a downside. We hope when we get into the 
administrative rules of that program we can have some input so that our 
producers are not only protected but have the ability to participate.
  I know some of us in this body do not live on a border. But I will 
tell you our challenges along that border are much greater than some 
would imagine.
  We did nothing about captive shippers when we moved our crops to 
ports and plants.
  Those of us who only have one railroad have real serious concerns 
about producing for the railroad. It wasn't meant to be that way. But 
that is the way it is under present conditions.
  As you know, in agriculture, we buy retail and we sell wholesale, and 
we pay the freight both ways. Those things were not even dealt with or 
looked at in this piece of legislation.
  As we look at this issue, we are back to loan rates which are a 
little bit higher than before. We are back at targets, and we are back 
to deficiency payments.
  Those of us who thought we were going to get an LDP payment in 
September forget about that. It is going to be smaller. You are going 
to get it in four payments starting this September. The last payment is 
coming in June of next year.
  I don't think that is going to make every banker in the world happy. 
It won't get us out of our doldrums as far as producing this year's 
crop.
  Like I said, we haven't had a crop for 5 years. Again, we are in a 
situation in Montana where we need an infusion of money. That is what 
drives my vote today. It is not because I agree philosophically about 
where this bill is taking us. I think probably when you look at it, the 
chairman of the committee was exactly right. If you look at it, it is 
not very much more money for our producers as compared with where we 
have been in the last 4 or 5 years. It doesn't increase their income 
all that much. You will just have to do more paperwork to get it with 
risk involved.
  Tomorrow, we will vote for this bill. But I have the expectation that 
it will not be long before we will be revisiting this business of 
agriculture--before any of us are gone from this body.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wonder if the good Senator would be 
kind enough to yield 15 minutes off the bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kennedy are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield time to the distinguished Senator 
from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think we are talking about agriculture 
generally, are we not? Good. I wanted to talk about the farm bill. I 
had thought that is what we were talking about this afternoon. 
Apparently other issues are talked about as well.
  In any event, the bill before us, of course, is the conference 
committee report on agriculture. That is the one, it seems to me, we 
need to focus on at the moment.
  I begin by saying I am pleased we have a conference report on the 
agriculture bill. The conference report is before us and we can make a 
decision with respect to agriculture in the bill that is before us.
  For much of agriculture, of course, this is a key time of the year. 
Completion here is certainly very timely and one that is very 
important.
  I know that colleagues on both sides, the House and the Senate, spent 
many hours over the past couple of months working to reach a 
compromise. I thank them and their staff because I know it was very 
hard work and it takes a very long time.
  We need a farm bill. We need a farm bill. That is very important to 
our economy. It is very important to our Nation. It is very important 
to homeland defense and all the things that are important to us. 
Producers in rural communities depend on a stable farm policy.
  Of course, the bottom line, what we ought to be talking about, is a 
stable farm policy, the kind of policy that will show to us in the 
future where we want to be in agriculture.

  I get a little concerned sometimes as we talk about all kinds of 
subjects and obviously talk about the immediacy of them. And that is 
the fact. But we really ought to be thinking a little more of where we 
would like to be in 10 years or 20 years. Where do we see agriculture? 
Where do we see our families and our communities in 10 or 20 years? 
What do we want agriculture to look like? That really ought to have an 
impact on what we do in the long term, and what we do now is going to 
impact that long term.
  If we could develop a vision of where we wanted agriculture to be, 
then, of course, decisions we make in the interim would be much easier 
and certainly would lead toward the goal that we want.
  Many of the programs that are in this bill affect Wyoming and are 
beneficial to Wyoming. The new sugar program is based on marketing 
allotments. Sugar, interestingly enough, in Wyoming is a major 
commodity and has been one of our biggest cash crops in our State of 
Wyoming; in addition to being one of the relatively few products that 
goes out to the retail markets that is entirely processed in our 
communities in Wyoming.
  New policies are designed to keep the market in balance and to have 
something to do with production and control and to prevent the costly, 
damaging forfeitures we have had in the past.
  As you probably know, we have been for years about the second largest 
producer of lamb. So we needed to ensure that this product is eligible 
for a marketing loan, and we are happy that it does. I am pleased that 
the conference provided wool producers with a new opportunity, similar 
to others, to grow and to strengthen their markets. These producers are 
making changes. These producers are looking forward and seeking to 
develop a niche market for their own products and to work with 
processors so they can move forward.
  One of the things we have seen in agriculture, of course, is out of 
the total price for a retail agricultural product, the percentage that 
goes to the producer is getting smaller and smaller. So we are making 
some moves there.
  Wheat, of course, is the only so-called program crop in Wyoming. The 
report continues to provide assistance, of course, to wheat producers.
  Conservation is important to all of us in agriculture, and I think 
maybe it is particularly important to those of us in the West--maybe 
not any more important but we really like open space and we really like 
to keep properties, lands open. Of course, the answer to that is to 
have an effective agriculture, to have a profitable agriculture where 
people can stay on the land and keep it open and available. So we are 
pleased with that. It provides a means for producers to comply with 
Government mandates while voluntarily working to protect the 
environment. Water quality is one of those things, and we certainly 
need to be very careful about that. It is a very important thing to us.
  The report subsequently boosts spending for conservation to $17 
billion. That is good. Conservation affects everyone. One of the things 
we tried to do, and I tried to do as a member of the committee, was to 
kind of get off of this program crop thing, where the high majority of 
the money has always gone, and put it over a little bit more on general 
agriculture so we could have an impact on the broad view of agriculture 
and not just on cotton and wheat and corn and soybeans. They are 
important, too, of course, but they are

