[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 8, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3979-S4052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of the conference report 
accompanying H.R. 2646, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2646, a bill to provide 
     for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal 
     year 2011.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 6 hours of debate on the conference report, to be equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the conference 
report on the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act--the farm bill of 
2002.
  We must have a strong and solid commitment to our family farmers, and 
we must have a farm bill that provides this foundation. Simply put, 
through the miracle of modern day agriculture our farmers and ranchers 
provide significant and mostly unappreci-
ated support for trade, jobs, our Nation's balance of payments; they 
serve as a catalyst for our Nation's economy and provide American 
consumers with the most plentiful, inexpensive, and safe food supply in 
the history of the world. So a good farm bill is essential to every 
American citizen. The authors of the pending bill have tried to do this 
with myriad commodity, conservation, nutrition, research, and many 
other programs. I thank them for their efforts.
  Throughout my career as a Senator, Congressman, and congressional 
staffer, I have had the privilege to work on no less than six major 
farm bills and numerous pieces of smaller legislation. I must say that 
from a policy and process standpoint, this farm bill has certainly been 
unique.
  I have always believed we should not play politics with a bill that 
directly affects the daily lives and pocketbooks of our farmers, 
ranchers, our consumers, and, yes, even the taxpayer, and those who are 
hungry and malnourished. That is why I have supported bills written by 
both Democrats and Republicans.
  In my view, a farm bill should have two primary goals:
  First, to provide assistance when needed to those who produce the 
food for our Nation and a troubled and hungry world. That assistance is 
needed now given the near revolutionary and dynamic changes we face in 
agriculture today. Put in Dodge City language, the farmer and rancher 
today are not in very good shape for the shape they are in. These are 
tough times in farm country.
  Second, the bill should provide this assistance through a realistic, 
reasonable, and predictable farm program

[[Page S3980]]

policy consistent with the harsh realities of what we face in the 
global marketplace. I regret to say that I fear this bill fails on both 
counts.
  There are other very important goals that should be and are addressed 
in this farm bill. These include dealing with the environment, 
nutrition, research, and the new threat of agriterrorism. But my 
concern is with the commodity title.
  In this bill we have a real paradox. Those who have seldom or never 
voted for farm bills in the past during their long years of 
distinguished service and have made it a practice to regularly 
criticize previous farm bills have written this bill and have 
proclaimed it to be the best bill ever written and they are going to 
vote for it.

  On the other hand, some who have voted for farm bills in the past, 
this Member included, knowing no farm bill is perfect or written in 
stone--knowing that the final product is never the best possible farm 
bill but the best bill possible--will vote no.
  I make these comments without questioning the intent of any Senator 
or House Member who believes this bill is the ``best ever'' and, I 
might add, who worked very hard through great difficulty to produce 
this bill. I salute their hard work and tireless efforts but 
respectfully disagree with their conclusion.
  However, due to what I consider serious flaws in the bill, I cannot 
vote for final passage of this conference report. I do not believe the 
bill before us gets the job done for farmers and ranchers in Kansas and 
in other parts of the country.
  In saying this, I pledge to my colleagues and my farmers and ranchers 
that whatever concerns I have with this bill, I will work with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help make improvements when 
they are needed. In fact, this bill is a fate accompli, it will pass 
today and the President will sign it. As least for now, the support for 
a supplemental is not there. The bill should not be delayed any 
further.
  Now, there are some good things in this legislation--including some 
initiatives I have supported.
  These include: Equalization of the sorghum loan rate to the corn 
rate; permanent authority for LDPs on grazed out wheat; a beneficial 
interest fix for LDPs on the 2001 crops; expanded funding for the 
environmental quality incentives program, a most important program for 
our livestock producers; more equitable food stamp benefits; and most 
importantly, research program authorizations that will allow us to 
develop the tools needed to protect agriculture and our food supply 
from terrorist threats and to expand carbon sequestration research to 
enable the farmer to be a partner in the challenge to reduce global 
warming.
  However, as I said, it is the commodity title that raises serious 
concerns for this Senator.
  First, there is the timing of this bill and the proposed assistance. 
We are spending nearly $48 billion in new funding over the next 10 
years for our commodity programs.
  Some argue this investment is supposed to ``restore the safety net'' 
for our farmers and ranchers and eliminate the need for supplemental 
assistance in the future.
  In fact, all programs considered, this legislation will add $73.5 
billion to the agriculture baseline which now totals an estimated $183 
billion with the new Congressional Budget Office scoring.
  To say this represents a significant investment in our commodity, 
conservation, nutrition, and research programs is an understatement, to 
be sure. I will leave the debate of how much is appropriate--given our 
budget challenges and given the world farmers face; the world price 
depression, lack of exports, market interference, unfair foreign 
subsidization, weather, value of the dollar, and all of the other 
vagaries beyond the control of the farmer--to another time.
  Mr. President, what is ironic is that due to the timing of payments 
in this legislation, the probability is--and I predict--we will be back 
here later this year with Members and farm organizations asking for an 
additional supplemental payment or disaster money.
  My colleagues, we did not have to go down this road. Back in March I 
introduced legislation that would have provided supplemental assistance 
within budget for this year's crop. It also would have provided 
conservation funding for several programs.
  I introduced this package for two reasons: Our producers and our 
lenders needed some kind of certainty on the assistance they would 
receive for this crop year, and second, virtually all planting and 
lending decisions had already been made for the 2002 crop, this year's 
crop, and it did not make sense to change the rules of the game in the 
middle of the 2002 crop year. It made more sense to do an assistance 
package this year and have the new bill apply to the 2003 crop after 
our producers and the Department of Agriculture had time to digest the 
details of the new bill.
  The second concern: this is a complex bill, to say the least, and 
farmers and ranchers and lenders and the USDA are going to feel and act 
like a bear in a briar patch. We are going to do a new farm bill that 
will require producers and USDA to work through a paper trail of 
recalculated loan rates for every commodity in every county in the 
country, base updates, yield updates, and the list goes on.
  Mr. President, the name of this bill should be the ``Farm Service 
Agency Full Employment Act''--exactly the opposite of the direction we 
have been moving in recent years. As a matter of fact, sensing the 
paperwork and regulatory storm ahead, the USDA actually requested 100 
million new dollars to enable the Farm Service Agency folks to come to 
grips with and administer the new program. They got $55 million by the 
way. There are going to be some long lines at the Farm Service Agency.
  Third, and this is a primary concern, when producers find out the 
final details regarding the so-called safety net, it will not be what 
they expected due to the form of assistance and the timing. That is not 
good.
  Let's walk through an example:
  We grow a tremendous number of crops in Kansas--wheat, corn, sorghum, 
soybeans, and even a projected 80,000 acres of cotton this year. When 
it comes to actual planted acres, wheat remains king in Kansas.
  Under the supplemental package I introduced, wheat producers would 
have received 59 cents a bushel on this year's crop. This payment would 
have occurred before the end of September. We need this money. We are 
in the midst of a drought in wheat country and we need the assistance 
now.
  If a wheat producer receives the maximum countercyclical payment 
available under this proposed farm bill, he or she would receive 
additional, combined direct and countercyclical payments on the 2002 
crop of 60 cents--about the same thing. But they would not receive the 
final payment until at least 13 months from now on June 1, 2003.
  Let me say that again: wheat producers would not receive their final 
assistance on the 2002 crop until June 1, 2003. For cotton, it would be 
August 2003 and for corn, soybeans, and sorghum it would be September 
2003--a full 16 months from now.
  How can this happen?
  Under this proposed legislation, the maximum level of decoupled 
payments for this year's crop would be 60 cents provided as follows: 
six cents for an additional direct payment as soon as practicable by 
the Secretary; up to 19 cents--35 percent of the countercyclical 
payment--by October 31; assume an additional 19 cents--the difference 
between 70 percent of the total projected payment and the October 
payment--to be paid after February 1, 2003; and the remainder, 
approximately 16 cents--after June 1, 2003. Now, does that sound just a 
bit confusing? That is because it is.
  It will take four checks from the Government for producers to receive 
what they could have received from one check under a supplemental this 
September.
  This is not market driven; it is mailbox driven.
  They will not receive the last payment for this year's crop, the 2002 
crop, until they are harvesting next year's crop, the 2003 crop.
  Just as important, the bill fails to provide assistance to producers 
when they need it most--when there is no crop to harvest.
  We have gone back and checked the average marketing-year prices for 
wheat, according to USDA, on every crop from 1982 to 1999; some 17 
years in Kansas.

[[Page S3981]]

  In 9 of those years there would have been no countercyclical payment 
for wheat had this bill been in effect. These dates would have included 
the following crops: 1982, 1983, 1984, 1988, 1989, 1994, 1995, 1996, 
and 1997.
  Unfortunately, 1995, 1996, and 1989 represent what were basically our 
worst wheat crops in the past 20 years in Kansas. And the other 6 years 
represented some of our most marginal crops and difficult financial 
times.
  The question is, why on earth should anyone from Kansas or a similar 
State support a bill that would not have producers of their State's 
number one crop in nine out of the past 17 years! A farm bill that 
would not work over half the time in the last 17 years, why support 
that?