[[Page S3932]]

not the only crops in the world. So this conservation approach was one 
of the best that we could take.
  As we worked on this bill in committee, as a member of the 
Agriculture Committee, I spent the bulk of my time working on the 
conservation title.
  Efforts such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, 
helps farmers and ranchers with technical information, with water 
quality as it comes through their land, with livestock grazing, and so 
on. This is strengthened.
  So I thank the conferees for incorporating much needed reforms in 
this program, such as boosting cost-share dollars, eliminating priority 
areas, and eliminating bidding-down procedures.
  I am also pleased with the authorization of a new program for 
grasslands--the Grasslands Reserve Program. There are efforts here to 
assist in the protection of native grasslands, and it is particularly 
beneficial to western ranchlands that are being threatened by land 
sales and land fragmentation.
  There are a number of programs in the bill that are critical for 
rural communities and the Nation's hungry, including rural development 
and nutrition programs, including food stamps, one of the major 
expenditures.
  In my opinion, there is no question that these are important 
programs. I support them. However, on balance, I have concerns with the 
farm bill. Even though, as I have enumerated, I support those things 
that I think are reasonable, I think the final product has missed the 
mark. I believe Congress should be working to move agriculture more to 
a market-based economy versus one supported entirely by the Federal 
Government.
  Here again, what do we want to see in agriculture in 10 or 20 years? 
Do we want the Federal Government to be in charge of farm production in 
this country? I don't think so. We want to develop the market so we can 
have prosperous agriculture in the private sector and people can make 
decisions for themselves.
  This report is a dramatic step away from a market-based economy. 
Total spending has ballooned to about $83 billion over 10 years, 
according to the CBO score released yesterday. That is an increase of 
$9.3 billion over the original budget of $73.5 billion. Most of the 
increase is in the commodity title. Roughly $48 billion is devoted 
solely to the commodity title. If you incorporate CBO's new score, we 
are spending $57 billion for commodity programs alone.
  In my opinion, the policies in this report will stimulate 
overproduction in an already fragile market. So we would move away from 
market control and move into a level set by loans and payments. 
Further, these same policies will price our products out of foreign 
markets. The fact is, about 1 in every 3 acres in agriculture must be 
in overseas markets. We produce much more than what we consume. We need 
to understand that those markets are vitally important to us.
  Furthermore, farm policy, as I have mentioned, should benefit all of 
agriculture, not just select crops. Wyoming is not a crop-oriented 
State. Yet agriculture is one of our top three economic industries. 
Farm policies do not benefit my constituents as much as they do 
producers in the Midwest or even our surrounding States.
  We should all question how these new policies will impact our trade 
negotiations and our export markets, which is what we are dealing with 
when this is over. If we have exceeded the so-called ``amber box'' 
allocation, our competitors can retaliate against our products because 
they think we have subsidized our products through this approach. How 
does retaliation benefit U.S. producers? Being locked out of export 
markets is a serious concern. We felt that very much when we had the 
Asian currency crisis and much of beef was going to Asia and the 
markets were building, and suddenly it did not. Now we find ourselves 
with relatively high tariffs there, which we ought to be able to 
negotiate down if we can deal with that.

  When the United States is party to only a handful of agreements, we 
effectively limit our possibilities. If we aren't selling the wheat, 
corn, or beef to the world, someone else is.
  When we began debate in the Agriculture Committee, I urged all of my 
colleagues to think about the future, where we were going to be. I 
think in most all we do we ought to be thinking about the long-term 
impact. I think that ought to be done here certainly.
  Unfortunately, I fear this farm bill will create additional reliance 
on Government assistance, while simultaneously threatening our export 
market possibilities. So there are some questions in my mind about the 
conference committee report.
  I was not on the conference committee. I have a question about packer 
ownership. As the chairman knows, I have long been concerned about the 
impact of packer concentration, where three or four packers handle 80 
percent of the livestock. During Senate debate, I cosponsored an 
amendment to ban packing companies from owning and feeding livestock 
prior to slaughter. I would like to have someone from the conference 
explain to me why it is no longer a part of the farm bill if this would 
provide for more competition. Why would we not be for that? If it is 
better for producers, why would we not be for that?
  Disaster assistance. Unlike much of agriculture, livestock producers 
do not have a Federal program. They have received very little 
assistance over the last few years, despite ongoing drought conditions 
that have forced many to sell all or part of their herd.
  I would like to have the conference personnel tell me why, in a time 
of providing record assistance for agriculture, the conference report 
does not contain disaster assistance to agriculture, this conference 
report does not contain disaster assistance for livestock producers. We 
are providing $94 million in market loss assistance for apple producers 
and $10 million for onion producers--but not for livestock producers.
  Again, there are some excellent portions of this bill. On balance, it 
is not moving in the direction we want to go in in terms of the future 
of agriculture.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes--and more if he needs 
it--to the Senator from Georgia. He has been a very valuable member of 
our Senate Agriculture Committee. I take this opportunity to thank him 
personally for his diligence, his effort, and input into our committee 
deliberations, and also on the floor. I daresay that many of the good 
provisions that we have--especially dealing with getting the whole 
peanut program changed over to what it was in the past to meet new 
challenges for the peanut growers in America--would not have been there 
without the efforts and strong input from the distinguished Senator 
from Georgia. I yield to him 10 minutes or more if he needs it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for allowing 
us to work so closely together on this piece of legislation.
  Like many of our colleagues, I have been reading a great new book by 
Robert Caro on Lyndon Johnson, entitled ``Master of the Senate.''
  I enjoyed the hundred or so pages on the Senate as an institution, 
and especially the chapters on Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. He 
is an icon in my State and, of course, one of the greatest Members to 
ever serve in this body. We remember him mostly for his contributions 
as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. But another of his great 
causes was that of the American farmers. When he was a freshman, just 
in his thirties, he became chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Agriculture. Now, those were the days.
  One of the things he was most proud of was his fight for a national 
school lunch program. Senator Russell would like what is in this farm 
bill for nutrition, and I think he would like the other parts of it as 
well.
  Speaking on the importance of agriculture, Senator Russell once 
pointed out:

       Every great civilization has derived its basic strength and 
     wealth from the soil.

  As I stand behind this desk he once used in this hallowed Hall, and 
as we deliberate this farm bill, it is well to remember those words:

       Every great civilization has derived its basic strength and 
     wealth from the soil.

  I am afraid too many Americans do not understand that today. I 
strongly support this farm bill conference report, and I thank the 
members of the conference committee, as I said in the

[[Page S3933]]

beginning of my remarks, especially our chairman, Senator Harkin, for 
their good and diligent work.
  I also thank our majority leader, Senator Daschle, for his 
exceptionally strong leadership on this bill. We have a farm bill that 
the President has said he will sign, and I appreciate that. It is a 
bill that can be implemented this year and, most importantly, it is a 
bill that is good for all of America's farmers.
  Farmers, ranchers, dairymen, bankers, equipment dealers, even family 
grocery store owners can finally breathe a small sigh of relief. With 
this bill, Congress will finally deliver some help to America's rural 
communities. Many do not realize it, but these communities are facing 
their biggest crisis since the Great Depression.
  One of the most historic changes in this farm bill is the elimination 
of the Depression-era peanut quota system. Switching from this 80-year-
old quota system to a new market-oriented program was not easy. In 
fact, it has been downright painful for many in my State, but I am 
confident this new peanut program will benefit not only peanut 
producers but also American consumers.
  The new peanut program will allow our farmers to compete on a global 
scale, just as farmers of other traditional commodities do. It will 
provide access to new markets and fairer price competition with foreign 
countries.
  At the same time, however, the elimination of the quota system will 
result in financial losses for many of Georgia's family farms. There is 
no question that this peanut quota is an asset. It is taxed by the IRS. 
It has been passed down through families from generation to generation. 
That is why on the Senate side, Senator Cleland and I made sure farm 
families who have worked hard to purchase this quota over years are 
fairly compensated for their losses.
  This bill gives peanut quota holders a fair 5-year buyout. Those who 
argue that quota holders do not deserve it simply do not understand how 
many have come to rely on this quota as their retirement. They do not 
understand how this quota system has helped fuel many rural economies 
for many years. So when we do away with it, as we are in this bill, in 
all fairness, we have to have a short transition. We need a bridge from 
the old system to the new, and this bill provides one.
  I am very pleased the farm bill we have before us today does not have 
the lower payment limit that was adopted earlier by this Senate. That 
lower payment limit would have helped no farmer, but I can guarantee 
you it would have hurt many. I do not exaggerate. It would have forced 
many farmers in my State and across the South to put their farms on the 
auction block.
  One has to understand the type of agriculture found across the South 
to realize the ill effect of lower payment limits. The cost of 
producing traditional commodities in the South often run three to four 
times higher than the cost of producing corn and wheat in other parts 
of the country.