  Some will argue that producers may actually receive more assistance 
this crop year under this proposed legislation because of higher loan 
rates. That may be true--if a producer has a crop to harvest.
  But the producer who has no crop to harvest gets no benefit from a 
higher loan rate. Again, this is a major concern for many of my Kansas 
producers suffering from drought conditions.
  We have had many reports that this year's Kansas wheat crop has the 
poorest condition rating since the 1996 crop year. Producers are saying 
they have already destroyed or will destroy 200 acres, 500 acres, 1,000 
acres, even 2,000 acres of wheat.
  Let me report to my colleagues I have just returned from Dodge City 
and wheat country this past weekend. I checked the country around Dodge 
with a long-time friend and farmer and that is precisely what is 
happening.
  The only thing you saw was the dust rising behind the tires because 
there was no crop left.
  These farmers are begging that we give them the supplemental package 
because the increased loan rate is going to provide them nothing when 
they have been wiped out.
  In addition, there are long standing policy concerns with the loan 
rate as well. And that brings up an additional concern, that of our 
trade and export policy. The increase in loan rates is not market-
oriented. We are moving down a road that will drive production, lower 
prices, and reduce our negotiating leverage in international trade 
negotiations.
  I realize, appreciate and understand the advocates of higher loan 
rates always argue they will bring higher prices. However, as they lead 
to increased plantings and production, they will actually drive prices 
lower. I would remind my colleagues that the highest loan rates of the 
last 20 years for wheat were from 1982 to 1986--during the height of 
the farm crisis of the 1980s.
  Additionally, a few questions need answers on this issue of loan 
rates. Why did rice and cotton get to keep their current loan rates, 
and why do loan rates for the other crops drop in 2004? Does this 
represent just a tad bit of politics? I hope not.
  The risk of retaliation and reduced leverage in international trade 
negotiations is real. For years we have argued that the walls and 
barriers to trade be torn down by our international competitors.
  With a ``free trade straight face'' in the past 2 months we have 
imposed tariffs on steel, we will pass a farm bill that increases the 
likelihood of surpassing our spending limits under WTO rules, and we 
are going to pass country-of-origin labeling requirements that will 
upset many of our largest trading partners and just to make this whole 
business really topsy-turvy, the majority is holding up expanding trade 
authority for the President--the only way I believe we can regain 
market share price and income recovery over the long term. This does 
not add up. This does not make sense.

  I understand we do not write farm bills for Brazil, for the European 
Union, or Canada, or any other country. But we should not write farm 
bills that guarantee trade retaliation either.
  Let me stress another concern, and that is what we are robbing from 
in order to raise loan rates and expand farm program payments to new 
commodities. We are paying for part of this bill by cutting spending of 
$2 billion from the major crop insurance program reform that we passed 
2 years ago, the Kerry-Roberts bill. That, too, just does not make 
sense.
  As a final concern and comment on the commodity title, let us not 
forget all the promises we have made to farmers, to farm and commodity 
organizations--everyone in farm country--with regard to the need for a 
farm savings account. Every farm and commodity organization has 
supported this concept in resolution after policy resolution. I do not 
understand how we can include $94 million for payments to apple 
producers and $10 million for onion producers--neither payment was in 
the House or Senate bill--but we could not even include the pilot 
project for a farm savings account that had bipartisan support from 
numerous Senators.
  Finally, giving credit where credit is due, this farm bill does 
emphasize conservation more than any other previous bill. Again, there 
may be a conservation devil in the details. While we have increased 
spending for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program--EQIP that is 
called--to the benefit of many livestock producers, we are spending $2 
billion for a new conservation security program that no one truly seems 
to understand or can explain exactly how it will work. I hope it does 
work.
  With all the questions surrounding this proposal, an argument can be 
made that this money could have been better spent through the EQIP 
program, additional research funding, or by designating more funding to 
the trade title of this bill.
  As we persevered through this farm bill debate over the past year, it 
was my contention, voiced probably more than many wanted to hear, that 
we should give some attention to policy and not just to dollar amounts. 
With all due respect to my very dear friends and colleagues in the 
House and Senate, I just do not think we have considered all the long-
term ramifications of this legislation.
  Farm bill policy and politics are never easy. We have strong 
disagreements, but we all have the same goal in mind: Doing what is 
best for our farmers and ranchers.
  I had hoped as we wrote this bill and looked in the rearview mirror 
of the past, we would resist the temptation to return to those 
policies. Sadly, we seem to have done a U-turn in the middle of our 
farm policy road while other nations are moving more towards income 
protection for their farmers and away from market-distorting price 
supports. We are moving back again to price supports and away from 
income protection, and none of us knows where that is going to lead.
  This has been one of the most difficult decisions of my congressional 
career, but I cannot vote for a bill that would have provided no 
countercyclical assistance to Kansas wheat producers in 9 of the last 
17 years, that will provide an additional direct payment of only 6 
cents a bushel for wheat, 1.9 cents a bushel for corn, and 3.6 cents a 
bushel for sorghum, when Kansas producers, suffering from drought in 
many areas, could have received payment of almost 60 cents, 33.4 cents, 
and 40 cents, respectively, on those crops if we had included a 
supplemental assistance package for this crop.
  I cannot vote for a bill that will not provide more than two-thirds 
of its badly needed countercyclical assistance for the 2002 crop until 
13 or 16 months from now, until 2003; a bill that increases loan rates 
when they do not benefit Kansas producers with no crop to harvest; a 
bill that cuts $2 billion from the Crop Insurance Program and that will 
greatly increase the odds of the United States violating its world 
trade agreements and entering into an agricultural trade war with some 
of our biggest competitors.
  Despite these concerns, and my vote on this legislation, I pledge to 
my farmers and ranchers, I pledge to my colleagues and those soon to be 
beleaguered USDA employees, my assistance to work through these 
difficult issues on a bipartisan basis. When this farm bill needs 
fixing--and it will--I will want to be part of the answer as opposed to 
sitting on the sidelines as a critic.
  I ask unanimous consent a summary of questions I have received from 
Kansas farmers, and answers my staff and I have prepared, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S3982]]

            Farm Bill Commodity Title Questions and Answers

       1. Why did you vote against the Farm Bill?
       Answer. I opposed the bill due to many concerns associated 
     with the commodity title. Specifically:
       We are very dry in many parts of Kansas this year, and 
     producers may have little if any crop to harvest. Producers 
     need assistance now to meet their cash flow and pay their 
     bills;
       I wanted to attach a supplemental package for the 2002 crop 
     to the Farm Bill that would have provided assistance quickly 
     while allowing USDA and producers time to implement and 
     understand the bill;
       Instead of receiving the full level of assistance for the 
     2002 crop, producers will now have to wait 13 to 16 months, 
     and receive four different checks, to receive the same amount 
     of assistance;
       A final counter-cyclical payment in June 2003 or even 
     September 2003 does not help you pay your bills in 2002;
       A counter-cyclical program should provide assistance to 
     producers when they need it most. However, an analysis of 
     average marketing year prices for wheat in the 1982 to 1999 
     crop years shows there would have been no counter-cyclical 
     payment for wheat had this bill been in effect. This 
     situation would have occurred for the crops in 1982, 1983, 
     1984, 1988, 1989, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. This means 
     Kansas wheat producers would have received no counter-
     cyclical payment in 9 of the last 18 years;
       Higher loan rates do not provide assistance to producers 
     with no crop to harvest. Furthermore, they are market 
     distorting and impact planting decisions. We should provide 
     the money in guaranteed, direct payments;
       The bill does not provide 70 percent more money for 
     payments to producers. First, the advertised increase in 
     funding represents the total increase above budgeted funding 
     for all USDA programs. Second, this figure does not include a 
     comparison to the supplemental assistance packages of the 
     last four years;
       The average level of supplemental assistance in recent 
     years was $7 billion. This bill provides less than $5 billion 
     a year in additional assistance. Or, about $2 billion less 
     than we've been providing;
       The bill cuts $2 billion from the bipartisan crop insurance 
     reforms we passed in 2000;
       The bill significantly increases the odds the U.S. will be 
     found in violation of its WTO agreements; and
       The bill provides direct payments for apples and onions but 
     eliminated a pilot project for the creation of Farm Savings 
     Accounts.
       2. Will there be a supplemental AMTA payment this year?
       Answer. No. There will be a very small additional direct 
     payment and new counter-cyclical program in its place. Both 
     are described below.
       3. How much would I have received under Senator Robert's 
     supplemental proposal, and when would the payments have been 
     made to producers? What will the actual, additional, direct 
     payment for 2002 be under the new Farm Bill since there will 
     be no supplemental?
       Answer. Under my supplemental proposal you would have 
     received a payment equal to the 2000 AMTA payment, and it 
     would have been made prior to September 30, 2002.
       The payments for the 2002 crop under the supplemental 
     proposal would have been: Wheat--58.9 cents; Corn--33.4 
     cents; Sorghum--40 cents; and Cotton 7.33 cent/lb.
       Actual additional payment producers will receive in 2000 
     under the new Farm Bill: Wheat--6 cents; Corn--1.9 cents; 
     Sorghum--3.6 cents; Cotton--95 cents; and Soybeans--44 cents.
       4. When does this bill go into effect and how long does it 
     last?
       Answer. The bill replaces the 1996 Act and applies to the 
     2002 through 2007 crops.
       5. I see that loan rates have been increased. Does this 
     mean my loan rate on wheat will now be $2.80/bu, $1.98 for 
     corn, etc.?
       Answer. Not necessarily. Under the previous bill, the 
     national average loan rate for wheat was $2.58. However, the 
     key words were national average. Some Kansas counties were 
     below the average while some were above. Loan rates will 
     still be calculated on a national average. Thus, we could 
     still have loan rates that are both above and below the $2.80 
     national average in Kansas.
       6. What will the loan rate be in my county this year?
       Answer. USDA will have to recalculate the loan rate for 
     every commodity, in every county, prior to this year's 
     harvest. That means they have around 6 to 7 weeks to get the 
     job done for Kansas wheat producers. It also means this is an 
     opportunity for USDA to address discrepancies in rates across 
     state and county lines.
       7. Are there any changes in the operation of the LDP and 
     marketing loan programs under this bill?
       Answer. This program will still work as it has in the past.
       The bill also includes a Roberts' provision that addresses 
     the best beneficial interest problem for producers of the 
     2001 crop. This will benefit approximately 350 Kansas 
     producers.
       8. Does the bill include LDPs for 2001 crops harvested on 
     non-AMTA acres?
       Answer. Yes.
       9. Does the bill include eligibility for LDPs on grazed out 
     wheat?
       Answer. Yes, this provision has been made permanent for the 
     life of the bill. Eligibility also continues for barley and 
     oats. One important addition for Kansas producers is 
     eligibility for grazed out triticale.
       10. What are the national average loan rates for the 
     individual commodities we raise in Kansas?
       Answer. Wheat is $2.80 in 2002 and 2003, falling to $2.75 
     in 2004; Corn and Sorghum are $1.98 in 2002 and 2003, falling 
     to $1.95 in 2004; Soybeans are $5.00 for the duration of the 
     bill; Cotton is 53 cents/lb for the duration of the bill; and 
     Oats $1.35 in 2002 and 2003, falling to $1.33.
       11. How does the counter-cyclical program work, and is it 
     coupled to production?
       Answer. The counter-cyclical program is calculated on a 
     target price system and on base acreage, just like direct 
     payments, instead of production.
       A producer may be able to get a counter-cyclical payment on 
     his base acres for a crop he did not grow in a particular 
     year, while he may not get a payment on a crop he actually 
     grew.
       For Example: Assume a producer has a corn and wheat base 
     but grows cotton on 200 acres this year. If a payment is 
     triggered, the producer could collect a counter-cyclical 
     payment on wheat and corn, but not cotton.
       12. What are the target prices for each crop and how is the 
     counter-cyclical program calculated?
       Answer. Target Prices for Kansas commodities are as 
     follows: Wheat--$3.86/bu in 2002 and 03, rising to $3.92/bu 
     in 2004; Corn--$2.60/bu in 2002 and 03, rising to $2.63 in 
     2004; Sorghum--$2.54/bu in 2002 and 03, rising to $2.57/bu in 
     2004; Soybeans--$5.80/bushel for the life of the bill; and 
     Cotton--72.4 cents/lb for the duration of the bill.
       The payments are calculated as follows: The higher of the 
     national avg. loan rate or the 12 month avg marketing price, 
     plus the direct payment level, subtracted from the target 
     price. The difference is the amount of the counter-cyclical 
     payment rate that will be received.
       Example for wheat: Assume loan of $2.80, avg. market price 
     of $2.75, direct payment of 52 cents, and target of $3.86. 
     Since price is below $2.80, we use the loan rate in the 
     calculation.
       The calculation is as follows:
         (2.80) + (.52) = $3.32
         (3.86) - (3.32) = 54 cents
       Thus, the maximum counter-cyclical payment rate on wheat is 
     54 cents. If price goes above $2.80, the total amount of this 
     payment will fall.
       13. What is the maximum counter-cyclical payment available 
     on each crop?
       Wheat = 54 cents, Corn = 34 cents, Sorghum = 21 cents; 
     Soybeans = 36 cents; and Cotton = 13.73 cents.
       14. What is the direct payment rate for each crop?
       Payment rates for 2003 to 2007: Wheat = 52 cents; Corn = 28 
     cents; Grain Sorghum = 35 cents; Soybeans = 44 cents; Cotton 
     = 6.67 cents; and Minor Oilseeds = .8 cents/lb.
       15. Since the direct payment on wheat is 52 cents for 2002, 
     does this mean I get that payment on top of the 36 cents I 
     already received this year under the 1996 Act?
       Answer. No, You will receive the difference between the 
     two, i.e., 6 cents. It will work the same for other 
     commodities. A producer that adds soybean or oilseed base 
     will receive the full payment because these crops have not 
     received payments in the past.
       16. How much will I receive, and when will the payments be 
     made
       Answer. You should receive your additional direct payment 
     as soon as possible. You will receive your counter-cyclical 
     payment as follows: Elect to receive up to 35 percent by 
     October 31. Receive the difference between 70 percent and the 
     October payment by February 1, 2003, The final portion of any 
     assistance will come at the end of the 12 month marketing 
     year for the crop. Wheat is June 1, 2003, Cotton is August 1, 
     2003, and corn, sorghum, and soybeans are September 1, 2003.
       If USDA over estimates the early counter-cyclical payments 
     and the actual marketing year price is higher than they 
     projected you will have to repay the overpaid amount.
       17. Will direct and counter-cyclical payments be made on 
     100 percent of my base acres?
       Answer. No. Payments will be made on 85 percent of your 
     base acreage.
       18. Will I have the option to update my base acres?
       Answer. Yes. A producer will have three options for base 
     acres.
       1. Maintain existing base acres.
       2. Maintain current acres, but add your average oilseed 
     acres for 1998 to 2001 and reduce existing acres by a like 
     amount.
       3. Do a complete update for all crops that will be the 
     average of your 1998 to 2001 planted or prevented from 
     planting acres. Key point here is that base update is based 
     on planted and/or prevented from planting acres, not 
     harvested.
       Example of how this works:
       Assume Kansas producer currently has 1000 acres of base 
     divided as follows: 600 acres wheat, 300 acres corn, 100 
     acres grain sorghum. However, his 1998 to 2001 average 
     planted acres were: 400 wheat, 200 corn, 100 sorghum, and 300 
     soybeans.
       This producer can:
       1. Keep the existing 1000 acre split.
       2. Keep the existing 1000 acre split, but add soybeans. 
     Could be done as follows: Reduce the wheat acres by 150, corn 
     by 100 and sorghum by 50. Then add in 300 acres of soybeans. 
     He still has 1000 acres of base.
       3. Update the entire farm to the 1998 to 2001 average for 
     the four crops.

[[Page S3983]]