  Also, the size of a family farm in the South can be as large as a few 
thousand acres, much bigger than in other parts of the country. Our 
farmers in the South should not be punished because their production 
costs are greater or because their family farms are bigger.
  The payment limit the conferees have worked on, a compromise between 
the House and Senate, closes the loopholes that have received so much 
public attention in recent years, but at the same time it still allows 
our farmers to produce the cheapest and healthiest food supply in the 
world.
  Producers have the right to pursue efficiency and adapt to a changing 
world economy. I am pleased the conferees in the end understood the 
need to develop a final bill that will not hurt American farmers.
  There are other important pieces of this bill as well.
  This bill contains an 80-percent increase in conservation spending. 
That large an increase is unheard of. The increased funding will help 
with programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Farmland Protection 
Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. All of these 
programs are critical to farmers and livestock producers throughout 
Georgia.
  These conservation programs help products comply with the costly 
Federal regulations that the Government continues to throw our way. In 
addition, this bill contains significant funding increases for research 
which we do a lot of in our university system in Georgia. I have 
already mentioned nutrition. Forestry, trade, and rural development 
programs are all here.
  Mr. President, our farmers have waited long enough. Our rural 
communities have suffered long enough. Our previous agricultural policy 
has failed to provide the backbone needed during these depressed times 
in rural America.
  For the sake of those rural communities in Georgia and all across 
this country, I thank, again, the leadership of the Senate and the 
House who have recognized this emergency and addressed it head on. I 
ask my colleagues to vote in support of this farm bill. It is a good 
one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Arizona. 
How much time does the Senator require?
  Mr. McCAIN. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I speak against this farm bill conference 
agreement that will serve as the basis of farm policy for the next 6 
years. I oppose this legislation because it is an appalling breach of 
our Federal spending responsibility and could be damaging to our 
national integrity.
  Included in this agreement, as we all know, is $83 billion in new 
spending for farm programs above the baseline, which brings the grand 
total to $183 billion for the life of the bill. In yearly spending, the 
projections for this new farm bill will rank among the most expensive 
farm bills in recent history.
  Before I launch into my remarks, I wish to say that some of this new 
spending is laudable, including funding for conservation programs, 
increased funding for food stamps and nutrition programs, but 
unfortunately the bad policies outweigh any positive developments. Farm 
spending will reach record levels, and modest reforms were eliminated. 
We had a few modest reforms enacted on the floor of the Senate. All of 
those were eliminated.
  It is no surprise that the adherence to the status quo is 
particularly disappointing since information was widely available 
demonstrating the overwhelming disparity of farm payment distributions. 
The GAO study highlighted the egregious disparity in farm benefits, 
demonstrating that over 80 percent of farm payments primarily benefited 
large and medium-sized farms. Other studies by the Environmental 
Working Group found that in evaluating U.S. Department of Agriculture 
data, the top 10 percent of big farmers and agribusiness consumed about 
80 percent of farm benefits, leaving small farmers out in the cold.
  When Members talk about small farmers, how in the world do you 
justify that--when they took out, I say to the distinguished managers 
of the bill and conferees--they took out the requirement, the ceiling 
we put on the maximum amount that a farmer could desire.
  Tyler Farms in Helena, AR, received $23 million in cotton payments in 
2001.
  Cenex Harvest States Co-op in St. Paul, MN, received $9 million in 
wheat subsidies and also received $7 million in corn payments as well.
  A farmers rice co-op in Sacramento, CA, received $40 million in rice 
subsidies, while Riceland Foods, Inc., in Stutgart, AR, received $38 
million.
  Mr. President, how does one justify this? What is going to happen? We 
all know what is going to happen. The same thing that happened in the 
past: 80 percent of the large corporations and large farms get the 
money; they buy out the small farmer, and the farms get big and the 
small farmers, whom ostensibly we are trying to assist in this 
legislation, are the ones who have to sell. A very large percentage 
have an average of about $1,000, while the major agribusinesses receive 
hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't have the figures for ConAgra 
and Archer Daniels Midland.

  A modest effort was made to limit farm payments to $250,000 per 
farmer. Despite overwhelming justification for this modest limitation, 
looming farm and election year politics pressured conferees to reject 
any reasonable limitations. Nothing in this bill will serve as checks 
and balances to prevent the bulk of payments to selected commodities 
such as cotton, wheat, and corn

[[Page S3934]]