       19. Will I have the opportunity to update my base yields?
       Answer. Yes. But only if you choose option 3 above, option 
     2 is not considered a base update, and the yield will only 
     apply for purposes of the counter-cyclical program. You must 
     keep AMTA yields for the purposes of calculating the base.
       For the purposes of yield calculations a producer can:
       1. Keep AMTA yields.
       2. Take AMTA yields and add 70 percent of the difference 
     between existing yields and the average yield for 1998 to 
     2001.
       3. Take 93.5 percent of the average yield for 1998 to 2001.
       Example under option number 2: Assume producer has an 
     existing average yield of 25 bushel/acre for wheat and 100 
     bu. for corn. Then assume that his 1998 to 2001 average 
     yields were 50 bushels for wheat and 200 bushels for corn.
       Thus, the 1998 to 2001 average is 25 bushels higher for 
     wheat and 100 bushels higher for corn.
       70 percent of each of these numbers is: (25 bu) (70 
     percent) = 17.5 bushels; (100 bu) (70 percent) = 70 
     bushels.
       Thus, by applying 70 percent of the difference, the new 
     yields for the producer under this option would be 42.5 
     bushels for wheat and 170 bushels for corn.
       Example for Option 3. Use the same assumptions for yields 
     in the example above.
       Take average yields for 98 to 01 times 93.5 percent; (50 
     bu)(93.5 percent) = 46.75 bu, wheat; (200 bu)(93.5 percent) = 
     187 bu, corn.
       These would be the new yields for that producer if he 
     chooses this option.
       20. Can I update my base or yield for one crop, or do I 
     have to do it for all crops?
       Answer. If you choose to update base and/or yield, it must 
     be done for all crops on the farm. You can not cherry pick.
       However, you do not have to do it for all your farms if you 
     do it for one. Each individual farm will be treated 
     separately. If you have 5 farms you could do the following: 
     Farm 1--Keep current base and yield with no update; Farm 2--
     Keep current base but add oilseed acreage; Farm 3--Update 
     Base, but keep current yields; Farm 4--Update Base, update 
     yields using 70 percent option; and Farm 5--Update Base, 
     update yields using 93.5 percent option.
       If a producer has 30 farms, he will have to pencil it out 
     for each of the 30 farms and figure out what the best option 
     is for each farm.
       Yes, producers and FSA are going to love this.
       21. What happens if I want to update yields but I suffered 
     a crop loss in one of the years from 1998 to 2001?
       Answer. In any year that your production fell below 75 
     percent of the average county yield, you can insert this plug 
     into the equation for the purposes of your yield update 
     calculation.
       22. What happens if I update my base using the 1998 to 2001 
     average plantings of a crop(s) that I did not grow in 1981 to 
     85 when current direct payment yields were figured?
       Answer. For all crops other than oilseeds, you would take 
     the yield of a similar farm in your area. In other words, if 
     your neighbor has an existing corn yield, you may be assigned 
     his yield, or something very similar.
       Oilseed yields for direct payment purposes only are figured 
     by: Taking the 1981 to 1985 avg national yield of 30 bu/acre 
     for soybeans, divided by the 1998 to 2001 national average 
     yield of 38.2 bushels an acre. This basically equals 78.5 
     percent. Multiply this number by your actual 1998 to 2001 to 
     get your yield for direct payment purposes.
       Example: Assume producer has 1998 to 2001 average of 40 bu/
     acre. Thus, using the calculation above his yield is: 
     (40bu)(78.5 percent)=31.4 bushels an acre.
       23. Can you explain the actual timing of payments for the 
     next year or so?
       Answer:
       1. Additional direct payment on the 2002 crop as soon as 
     possible.
       2. Up to 35 percent of counter-cyclical payment by October 
     31.
       3. Producer option to take up to 50 percent advance of the 
     2003 direct payment on or after December first.
       4. Difference between October payment and 70 percent of 
     counter-cyclical payment after February 1, 2003.
       5. Remainder of counter-cyclical after end of 12 month 
     marketing year for each crop.
       6. Remaining 50 percent, or full direct payment, for 2003 
     crop after October 1, 2003.
       24. When do I have to make a final decision on updating 
     base and/or yield?
       Answer: The bill gives the Secretary flexibility in this 
     regard but indicates it should be done as quickly as 
     possible.
       24. If I make one decision regarding updating, can I make a 
     change next year?
       Answer: No. The decision made this year will stand for the 
     remainder of the life of the bill.
       26. I want to try planting peanuts in western Kansas. How 
     will the new bill affect this decision?
       Answer: The old peanut quota system is eliminated by this 
     bill. It is replaced by a marketing loan program that is very 
     similar to that in place for other program crops. All 
     producers will be eligible to participate in this program 
     regardless of where they are growing their peanuts.
       27. Are there any payment limit changes in this bill?
       Answer: Yes. A $2.5 million gross income limit will apply 
     to eligibility for the 2003 crop. A producer or entity is 
     only ineligible for assistance under this limit if less than 
     75 percent of their gross income comes from farming.
       Beginning in 2002, the payment limits will be $40,000 for 
     direct payments, $65,000 for counter-cyclical payments, and 
     $75,000 for LDPs. The combined limits for a husband and wife 
     will be $360,000. Generic certificates remain in place for 
     the marketing loan program and the 3-entity rule remains in 
     place.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are endeavoring to get a list together 
in order of prospective speakers on the farm bill, to go back and 
forth. It is my intention, after I make a few comments, to recognize 
the Senator from North Dakota. I assume then we will go over to the 
Senator from Arkansas. Then we will go back and forth as the day 
progresses.
  I feel constrained to respond, at least somewhat, to the comments 
just made by my friend from Kansas. I listened to his well-written 
speech, and well-delivered speech. Frankly, I wonder if the person who 
maybe had some input in writing that had been around over the last few 
years.
  I want to point out some of the errors that I believe were just 
mentioned. First of all, in the commodity section of the bill that we 
have under the Freedom to Farm bill that was passed in 1996 there was 
no countercyclical payment, every year we had to rush in with emergency 
supplemental payments, and it also capped loan rates. The only things 
it had basically were a capped loan rate and these AMTA payments.
  The AMTA payments were based on unreal, optimistic assumptions that 
prices were going to be high forever and ever. Thus, every year we had 
to come in, rush in here, with emergency supplemental payments--every 
single year--because we had no countercyclical payments under that 
bill.
  I just heard the Senator from Kansas say that in 9 of the last 17 
years somehow his Kansas farmers would not have gotten a payment under 
the conference report we are debating. I do not know how that happens 
because the target price under this bill for wheat is $3.86. The only 
way that would happen in 9 of the 17 years would be if prices were very 
strong. So in 9 of the last 17 years, if prices were high--the Senator 
is right, we do not give Government money if the prices are high. That 
was the failure of the ``freedom to fail''--the Freedom to Farm bill, 
because what it said was: If prices are high, we are going to pay 
farmers money, and if they are low, we are going to pay them the same 
amount of money. That was the fallacy of Freedom to Farm.
  What we are saying is, if prices are high, God bless you, that is 
what we want, the market is where the farmer should get his money.
  I do not know the data of the last 9 of 17 years. But if his argument 
against this bill is that because of the commodity section, his 
farmers, in 9 of the last 17 years, would not have gotten a 
countercyclical payment, that can only mean then that in 9 of the last 
17 years prices were high, or at least higher than $3.86 a bushel minus 
the fixed payment. I have my staff checking that right now because I 
don't think that is the case.
  I just looked here at the income protections. In the last farm bill, 
for wheat, the income protection was $3.24 per bushel, including 
emergency supplemental payments. Under this conference report, it is 
$3.86 per bushel.
  Let us take a look at the bill we are trying to replace, the 1996 
farm bill.
  The prices paid by farmers for their inputs is this green line. The 
prices farmers have received for their crops is this red line.
  When the 1996 farm bill was passed, the price farmers received was 
going up. Evidently, those in charge of passing that bill assumed the 
prices farmers received would continue to skyrocket.
  After enactment of the 1996 farm bill, look what happened. Down it 
came, and it is continuing to go down. That is the price farmers have 
received. The gap has widened between what they have to pay for inputs 
and what they get for their crops.
  That is why this conference report is so necessary. I can only assume 
that in urging the defeat of this conference report, the previous 
speaker wants to keep on with the 1996 farm bill, fails to address the 
gap between cost of producing a crop and the price for that crop.

[[Page S3984]]

  That is the choice we have today. Either adopt this conference report 
or stick with Freedom to Farm. That is the choice we have.
  I think this graph illustrates why we have to turn the corner. Our 
farmers can't continue to exist with the present Freedom to Farm bill 
any longer.
  I wish to point out wheat growers, who are so prominent in the Plains 
States.
  Last year the loan rate was $2.58. The Secretary of Agriculture has 
the authority to lower that level. Under this bill, the loan rate will 
be $2.80 for wheat for 2002 and 2003. And the Secretary has no 
authority to lower that.
  I can't see how a wheat farmer will be better off with a lower loan 
rate compared with the $2.80 loan rate. It doesn't seem to make sense 
to me.
  The other failing of the 1996 farm bill is that it really didn't do 
anything for conservation. This bill does a lot for conservation.
  Look at the Conservation Reserve Program in the 1996 farm bill. It is 
capped at 36.4 million acres; we go up to 39.2 million acres.
  The Wetlands Reserve Program: 975,000 acre cap; we go up to 2.275 
million acres.
  Farmland Protection: $35 million for the life of that bill; we go up 
to $985 million.
  The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, which is so necessary and 
wanted by our sportsmen--our hunters and fishermen: We preserve our 
Nation's wildlife habitat. The 1996 farm bill had a measly $50 million 
for the entire United States. We go up to $700 million over 6 years in 
this bill.
  For the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the 1996 farm bill 
had a total of $1.93 million for 7 years. We go up to $11 billion over 
6 years to help our livestock producers and crop producers meet 
environmental standards.
  Again, those who would vote against this conference report would say 
let us go back to the 1996 farm bill.
  We have done so much more for these existing conservation programs in 
this bill than was done in the 1996 farm bill.
  Lastly, I point out that we have a new conservation program that 
wasn't in the 1996 bill: the Conservation Security Program, funded at 
$2 billion.
  We also provide $600 million for Ground and Surface Water 
Conservation. And the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program is so 
important in Plains States. It wasn't in the 1996 farm bill.
  Agricultural Management Assistance wasn't in the last farm bill.
  Desert Terminal Lakes was not in the last farm bill.
  In terms of conservation, this bill takes a giant step forward in 
conservation, which is another reason why it should be supported.
  The last farm bill that we are trying to replace basically had one 
leg. That leg was AMTA payments. No matter whether we have good prices, 
there were AMTA payments.
  This bill, in terms of commodity for farmers, has four legs: a target 
price program; we have a loan rate which the Secretary cannot lower; we 
have the direct payments; and we have conservation payments. So we have 
four legs to the stool for our farmers, producers, and ranchers.
  Lastly, I am amazed at how many people who supported the Freedom to 
Farm bill said it was the best thing ever and are now telling us they 
can't wait to get rid of it. They can't wait to get a new farm bill. 
How many times have I heard from those who supported the Freedom to 
Farm bill that we need this new farm bill, we need it now, we are 
waiting too long, and we have to have it now?
  This bill was before us 5 months before the Freedom to Farm bill 
expired. I point out that the Freedom to Farm bill didn't pass until 6 
months after the previous Freedom to Farm bill expired.
  We have done our work in a manner that I think benefits this whole 
country. As I have said many times, can I defend everything in this 
bill and say it is perfect? No. But when you look at this country, at 
the South, the Northeast, the West, the Midwest, and when you look at 
nutrition programs, the last farm bill didn't even have a nutrition 
program. Yet we have put in $6.4 billion in new spending for nutrition 
programs in this bill. The last farm bill didn't even have one.
  We have covered those who need help and who need food to make sure 
they do not go to bed hungry at night. We have covered that.
  We have a new energy program in this farm bill.
  We need this farm bill now. We need it now, and we can't send this 
back to conference. If this bill fails today, there will be uncertainty 
for our farmers. They need this bill, and they need it now.
  I yield to the Senator from North Dakota 20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, after consultation with the ranking 
member, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be 
recognized in this order and for the amount of time stipulated: Senator 
Dorgan be recognized for 20 minutes; after that, Senator Brownback for 
10 minutes; after that, Senator Hutchinson for 15 minutes; then Senator 
Hollings for 10 minutes; Senator Feinstein for 10 minutes; and Senator 
Thompson for 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member 
for the work they have done. I know there are differences of opinion on 
the floor of the Senate about this farm bill.
  Let me say that I intend to vote for this farm bill. It is not a 
perfect piece of legislation by any means. I will talk about some of 
the shortcomings. But it is far better than current law.
  The current Freedom to Farm law is a very flawed piece of 
legislation. It was always a flawed piece of legislation. It required 
us every year to come in with an emergency piece of legislation to try 
to deal with the problems in Freedom to Farm.
  Is what is brought to the floor of the Senate today a much better 
approach than Freedom to Farm? The answer is clearly yes.
  But it is always interesting to me that people in dark suits who 
shower before they go to work will come to the floor of the Congress 
and talk about the economic future of people who wear work clothes and 
who shower at the end of the workday. These are family farmers. They 
work hard. They live on hope--hope that they will be able to raise a 
crop, have some livestock, survive a season, and go to market and make 
some profit. They live on that hope. Most of all, they work very hard. 
And they live in a world in which more and more people are hungry.

  We are told half a billion people go to bed every night with an ache 
in their belly because it hurts to be hungry. Our farmers take their 
grain, in a 2-ton truck, to an elevator, grain which they had planted 
in the spring and nurtured, which they go to sell in the fall.
  After they planted those seeds, they worried that it would not rain 
enough, they worried it might rain too much, they worried it might hail 
or that disease would come or the insects would eat that crop up. If 
they are lucky enough to survive all of those things that nature puts 
in the way of a good crop from time to time, then they put this grain 
in a truck and drive it to the elevator. They are then told: Oh, by the 
way, this food you produced isn't worth anything. And the family farmer 
scratches his or her head and says: But we have a hungry world. Most of 
the people in the world need food. Why is our grain a product without 
value? And the grain trader says: It is worth what the market says.
  Farmers would much sooner get their money from the marketplace than 
from a safety net proposed by the Federal Government. But the fact is, 
the marketplace has collapsed. Almost immediately after passing the 
Freedom to Farm bill, the marketplace collapsed, and stayed collapsed. 
Family farmers are not able to survive with the current price structure 
in the market, so

[[Page S3985]]

we are trying to build a bridge over those price valleys.
  That is what this is about: for family farmers to get from here to 
there. I mentioned, they survive on hope. All of us who have a lot to 
do with family farmers understand that hope. Against all odds, they put 
all they have into the ground in the spring, hoping they will be able 
to harvest a crop in the fall and get a price for it. Increasingly, in 
recent years, the answer has been, they have not gotten a price for it.
  They know, and we know, that we add one New York City in population 
to this world's population every 30 days. Let me say that again. Every 
30 days, we add the equivalent of the population of New York City to 
this Earth. Those are mouths to feed, people who need food. Yet our 
farmers are told that which they produce in such great abundance is 
without value. They understand, and I understand, there is something 
fundamentally wrong with that.
  The question for our country is not whether we produce the food, the 
question is how we produce it. Corporations could produce food for our 
country by having corporate farms stretching from California to Maine. 
They could start with a big tractor in the morning and plow until the 
Sun goes down, and then plow in the other direction back the next day. 
Yes, they can do that. They can produce food. And what you would do is 
take all those family farms off the land and change the culture and 
change the economics of what we do in this country.
  So the question for this country is, Do we want family farmers in our 
future? Do family farmers provide value to our country? Well, I think 
they do.
  In this age of terrorism, we worry about bioterrorism in our food 
supply. What better way to defend against that than to have a broad 
network of family producers producing America's food? How easy would it 
be to introduce an agent of bioterrorism in a feedlot with 100,000 
cattle? How much more difficult would it be with a broad network of 
food producers, families out there living under the yard lights who are 
running their operation, to provide livestock and grain for 
the marketplace? So, for food security, to combat bioterrorism--yes, 
this makes sense. Preserving a network of family farms is an investment 
in this country's future. There are also cultural and economic reasons 
for us to care about whether we have people in this great country of 
ours out there living under the yard lights and farming a family farm.

  Europe has already made that decision. People come to the political 
arena in this country disparaging Europe, saying they spend so much on 
family farming. Europe has been hungry and is determined to never be 
hungry again. As a result, they have decided they want family farmers 
dotting the network of rural areas in Europe. The result of this 
decision is, family farms do well in Europe. Small towns do well in 
Europe. Small towns are alive on weekend nights in Europe. Why? Because 
Europe has already made the decision that we should make; and that is, 
family farmers are important and they matter to this country. They 
provide an economic and a cultural component to this country that we 
desperately need.
  There is no one in this Chamber who got up early and milked a cow 
this morning. I am safe in saying that because I am looking at staff 
and Senators. No one in this Chamber, within recent days, has gassed up 
a tractor and tried to plow a straight furrow or seeded some wheat or 
corn. So, we don't have such a big stake in this. We just wear blue 
suits and come to work every day and talk about policy. But there are 
people whose very economic lives are at stake with respect to the 
decisions we are going to make in the Congress.
  I had a call from a woman from North Dakota who wept on the phone, 
just sobbed uncontrollably. She said she and her husband married just 
after high school and they wanted to farm. That is what they wanted to 
do, take over her husband's dad's farm, and they did. She said: We 
farmed for 20 years, and now we are being put out of business because 
prices were not good enough for us to be able to make it. They were 
actually milking cows, which is one of the hardest things you do on the 
farm, day in and day out, seven days a week.
  She said: We didn't go to town on weekend nights. We didn't spend 
money in a foolish way. She said: I told my daughter in junior high 
school that I couldn't buy that new pair of jeans she needed for the 
start of the school year because we didn't have the money. Now the bank 
says we are out of business. All we know is family farming. We put our 
lives into this. It wasn't our fault that commodity prices collapsed. 
It just wasn't our fault. She said: Mr. Senator, what do we do next? 
What can we do now?
  There are people like that all over this country, wondering why the 
marketplace says to them that what they produce, in such a prodigious 
quantity--the best quality food in the world--is judged valueless by 
trade.
  As a result of a lot of those kinds of concerns, we put together a 
safety net. The safety net we had for the last 6 or 7 years has been a 
disaster itself. It has been an awful farm bill. As the Senator from 
Iowa said, every year we have to come to the floor to put together some 
sort of emergency bill to deal with it. It is like patching a big inner 
tube. Every year we know there is a big hole in this tube, so we just 
slap a big patch on it called an emergency plan. And we have done it 
every single year. Why? Because the current farm bill has been 
worthless, just hasn't worked. So we tried to make something of it by 
doing emergency legislation every single year.
  The legislation that is brought to the floor of the Senate is not 
legislation I perhaps would have written. I would have had a higher 
loan rate for wheat and feedgrains. We had to compromise with the House 
of Representatives. This loan rate is not as high as it was when it 
left the Senate. I regret that. But it is a darn sight higher than 
current law. Above that loan is a countercyclical piece, so the safety 
net is better, far better, than current law for our family farmers.

  In North Dakota, it is estimated that in this year--2002--this bill 
will mean about $273 million in additional farm income above the 
current Freedom to Farm law. So in my State alone, this year, $273 
million goes to family farmers. But, it also shows up on every main 
street in North Dakota to support jobs, because almost 40 percent of my 
State's economy is dependent upon agricultural.
  So this bill has a safety net. While not perfect and not one I would 
have perhaps written myself--I would have been more generous and 
provided a stronger safety net--it does have a safety net that is much 
better than current law.
  This bill has other things that I think are important. We include 
pulse crops for the first time: chickpeas, dried beans, lentils. These 
crops will have a loan rate under this bill. That is very important in 
terms of crop rotation and the opportunity for farmers to deal with 
crop disease problems.
  So this bill adds something we have not had before, which I think is 
very important to family farmers.
  It also has country-of-origin meat labeling, which we have been 
fighting to get for a long while. I believe that is an important step 
forward so that consumers understand what they are eating and where it 
is from. I think the country-of-origin meat labeling is an important 
piece, especially for livestock producers.
  There are some disappointments to this bill. When we passed this bill 
in the Senate, we included a payment limitations amendment by a 2-to-1 
margin. That was my amendment with one of my colleagues. We included 
payment limitations, but it was knocked out because the House of 
Representatives would not accept it. I regret that. I say this: This 
issue isn't over. I know this is the farm bill, and this is where we 
should put payment limitations, but we will come back and try to put 
that amendment somewhere else.
  I did not come here to talk about the value of family farming to this 
country's future to then see somebody who has 60,000 or 70,000 acres 
get $20 million over 5 years. That is not what I am fighting for. This 
isn't about corporate welfare. This is about helping family farmers 
with a safety net during tough times. That is what a farm bill is for.
  This issue isn't over. Payment limitations didn't get done in this 
bill because the House of Representatives wouldn't accept it. The 
administration wouldn't support it either. But we will come back with 
payment limitations

[[Page S3986]]