growers and large farming conglomerates.
  This is not to say other targeted commodity groups are completely 
left out. A new mix of old and new subsidies flows in abundance in the 
final conference agreement, with $94 million in mandatory funding for 
market loss assistance for apple producers, $10 million in mandatory 
funding for onion producers, $1.3 billion guaranteed for dairy 
producers as a compromise for ending the Northeast Compact. Wool, 
mohair, and honey subsidies have been resurrected, which were phased 
out or eliminated in the 1996 farm bill.
  I remember in 1996 we were so proud of the fact we finally eliminated 
mohair subsidies. We were so proud because mohair subsidies were put in 
during World War I because mohair was deemed essential to the 
production of uniforms for the Army--uniforms for the doughboys of 
World War I. We finally got rid of it in 1996. And guess what. Like 
Freddie, it is back.
  Honey subsidies have been resurrected; a new payment and loan program 
for producers of dry peas and lentils; $500 million is secured for 
sugar growers, in addition to a continuing lucrative loan subsidy 
program.
  I will talk about sugar for a minute. We are talking about wanting to 
help the poor countries in our own hemisphere. We are committed to 
helping Africa with massive economic aid. Bono, the great musician of 
U2, made a crusade of assistance, particularly for Africa, and we are 
going to pour American tax dollars into these countries to help their 
economies. Meanwhile, we are going to cut off every possibility they 
have of making a go of their economies because we will not allow their 
products into the United States of America, whether they be textiles or 
whether they be sugar.
  Sugar is amazing. We have a couple guys down in Florida who control 
this huge amount of sugar production, and they are able, through their 
political clout and massive campaign contributions, to have an enormous 
impact on our protectionism. Meanwhile, we will borrow these products--
whether they be textiles from poor Central American countries or sugar 
from Caribbean countries--and then we will turn around and give them 
economic aid, when really the best economic aid we could probably 
provide to these nations would be to allow them to export their goods 
and products to the United States of America. The American consumer is 
the one who would pay less for a pound of sugar, would pay less for 
sugar, would pay less for a pair of trousers or a shoe or a banana.
  What have we done? We are costing the American average citizen, one 
who is not a farmer, big or small, enormous amounts of money because we 
will prop up a price, and because the agribusiness is by the small 
farms, they will cultivate them and they will grow more products, there 
will be more of a surplus, and we will, again, lift the subsidy, 
costing the average citizen a lot more money. This is a vicious cycle 
we are in. It is one that obviously is going to be very damaging for a 
long time.
  While proponents of this bill claim otherwise, the potential for 
overproduction may result in lower market prices, forcing Congress to 
once again respond with emergency payments, forcing the United States 
beyond the $19.1 billion annual limit agreed to in recent World Trade 
Organization negotiations.
  We have another problem with the bill. The WTO and other trading 
partners will not sit still for it. We will see some serious 
confrontation between ourselves and our friends overseas and in this 
hemisphere, particularly in the WTO. There will be great legitimacy to 
their argument. What will happen is exactly what is happening now after 
we bailed out the steel industry. We are going to see them slap tariffs 
on our product, and we will see the average consumer, the average 
citizen--not Archer Daniels Midland, not ConAgra, not Tyler Farms in 
Helena, AR, that got $23 million in cotton payments, not Seneca Harvest 
State Crop that got $9 million in wheat subsidy and $7 million in corn 
payments; it will be the average citizen.
  We have a new payment and loan program for producers of dry peas and 
lentils, as I mentioned; $500 million for sugar growers; $204 million 
in mandatory funding for payments to bioenergy producers who buy 
agricultural commodities to expand production of biodiesel fuel, an 
additive made from soybeans and ethanol; $650 million for the Market 
Access Program, which taxpayers subsidize, a marketing program for for-
profit corporations on overseas advertising and promotion--I recall 
one: Over $1 million which we are now spending to help convince people 
overseas to eat popcorn--establishment of a new peanut direct payment 
program at a cost of $3 billion; an additional $1 billion buyout 
program of the traditional peanut price support system.
  All this new spending adds up to increased burdens for taxpayers, and 
it may threaten U.S. commitments through various trade agreements.
  How can we say we are in favor of free trade when we are considering 
this kind of massive farm subsidy? I have argued a long time on the 
floor about catfish. A catfish is a catfish. Ask any scientific expert, 
any college professor. But we will call it by a different name so that 
we can ``nail'' the Vietnamese and make sure our domestic catfish 
industry is protected. And guess what. The price of catfish will be 
higher for the average citizen.
  In a letter to Senator Lugar, the Canadian Ambassador stated his 
concerns about the direction of this bill:

       The direction of the 2002 Farm bill is counterproductive to 
     the efforts of both Canada and the United States to achieve 
     shared objectives for global agricultural trade reform. . . . 
     Both the House and Senate versions of the Farm bill call for 
     significant increases in spending on trade-distorting forms 
     of support. It is also a concern that U.S. legislators are 
     considering reinstating abandoned production distorting 
     subsidies (e.g., honey), and extending them to new 
     commodities, such as peas and lentils.

  This policy of subsidizing wealthy farming interests will have ripple 
effects throughout the developing world by stimulating overproduction 
and further driving crop prices down on world markets.
  This farm bill already approaches $200 billion over 10 years, but 
when it is said and done, the final cost will be much higher not only 
for the American taxpayer who must foot the bill but for the poor 
nations across the globe.
  I have not seen in recent memory the unanimity as expressed by 
various newspapers across this country--the Washington Post: ``This 
Terrible Farm Bill'' and the Washington Post: ``House Farm Vote on Farm 
Bill Carries Global Consequences.'' The Wall Street Journal, in their 
own reserved, understated way call it ``The Farm State Pig-out'' and 
the Atlanta Journal: ``Farm Legislation Illustrates Worst In Corporate 
Welfare Reform.''
  With President Bush and Senator Tom Daschle pushing the new farm 
bill, voters must understandably be lured into believing this is a 
welcome sign of bipartisanship in our Nation's Capital. It is 
bipartisan already but hardly welcome. This is nothing more nor less 
than pure porkbarrel spending, enough to keep partisans on both sides 
of the aisle happy. Despite public outcry and outrage at such 
profligacy, the largest corporate welfare reform program in our country 
is now all but a done deal--it is a done deal.
  ``How to Keep 'Em Down on the Farm: Subsidies; Congress: In Tribute 
to Agriculture lobbys' Clout, bill bumps funding 70%.''
  Says the St. Paul Pioneer Press: ``A Three-Way Deal: Taxpayers Foot 
Farm Bill.''
  Says the Washington Post: ``Show down on subsidies.'' Washington 
Post, May 2, 2002:

       The farm bill that goes to the House floor for a final vote 
     today is coming under attack from U.S. trading partners, with 
     some experts warning that it could severely damage the 
     economies of poor countries and set back the Bush 
     administration's efforts to strike free-trade agreements.
       ``This is an appalling signal to the world and the farm 
     bill is very, very bad for the international agriculture.'' 
     Warren Truss, Australia's Agriculture Minister, was quoted 
     saying on his country's national radio network. The United 
     States, he said, ``is telling other people to lower subsidy 
     levels but not doing the same thing itself.''

  Before I conclude I would like to express my gratitude to my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Lugar, a man of virtue and reason with 
respect to our Nation's agricultural policies, for the strong stance 
opposing this farm bill agreement. He alone acted in principled fashion 
for this Senate body, first by offering a true reform proposal for farm 
policy during Senate debate

[[Page S3935]]

which would have substantially reduced Federal farm payments and 
directed assistance on a needs-based approach. He boldly proposed to 
phase out cherished sugar, peanuts, and dairy subsidies. He also 
suggested that Federal assistance is more appropriately focused to 
those farmers who genuinely need assistance. As a farmer himself, he 
wisely recognized the fallacy of unlimited and unchecked farm subsidies 
and as demonstrated by withholding his approval on this final 
conference agreement. I applaud him for his brave battle against 
entrenched farming interests.
  It is easy for me to vote and speak against this bill. It is not so 
easy for Senator Lugar. I think he has displayed courage and wisdom and 
people will grow to regret, over time, that we did not heed his words 
and respect and vote for his proposals. That is because we have a train 
wreck coming and that train wreck is going to cost the American 
taxpayers a great deal in both quality of products as well as price.
  I, obviously, will vote against the farm bill, and I do not think 
this is one of the Senate's finest hours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has consumed 15 
minutes. The ranking member controls 15 minutes; the chairman of the 
committee controls 4.5 minutes. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his thoughtful 
tribute. I appreciate very much the strength of his statement today. It 
was timely and important for all Americans to hear.
  I yield the floor. I anticipate perhaps one more speaker on our side. 
I reserve our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Does the Senator from Iowa 
yield time?
  Ms. CANTWELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Ms. Cantwell are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has just under 15 
minutes. The Senator from Iowa has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LUGAR. The speaker I anticipated is not present and therefore I 
am delighted to hear from the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Florida are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I note there is no speaker on our side. I 
anticipated that perhaps the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Nickles, would be available. Therefore, I would suggest that a quorum 
call be instituted--I suspect the time has already left on the 
Democratic side, and there would be 13 minutes remaining on our side--
and that this be allowed to run out. In the event that Senator Nickles 
appears, he might utilize the remainder of that time. Otherwise, we 
will come to the conclusion of the debate on the farm bill today and 
will be prepared for another vigorous session tomorrow.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask that the time be charged 
to our side. There will not be any time left. Otherwise, I suggest 
equal charging.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Four and one-half minutes 
remain to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the time be charged--I delay my request for a 
unanimous consent request and ask that the time remaining on our side 
be yielded to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma.
  How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve and one-half minutes.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield 12\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I wish to come to the floor and make a 
few comments on the agriculture bill. First, I wish to compliment the 
Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, for his statement today, for his 
comments, and for his very astute recognition of some of the problems 
we have in this bill.
  I want to be in favor of an agriculture bill. I want to be in favor 
of a farm bill that is going to help farmers. Unfortunately, I think 
this bill fails that test.
  I look at this bill from a lot of different angles. I want to help 
agriculture. I think every Member in this body wants to help 
agriculture. But is this bill the right way to do it?
  If we pass legislation that is going to greatly encourage production 
and have the Government paying for a lot of it and then drive prices 
down, are we helping agriculture in the long run? I am afraid maybe we 
will be hurting agriculture in the long run.
  As a matter of fact, there is a study which is just coming out that 
talks about the price of wheat going down for the next 5 or 6 years as 
a result of this bill. This bill is a 6-year bill. We are just trying 
to get a handle on the cost of it. There is a new estimate coming from 
the Congressional Budget Office that estimates the cost of this bill 
greatly exceeds the estimates by a total of about $9 billion.
  The level we were negotiating with the President on was $73 billion 
over present law over 10 years. Now we have the Congressional Budget 
Office coming up and saying we find this is another $9 billion on top 
of the $73 billion, for a total of right at $83 billion over and above 
present law.
  In other words, we are saying present law wasn't doing enough to help 
agriculture. So there was a bipartisan agreement with President Bush 
that would put in an additional $73 billion to help agriculture. That 
was done. But evidently that wasn't enough because a new scoring came 
out indicating this busts that budget by an additional $9 billion. That 
is one reason to be opposed to it.
  Then I look at what happened on the cost limitation. We passed an 
amendment in the Senate in which I and others participated. It passed 
with 66 votes. We said we want to have a payment limitation. Payment 
limitations have grown dramatically. Years ago, we had payment 
limitations of $40,000 or $50,000 per farmer. Yes, we found that 
different people were skillful in their evasion of those limits. They 
had multiple payments in their families and pyramid schemes. We tried 
to tighten that up.
  Anyway, we had bipartisan support for an amendment, 66 votes that 
said: We want to have a limit of $275,000, and that would include 
certificates. We adopted that with a big vote. We sent it to 
conference. And we come back to find the limit is not $275,000, it is 
$360,000. So it increased substantially over what we passed in the 
Senate. And, oh, incidentally, in the $360,000, they forgot to count 
certificates.
  Not to get too complicated, but any farmer who is listening to this 
knows what I am talking about. It means there is no limit. It means the 
difference between the loan rate and the price you receive will not 
count towards your total payment limitation of $360,000, so you could 
have payments of $1 million.
  Senator Lugar talked about, for his State, looking it up on the Web 
site you could see that this would only apply to six or seven farmers. 
I looked for my State, and it would apply, frankly, to more than that. 
But I find out there are a lot of farms where those payment limitation 
numbers, that are posted by the environmental group, greatly exceed 
that, because they run things through co-ops and other organizations 
that do not show the payment limits, that are not attributing those to 
individual families.