in some other form. Ultimately that will get done.
  On balance, this is a farm bill that is worth voting for. I intend to 
vote for it. Some will say: Why do we need to do a farm bill at all? I 
have heard many colleagues in the last couple days talk about their 
concerns about this bill. If you care about entrepreneurship, if you 
care about small business, if you care about independent-minded people 
trying to make a living, you have to care about family farmers. They 
are the economical all-stars in this system of capitalism. It is just 
that the marketplace has conspired to find a way to ruin their economic 
hope and opportunity.
  Let me describe that. For every single thing a family farmer does, 
they find that someone else makes the money and they get the burden. 
Farmers raise a crop. They want to put it on a railroad track 
someplace. They are going to get charged through the nose by the 
railroad company for hauling that grain. In my State, they are going to 
overcharge shippers by $100 million, according to our public service 
commission. Why? Because you don't have rail competition. In my State, 
in most cases you have a choice of one railroad. The railroad says: By 
the way, Mr. and Mrs. Farmer, here is what you will have to pay for 
transporting that grain. If you don't like it, tough luck; there isn't 
a thing you can do about it. So it is an issue of who has the muscle. 
Is it family farmers or railroads? The answer is railroads.
  How about the chemical companies? The chemical companies say: Here is 
what you have to pay for chemicals. Who has the muscle? The chemical 
companies. How about the packers? Over 80 percent of all the packing is 
done by three or four companies. They say to the ranchers and farmers: 
Here is the price; if you don't like it, tough luck. Who has the muscle 
there? The packing companies.
  How about the cereal companies? It is interesting that our farmers 
produce rice and wheat and corn and all these products. You go to a 
grocery store someplace and buy that product. You discover that someone 
else took that wheat and rice and corn, and they popped it, and they 
shredded it, and they crisped it, and they puffed it. And guess what. 
As soon as it shows up puffed or crisped or shredded, you pay a fortune 
for it. The fortune has nothing to do with the rice or the wheat or the 
corn. It has to do with the fact that somebody made a fortune popping 
it or crisping it. The farmer who produced it, the person who drove the 
tractor, the person who plowed the furrow and seeded the land gets 
virtually nothing for it.
  That is wrong. That is a system that is wrong. Why does it happen 
that way? Because of economic muscle. We have had the growth and 
concentration of virtually every area of enterprise in this country 
that squeezes family farmers, squeezes them in a way that says: You 
can't make it, but we will. Everyone makes a profit off that which 
farmers produce.
  In the area of international trade, our farmers have gotten taken to 
the cleaners. It doesn't matter in which direction you look. Look to 
Canada, Mexico, China, Japan. They have gotten taken to the cleaners. 
Unfairly subsidized grain from Canada; stuffed molasses with Brazilian 
sugar coming down; high-fructose corn syrup being impeded going into 
Mexico; a 70-percent tariff on wheat flour going to Europe; a 38.5-
percent tariff on every pound of American beef going to Japan. In every 
single direction, our farmers have been taken advantage of in 
international trade. And the farm organizations and commodity groups 
out here--most of them, not all--are saying to the farmers that all 
this trade is a good thing for them. No, it is not a good thing: They 
don't understand, those groups doing that, the interests of family 
farmers. They understand the interests of agrifactories. But that is 
different from family farmers.

  Our farmers produce more than food. They produce community. They 
produce something very important to the economy and culture of this 
country.
  I have spoken at length about family farmers. I come from a town of 
300 people. We raised horses and cattle, my father and I. The fact is, 
my home county is bigger than the State of Rhode Island. When I left, 
it had 5,000 people; now it has 3,000 people. In that county there is a 
Lutheran minister, a friend of mine, who said at her church she 
officiates over four funerals for every wedding. That is the opposite 
of the movie, you know, ``Four Weddings And A Funeral.'' Here it is 
four funerals for every wedding.
  That says those rural areas are losing population. People are growing 
older. Young people can't stay. That is the case because family farming 
doesn't work under the current system. That is why you need a farm bill 
that works, that says to family farmers: If you are going to be out 
there on the family farm and risk everything you have to plant a seed 
and hope it grows and then try to market it to a hungry world, we want 
to help you.
  That is what this bill is about. It is trying to help families over 
tough times. These tough times have lasted 6 or 7 years. There is no 
end in sight. The question for this country is, Do you want family 
farmers producing America's food? The answer ought to be a resounding 
yes. Why? Because it is important to have a network of family producers 
producing America's food.
  There will be, and there was yesterday, substantial criticism of this 
bill. I could join in that criticism because I find several parts of 
this bill wanting. It is strange for me to see those who authored what 
I think was the worst farm bill I have seen in decades, the Freedom to 
Farm bill, come out and criticize this bill. It was only 6 short years 
ago when they stood on the floor of the Senate and said: We want to 
transition farmers out of the farm program and into the marketplace. 
Whatever the marketplace says, God bless you, that is your future.
  We knew better than that. The marketplace was going to squeeze 
farmers until there were no family farmers left. That is exactly what 
happened almost immediately after we passed the Freedom to Farm bill. 
The Freedom to Farm bill, we are told, produced celebrations around 
Washington, DC, and the country by the largest agrifactory 
organizations and the big commodity organizations and others who make 
money off family farmers.
  The chemical folks, the grain trade, they all had a great celebration 
because that was a great bill for them. But, it was a bill that 
devastated family farmers. That is why year after year after year we 
had to come back and pass emergency legislation to correct it.
  This bill provides certainty, perhaps at a lower rate with respect to 
the safety net than I would have liked, but a substantially higher rate 
than the Freedom to Farm would offer family farmers. Freedom to Farm 
was scheduled to evaporate after 7 years. It was called transitioning. 
I have been transitioned a few times. Family farmers know what being 
transitioned means. They are flat sick and tired of this notion of 
being transitioned. What they want is the ability to make a living by 
producing the best quality food in the world, doing it for a hungry 
world, and getting a fair return on that which they produce.

  Virtually every part of our economic enterprise in this country is 
concentrated now with giant economic muscle so that it squeezes family 
farmers out of our future. This bill provides some hope and some 
certainty. This bill, and this bill alone at this point, will tell 
family farmers: We are on your side; this Congress wants you to 
succeed; a safety net is worth doing; we believe in your future.
  I intend to support this bill. While not perfect, it is dramatically 
better than Freedom to Farm.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am from Parker, KS, a town of 250 
people. I grew up in the suburbs, a mile and a half out of town, on a 
family farm. My parents still farm on it. Mom and dad are full-time 
farmers. My brother is a full-time farmer with my dad. My other brother 
is a veterinarian--large and small animals--near Lyndon, KS.
  Farm bills are important to Kansas. They are important to my family.
  I have been secretary of agriculture in the State of Kansas for 6 
years. My degree is in agriculture economics. I have been a farm 
broadcaster; State president of the Future Farmers of

[[Page S3987]]

America in Kansas; national vice president of the Future Farmers of 
America, Central Region; traveled the country for the FFA. I have been 
in 4-H. I have farmed. I love it. It is a great place to have been 
raised, a great place for the family.
  It is a tough place to make a living. It is difficult and has been 
for the generations in my family who have been on the farm and 
struggled. My grandfather is a farmer who started my dad in farming. My 
dad started my brother. That is pretty typical. Farm bills are 
important for my State. They are important to my family. They are 
important to this country. That is why I rise today with a great deal 
of disappointment about this farm bill, and I am not going to be able 
to support the conference committee's farm bill.

  While I am deeply grateful to the conference committee and their 
efforts, their work, the hours they worked, their earnest desire to 
find a workable compromise--I truly believe they had a deep desire to 
find what is right and what is best for agriculture in this country and 
for the family farmer--it is now clear to me that the conference 
committee did not learn some of the lessons from past farm bills, ones 
I have worked on, working closely with agriculture. It seems to me we 
are repeating some of the worst mistakes of past farm bills.
  While opposing a farm bill for some may be an easy issue based upon 
cost or complexities of the issue, it certainly is a different case for 
me and a different case for somebody representing a great State such as 
mine, Kansas. Many hundreds of Federal programs affect American 
agriculture more than any arcane debate between beltway policy types.
  This farm bill is important to Kansas. It is important to our State. 
Our State is heavily involved in agriculture. My vote against the 
conference report is a result of a careful and thoughtful analysis of 
what it will do.
  As Senator Roberts, my colleague from Kansas, has already laid out, 
this farm bill just is not good for Kansas's family farmers.
  While I think these deficiencies have been outlined ably in nearly 
every editorial page in the country, I want to highlight a few of the 
problems that are of most concern to Kansas.
  First, the farm bill program raises loan rates. First and foremost, I 
wanted to cite that. This has historically and consistently led to 
overproduction and lower prices. It is a fundamental issue of 
economics. When you raise the price, where supply and demand cross is 
where the price is set; you raise your price or you raise your 
guarantee under that, you stimulate production, your production goes 
up, your demand does not go up in an equal amount, and your price falls 
on the world market. We should not be content to relearn this lesson. 
We have done this in past farm bills where we have artificially raised 
the loan rate, increased production, and when we increased production 
and demand did not equal it, the price on the world market fell. We 
lower the overall price.
  Let me give one example: the current soybean loan rate. Since the 
enactment of the 1996 farm bill, soybean acreage has risen steadily. In 
1996, we were at 64.2 million acres; in 2001, 76.7 million acres.
  These increases are hardly because of increased demand for soybeans. 
More likely they are attributable to an unusually high soybean loan 
rate of $5.26 relative to corn at $1.89, which is a price ratio of 2.78 
to 1.
  Do we want these Government signals not market signals to determine 
acreage? As we increase these loan rates significantly in many of the 
crops across the board, we are going to raise the production, and we 
raise production, we lower the overall price, unless there is an 
equivalent demand increase.
  This perverse incentive laid down by the Federal Government seems at 
cross-purposes with many other Federal programs intended to bring 
prices up, not down. How is it we can be simultaneously providing what 
amounts to a subsidy to increase production while at the same time 
subsidizing the market price? This is working at cross-purposes.
  Not only are we tinkering with these price controls and hoping the 
Government gets it right this time, but we are taking a huge step 
backwards in complexity and ease of use. I do not need to remind my 
colleagues of the horror stories from farmers using farm services in 
the years before Freedom to Farm.

  Government bureaucrats with confusing and conflicting rules were the 
bane of a farmer's existence. Many of us heard of waiting in lines at 
the Farm Service Agency or its precursor agency as well. This bill will 
put more bureaucratic elements into the farm operations again, 
something we tried to get away from. To the farmers' pleasure, we were 
getting away from these lines at the Farm Service Agency. This cannot 
be a good development. We have tried this route before, only to abandon 
it for something better. My dad and brothers do not like waiting in 
line at the Farm Service Agency, and they are not going to like it 
under this proposal.
  As we debate this measure in the Senate, an apparent fait accompli, 
our most important trading partners are preparing to challenge this 
initiative before the World Trade Organization. Just as our Nation's 
commitment to the free trade agenda has been brought into question, we 
have renewed concerns that we are unwilling or unable to compete on the 
world stage, and we can compete on the world stage.
  Our U.S. trade agreements limit domestic farm supports most likely to 
distort production and trade to no more than $19.1 billion per year. 
There is little doubt under this bill we will exceed these limits.
  In my past, I worked in the Trade Representative's office. These are 
contentious issues and will be challenged by our trading partners. Mr. 
President, 96 percent of the world's consumers live outside the United 
States. Kansas farmers and my family are dependent on these world 
markets for their livelihood. This bill will surely spur our partners 
to retaliate. If you want evidence of how this compromise will be 
greeted by our friends around the world, just look at how our trading 
partners are reacting to the proposal. Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, 
and the European Union have all expressed serious concerns about these 
new ``amber box'' programs. It is perhaps most telling that our friend, 
Australia, a country committed to free trade as is the United States, 
has pledged to lead the challenge to this initiative before WTO. This 
is a troubling development for Kansas farmers much of whose acreage is 
dedicated to international trade.
  There is the matter of the supplemental AMTA payments on which many 
farmers in my State are counting. As my colleague from Kansas, Senator 
Roberts, has pointed out, earlier this year we supported a supplemental 
assistance package for the 2002 crop and told our constituents any new 
farm bill would apply to the 2003 crop. For 2002 crops, the compromise 
I supported would have provided an additional payment of 59 cents for 
wheat, 33.4 cents for corn, and 40 cents for sorghum.
  Instead, producers will now receive an additional fixed payment of 
5.9 cents for wheat, 1.9 cents for corn, and 3.6 cents for sorghum. 
Producers will then be eligible for maximum--it could be less--
countercyclical payments on the 2002 crop of 54 cents for wheat, 34 
cents for corn, and 21 cents for sorghum. But the producers will get a 
check for 35 percent of the payment in October, 35 percent of it in 
February, and the last payment at the end of the 12-month marketing 
year for the crop in 2003. This is simply not what we promised and what 
will prove to be a serious burden for Kansas farmers this fall. They 
would have gotten the lump sum come this fall. Now it is going to be 
broken out over a 12-month period. This is something a number of 
farmers were counting on and need this year.

  Despite my concerns about many provisions in the farm bill, I do not 
want to indicate all is lost with it. I am pleased to see some of the 
conservation provisions in the bill which I think are positive. 
Something I and others have worked on--carbon sequestration--is in the 
bill. The pilot program for carbon sequestration will help us build a 
new market for farmers--one that pays them for how they produce, not 
just what they produce.
  Carbon sequestration is a largely untapped resource that can buy us 
the one thing we need most in the debate on climate change, and that is 
time. The Department of Energy estimates

[[Page S3988]]

over the next 50 to 100 years agricultural lands alone could have the 
potential to remove anywhere from 40 to 80 billion metric tons of 
carbon from the atmosphere. If we expand this to include forests, the 
number will be far greater, indicating there is a difference that could 
be made by encouraging a carbon sink approach.
  I am pleased with the work the conferees have made. I am not pleased 
with the product. I believe we are taking a step backwards for farmers 
in our country, for freedom, for markets, and for what is best for my 
family and for what is best for Kansas farmers. This is an overly 
complex bill. It is not going to be helpful this year.
  In future years, we are going to be looking at it and saying: Why are 
we going back to something we knew did not work in the past? For those 
reasons, I oppose the conference report.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
conference report of the farm bill. This bill has been a long time in 
coming. The House of Representatives passed their version of the farm 
bill last October, and the Senate began debating the farm bill on the 
floor of the Senate last December. Our farmers have been waiting for a 
resolution. Our farmers have been waiting for some type of certainty in 
farm policy. This bill provides changes to our current farm policy that 
are desperately needed by our country's farmers. Since last year, 
farmers have been waiting to see if they will be able to continue 
farming as a way of life and a way of making a living. They have been 
hoping Congress will do the right thing and provide them with the 
safety net they need to continue. Frankly, during the last year, many 
have not survived the wait. Many have held auctions, sold out, and left 
agriculture. However, others have been able to withstand the 
uncertainty and have waited for Congress to pass this farm bill. So I 
think it is long overdue.
  Many of our rural communities revolve around agriculture--from seed 
and fertilizer dealerships to farm implement businesses and storage 
facilities. These businesses have entire communities that rely upon 
what they do. Agriculture is essential to the local economies of these 
small towns and communities. This is true in much of my State of 
Arkansas and throughout the country. In addition to businesses, the 
health of the agriculture sector directly impacts the viability of 
local schools and churches. Without assistance, these towns will 
quickly disappear, and these small rural communities will be lost, and 
nothing will be left but ghost towns.
  This bill includes many features that will benefit producers, rural 
communities, scientific advancement, and the environment. Throughout 
the long process--and it has been an arduously long process--there was 
a constant awareness of where farm policy has had shortcomings in the 
past and the important role of a complete and comprehensive farm policy 
as our producers continue to compete in an ever more global 
marketplace.
  The three-part safety net composed of marketing loans, fixed 
payments, and the new target price counter-cyclical payments will 
provide much greater stability for our country's farmers. That is what 
farmers have asked for more than anything else--a degree of 
predictability and certainty in farm policy. This bill will provide our 
farmers with the predictability and certainty that they need.
  In Arkansas, many farmers have not been able to get loans, and they 
are in jeopardy of not being able to farm. Some bankers in my State 
have been lending to farmers so they can get the crops into the ground 
simply on faith that we will eventually act and get something approved 
for them. After months upon months of waiting, and delay upon delay--
these bankers, frankly, have had a lot more faith than I have. After 
all this time, we finally have a bill that can go to the President and 
be signed into law, and it is a bill that my farmers in Arkansas 
support. Time is of the essence, and to delay any longer will only 
serve to further complicate and muddle the implementation of this new 
policy.
  The time has come to pass the bill. Negotiations have been completed, 
and I think any effort to delay the passage of this bill is simply, at 
this point, hostile and antagonistic to farmers and farm communities 
throughout the country.
  This bill, when it left the Senate floor, included some provisions 
about which I was very concerned. In particular, I was concerned about 
the provisions included on payment limitations. As this provision was 
written, it would have had a disastrous impact on farmers in my State. 
A study conducted by the University of Arkansas indicated that farm 
income would have been reduced instantaneously by 25 percent had that 
payment limitation gone into place, and that as many as 40 percent of 
the farmers in Arkansas would have been impacted by this provision.
  In my opinion, including these limitations without any studies, 
hearing, or adequate understanding of the impacts was irresponsible and 
unfortunate. I am heartened and grateful to the conferees for 
exercising wise judgment in withdrawing and drastically scaling back 
these harmful provisions.
  Like all of my colleagues, I am concerned about any abuses of 
Government programs. However, to punish all farmers and ranchers in our 
country because of the abuses and excesses of a few is bad legislating.
  In addition, forcing arbitrary limits on our farmers is equally 
irresponsible. Different crops cost different amounts to raise. Some 
crops, such as rice and cotton, have very high input costs, which 
require these operations to become larger because they rely on 
economies of scale to survive. But these crops also need support, and 
to set arbitrary limits without any regard to the difference in crops 
and input costs would be disastrous and particularly harmful to 
specific regions of the country.
  Farm policy, as I have learned through this process, is very complex. 
But this bill represents a responsible and comprehensive approach. This 
bill includes many provisions that will assist the farmers in rural 
communities in Arkansas and throughout the country.

  However, this bill does not have everything I would want. One area in 
which I am very disappointed in this bill is the forestry title. In the 
committee and on the Senate floor, I believe many meaningful 
compromises had been reached, and foresters in Arkansas supported many 
of the programs included. Following the horrendous ice storms that hit 
Arkansas nearly a year and a half ago, the need for new programs and 
new funding mechanisms became apparent. I think it is unfortunate that 
conferees could not come to consensus on many of those provisions. It 
is my sincere hope that the Agriculture Committee will work quickly to 
approve these necessary forestry programs.
  While many of the forestry programs included in the Senate version of 
the farm bill would have benefitted foresters in many states, the 
Hazardous Fuel Reduction Program was of specific interest to me, and I 
was disappointed that it was not included in the final version of the 
conference report. I am sure many of my colleagues on the Agriculture 
Committee also would like to see many of these provisions passed, so I 
look forward to working with them to resolve this matter.
  Despite my concerns with the forestry title, or lack thereof, I want 
to highlight some of the provisions in this bill that I believe will 
have great benefits to our country. One of the conservation programs of 
which I have been a strong supporter in the past is the Wetlands 
Reserve Program. This program has been used by farmers throughout my 
State and across the country to restore wetlands and enhance wildlife 
habitat. This bill includes funding to increase the acreage cap for 
this program to 2.275 million acres. This will allow an additional 
quarter million acres of wetlands to be enrolled in this important 
program each year through 2007. By expanding this program, marginal 
lands can be taken out of production. It is good for the environment, 
it is good for recreation and sportsmen, and it is good for reducing 
farm production on marginal lands. Basically, it is a win-win for all 
of the stakeholders in agriculture.
  Also, I was very pleased with the increase in the funding for the 
EQIP program. This program will provide much-