[[Page S3936]]

  So the point is, the Senate adopted an amendment that said: Let's 
have a payment limitation of $275,000. The bill comes back with 
$360,000, and it has no limitation whatsoever on the certificates.
  Then we have to look at the crops.
  I heard Senator Lugar say earlier today: Does it make sense to have a 
program on cotton that has a current market price of 31 or 32 cents, 
and we have a target price of 72 cents? The difference is 41 cents. 
That 41 cents is 131 percent of the market price. The Government is 
going to be paying more in subsidy than what the market is. The market 
is 31 or 32 cents, and the Government is going to be paying basically 
the difference. The Government is going to be paying 41 cents for a 
total payment to the farmers of 72 cents per pound. That is an enormous 
subsidy in cotton.
  What about in rice? The average price is about $4.20 per 
hundredweight. The target price for rice is $10.50. So the Government 
payment is going to be $6.30, about 150 percent of the market price.
  Does that make sense? And if you have the Government paying so much 
more than what the market price is, we are greatly encouraging 
production of these commodities well in excess of what the market says 
we should be doing, so we will be drowning in surpluses, keeping the 
prices low.
  What about in wheat? In my State, we grow a lot of wheat. The market 
price and the loan rate are just about the same. But the target price 
is $3.86. The market price is about $2.80. So it is a difference of 
$1.06. That is what the Government is going to pay. The Government is 
going to be paying 38 percent more than what the market price is for 
wheat.
  Compare that to current law. It is about 16 percent of the market 
price. Under current law, the Government pays about 46 cents per bushel 
in wheat. Under this bill, we will pay $1.06 per bushel. So that is 
over twice as much Federal subsidy per bushel.
  You might say that is great for your State. It may benefit a few of 
our wheat farmers, but the net result is, collectively, nationally, 
what we are going to be doing is encouraging a lot of overproduction, 
and prices will continue all. As estimated by this one study, prices 
will fall. Does that help wheat farmers in the long run? I do not think 
so. I do not think it is going to help them. The net result is, we are 
going to be putting a lot of people into bankruptcy.

  Look at corn. For corn, you have a market price of $1.90, you have a 
target price of $2.60--a differential of 70 cents. That is 37 percent 
of the market price. The Government would be paying 37 percent more 
than what the market would dictate we should be paying in corn.
  Compare that to present law. The differential is 26 cents. So right 
now the Federal Government is paying a 26-cent differential on the 
market price of corn. That is 14 percent. That more than doubles now to 
70 cents. So we are going to have more corn production. Somebody might 
say that might be great for corn farmers. But guess what. You encourage 
a lot of production in excess of demand and you are going to be 
drowning in surpluses, and prices are going to fall.
  So Government payments are going to go up. We are increasing a 
Government dependency system here that is broken. It needs to be fixed. 
But instead of fixing it, we are making it worse. These Government 
payments are going to get bigger and bigger, and maybe people will see, 
on Web sites, how much people are really making and come back to 
Congress and say: Wait a minute. Fix it. You should not be paying a few 
people--and it is exactly a few people who are really going to be the 
beneficiaries.
  What we will have is a situation where the smaller farmers will be 
bought up by the big ones. The smaller farmers are not going to be able 
to make it. So this is going to exacerbate and accelerate the move from 
small farms to large corporate megafarms, and the megafarms are going 
to get the bulk of the money.
  I think it has already been reported that the upper 10 percent of 
farms are getting two-thirds of the cash payments out of agriculture. 
That figure will increase. It will soon become where the upper 5 
percent of farms will be getting 70 percent of all the money coming 
from this program; and maybe that figure will even climb from there.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a farm bill payment 
comparisons table and a farm bill spending table be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      FARM BILL PAYMENT COMPARISONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Wheat             Corn
                                       ---------------------------------
                                        Current   Conf   Current   Conf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001/2002 season average price........     2.80    2.80     1.90    1.90
Loan rate.............................     2.58    2.80     1.89    1.98
Target price..........................      n/a    3.86      n/a    2.60
Direct payment rate...................     0.46    0.52     0.26    0.28
Loan deficiency payment...............  .......  ......  .......    0.08
Counter cyclical payment rate.........  .......    0.54  .......    0.34
                                       ---------------------------------
    Total payment.....................     0.46    1.06     0.26    0.70
    As a percent of market price......      16%     38%      14%     37%
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      FARM BILL PAYMENT COMPARISONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Rice            Cotton
                                      ----------------------------------
                                       Current   Conf   Current    Conf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001/2002 season average price.......     4.20    4.20   0.3140   0.3140
Loan rate............................     6.50    6.50   0.5192   0.5200
Target price.........................      n/a   10.50      n/a   0.7240
Direct payment rate..................     2.04    2.35   0.0556   0.0667
Loan deficiency payment..............     2.30    2.30   0.2052   0.2060
Counter cyclical payment rate........  .......    1.65  .......   0.1373
                                      ----------------------------------
    Total payment....................     4.34    6.30   0.2608   0.4100
    As a percent of market price.....     103%    150%      83%     131%
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           FARM BILL SPENDING--OLD BASELINE `VS' NEW BASELINE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Cost under
                                    April 2001   Cost under
               Year                   budget     March 2002   Difference
                                    resolution    baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002.............................          2.5          2.5  ...........
2003.............................          7.2          8.5          1.3
2004.............................          8.8         10.4          1.6
2005.............................          9.3         10.7          1.4
2006.............................          8.9         10.1          1.2
2007.............................          8.5          9.5          1.0
2008.............................          7.2          8.1          0.9
2009.............................          7.4          8.1          0.7
2010.............................          6.9          7.6          0.7
2011.............................          6.8          7.3          0.5
                                  --------------------------------------
  Total..........................         73.5         82.8          9.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. NICKLES. So there are lots of reasons to have concerns about this 
bill. I have mentioned the cost. I mentioned the enormous payments that 
would be made to some. I mentioned the fact that the total cash 
payments to farmers is really nonexistent because we did not count 
certificates. And then I look at the fact that we are getting 
agriculture in some areas where it really does not belong.
  What in the world are we doing with an onion program? What are we 
doing with subsidies for apples? And what are we doing reinstating a 
honey program that we finally stopped? Why are we reinstituting a 
program for wool and mohair, which was created decades ago, and it 
really is not necessary to have a national program?
  Why are we subsidizing the purchasing of all kinds of commodities 
just to prop up prices? Again, Federal Government intervention is like 
we do not believe in markets. And when we are talking about trade--and 
we have a trade bill on the floor of the Senate that we will be 
considering in a couple days--it is like, oh, yes, half of our trade 
negotiations are stuck in agriculture. For those who have not followed 
this issue, agriculture is very difficult to deal with in trade 
negotiations. We have just made it a whole lot worse.
  When we tell people, let's open up markets and we can compete--and we 
can compete in agriculture anywhere in the world--with this bill we are 
making it very difficult for our people. Those with whom we trade say: 
Oh, yes, you say we shouldn't subsidize our farmers so much, but look 
how much you are subsidizing your farmers.
  So you are going to see greater and greater protectionism and greater 
and greater subsidies on both sides of the Atlantic--frankly, all 
across the world--with more Government dependency everywhere.
  Who will be the real losers? Certainly, the poor and developing 
countries will be losers because they cannot afford to get into this 
kind of battle. And, frankly, the American taxpayers will be the losers 
as well because we will be writing a whole lot of checks to produce 
commodities that we do not need and that the market is saying we do not 
want. We produce so much more than we can consume, so we have to 
export.
  This bill is going to make it more difficult to export. So we are 
going to

[[Page S3937]]

be drowning in our own surpluses. Market prices will fall further, and 
Government payments will go up. That is the net essence of this bill. I 
hate to say that. I wish that were not the case.
  I have supported agriculture bills in the past, unlike some of our 
colleagues in this Chamber. I would like to support an agriculture bill 
this year. Unfortunately, I see this bill as taking a giant step in the 
wrong direction, a direction where people will not be farming, due to 
what the demand or the marketplace is dictating, but, frankly, a 
marketplace dictated by Government, Government subsidies, Government 
largesse, and, ultimately, Government control. This Senator believes 
that is a mistake.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four and one-half minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. On this side. How much time on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I think all has been said that needs to 
be said, at least for today, on this farm bill. I guess we are going to 
have 6 more hours of saying it all over again tomorrow. So I see no 
need to stay here any longer.
  I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is yielded back.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________