[[Page S3989]]

needed funds for our livestock and crop producers who will be trying to 
come in line with increasing environmental requirements. This program 
will benefit both producers and the environment. I believe the 
investments we make in this program will be repaid many times over in 
the future by the increased environmental quality we will all enjoy.
  In the area of trade, this bill will provide increases in funding for 
important programs such as the Market Access Program, the Foreign 
Market Development Program, and the Food for Progress Program. Although 
trade will not solve all of the problems facing our country's farmers, 
it is a critically important component of our national agricultural 
policy. We are the world's leading producer of food and fiber, and it 
is essential that we work to open these new markets. The investments we 
make in these areas will benefit our producers by providing new market. 
In addition, these programs will benefit consumers all over the world 
by granting them access to some of the safest and most nutritious food 
in the world.
  This bill also addresses a key challenge facing agriculture in the 
United States: the lack of young and beginning farmers. One of the 
reasons young people are not going into agriculture today is the 
difficulty in gaining the credit that is required to start a new 
farming operation. This bill provides a number of incentives to help 
young farmers get started. I think that is a great victory for the 
future of agriculture in our country. If we are going to continue as 
the world's leading producer of food and fiber, we must have young 
people getting involved. This bill reserves funds for operating loans 
for beginning farmers. It also authorizes funding for a beginning 
farmer and rancher development program to assist young men and women 
who want to get involved in agriculture.
  There has also been much discussion of the energy title of the farm 
bill. While I am wary of the creation of new programs, several of the 
components in the energy title will provide whole new options for 
producers in Arkansas. More and more farmers I talk to are interested 
in the possibility of getting involved in some form of renewable energy 
production, whether it is ethanol or biodiesel. Farmers recognize that 
these products could provide new markets for their crops. In addition, 
it could help our country become more energy independent. The inclusion 
of this title will complement the work we completed two weeks ago with 
the passage of the energy bill.
  Finally, I am extremely pleased that the deceptive use of the term 
``catfish'' for fish of many different orders and families can no 
longer be used to artificially boost sales of foreign fish at the 
expense of our domestic producers.
  Much of this issue has been misunderstood. It has been a provision 
that has been attacked, I think, unfairly, by opponents claiming that 
we were somehow trying to redefine the names of specific fish 
inaccurately. Not at all. With this provision, we were trying to end 
the deceptive and economically destructive practice of mislabeling 
Vietnamese basa, and I am very pleased that this provision was 
retained. This provision is one that I and many of my colleagues have 
fought hard for. This has been a difficult problem to fix, and I am 
very pleased this bill will make the correction permanent.
  This farm bill has been a long time in coming. I urge my colleagues 
to pass this conference report quickly so the USDA and FSA officials 
throughout our country can get to work, finalizing the regulations and 
implementing the new programs. They are going to have a big job ahead 
of them, and we need to let them get started immediately.
  This bill has the potential to stabilize the farm economy, promote 
the development of new markets, revitalize our rural communities, and 
make our producers more competitive in the global marketplace. This 
bill is not the solution to all the challenges facing agriculture, but 
it does provide farmers with a safety net they need to hold their own 
while we work to open new markets and fight the lower foreign tariffs 
and barriers to trade. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
bill.
  Finally, I would like to thank my staff, Michael Zehr and Robbie 
Minnich, both of whom have gone through their first farm bill. They 
have worked long hours and done marvelous work as we have gone through 
this process. I thank them for their hard work on behalf of Arkansas' 
farmers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the conference report on the farm bill and to express my 
grave disappointment that this long process has resulted in a bloated 
and unbalanced bill that I simply cannot support.
  I am disappointed because there are some components of this bill that 
would help some farmers in Maine and that I strongly supported when the 
bill was under consideration by the Senate. For example, the conference 
report includes funding for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition 
Program, as well as much needed assistance for our apple producers who 
have suffered from low market prices. It includes conservation funding, 
more money for the Market Access Program, and a national dairy program 
that I will discuss in more detail in a moment. It also includes--
thanks in large part to Senator Lugar--a nutrition title that would 
bring needed assistance to legal immigrants and more working families. 
The problem is that all of these good programs, including the $17 
billion conservation title, add up to only about 25 percent of the 
entire $180 billion bill. It is the other 75 percent of the bill that I 
simply must oppose.
  My colleagues, particularly Senator Lugar, have described in detail 
why this bill is bad for our farmers and our Nation. I agree with their 
analysis. This legislation perpetuates a dependency that leads to 
overproduction that is harmful to our land and ultimately to our farm 
economy. I am disappointed to see the reforms begun in the last farm 
bill sacrificed in a frenzy of overspending.
  This bill is both too expensive and unbalanced. It provides far too 
much in Federal subsidies for some of the Nation's largest 
agribusinesses and not enough for the small family farmers in my State 
and across the Nation. At a time when we as a nation are trying to 
shore up homeland security, provide a prescription drug benefit for our 
seniors, and safeguard Social Security, we can ill afford to spend more 
than $180 billion on agricultural programs that benefit the few at the 
expense of the many. How can we justify passing an 80-percent increase 
in farm spending when we are facing a deficit that could easily reach 
$100 billion or more this year? It is not responsible to pass this 
bill. We should send it back to conference and come up with a more 
reasonable proposal.

  I am also concerned about the environmental implications of this 
conference report. While the increased conservation funding included in 
the legislation is certainly a step in the right direction, the 
conference committee slashed the environmental spending by $4.2 billion 
from what was included in the Senate bill. I share the disappointment 
of the Sierra Club and other conservation organizations with the final 
version of the bill in this regard. Faced with a choice of cutting 
conservation, forestry, and other modestly funded programs in this bill 
versus cutting the bloated commodity programs, the conferees 
unfortunately chose the former every single time.
  While I am pleased that the conference report includes some modest 
assistance for Maine's dairy farmers, I am disappointed that the 
Northeast Dairy Compact was not reauthorized. The dairy compact 
provided far more assistance to Maine dairy farmers and at no cost to 
taxpayers. That is why I wish we had simply extended the Northeast 
Dairy Compact, which was working very well at no cost to our Federal 
Treasury. The new program included in the bill provides less help to 
Maine's dairy farmers and at a high cost to taxpayers. I view this as a 
temporary measure to help keep our dairy farmers solvent until the 
compact can be reauthorized.
  I am also deeply disappointed that the payment limitations that were 
included in the Senate version of the farm bill, and that Senators 
Grassley and Dorgan worked so hard to include, were not retained in the 
conference report. While there is a supposed cap of $360,000 in 
payments that any one farmer may receive, the conference report

[[Page S3990]]

exempts the little known crop loan certificate program. The result is 
to create a loophole that will allow some of the Nation's largest 
agribusinesses to receive millions of dollars on top of already 
generous commodity crop payments. Thus, more than 60 percent of the 
payments authorized by this bill will go to fewer than 10 percent of 
our Nation's farmers. Many small family farmers will receive absolutely 
nothing at all from this legislation.
  The farm savings accounts, which I worked so hard for, would have 
helped our small family farmers, but regrettably once again they were 
dropped from the bill.
  Finally, while this conference report is bad for the Nation, it is 
even worse for Maine and I strongly suspect other Northeastern States 
as well. Maine receives precious little from this bill's unprecedented 
largess: 99.9 percent of the bill's funds will be spent outside of our 
State. In other words, for every $1,000 it costs taxpayers to fund this 
bill, only $1 will come back to Maine.
  I recognize that Maine does not grow the program crops of the scope 
and scale found in other States, and in recognition of this fact I 
would have been pleased to vote for a responsible farm bill that 
provided for the vast majority of funds to go elsewhere. But in this 
bill I cannot help but feel that Maine and other Northeastern States 
have been tossed a little bit of hush money and then asked to turn the 
other way while big agribusinesses raid the U.S. Treasury of funds that 
are sorely needed for education, prescription drugs, defense, and other 
priorities.

  This is not a responsible bill. We can do better, and I hope the 
Senate will vote to reject the conference report.
  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. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about 
the farm bill. I have been a strong supporter of Tennessee farmers 
since I first came to the Senate, and I supported the 1996 Freedom to 
Farm bill, but I cannot support the conference report that is pending 
before the Senate. At a time when our country is fighting a war against 
terrorism, at a time when we are facing a deficit of up to $130 billion 
this year, I believe it is irresponsible to spend an additional $82.8 
billion on farm subsidies on top of the $163 billion that we are 
already slated to spend. To do so would be a disservice to the citizens 
and taxpayers of this country. In addition, this farm bill will likely 
cause us to violate our WTO commitments at precisely the time when we 
are trying to convince other countries to open their markets to our 
agricultural products. Most importantly, I believe that the farm 
policies in this bill will hurt the very people that they are intended 
to help the small family farmers, by perpetuating the cycle of 
overproduction, depressed prices, and government subsidies that has 
made our farmers increasingly dependent on government assistance.
  Since 1978, Federal outlays to farmers have exceeded $300 billion, 
equal to nearly 10 percent of the Federal debt. In 2000, direct 
government payments to farmers reached a record high $22 billion. The 
bill proposes to spend $82.8 billion over the existing baseline of 
agriculture spending over the next 10 years. This amount is almost $10 
billion above the already generous amount provided for farm spending in 
the FY 2002 budget resolution. The total cost of this bill over the 
six-year life of the bill is $248.6 billion. The expansion of the farm 
bill represents a 76 percent increase in agriculture spending.
  This remarkable explosion in spending would be a cause for concern at 
any time, but it is especially alarming under current circumstances. 
Our nation is fighting a war against terrorism and our government is 
facing potentially large deficits. In fiscal year 2002, we will spend 
at least $29.2 billion on homeland security. The President has proposed 
an additional $5.2 billion in his recent fiscal year 2002 supplemental 
spending request, which would bring total spending to nearly $38 
billion. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2003 proposes 
spending of $37.7 billion for homeland security. This amount is double 
what we were spending on homeland security items prior to the September 
11 attacks. The Brookings Institution recently recommended funding of 
$45 billion for fiscal year 2003 for homeland security. The truth is 
that we don't have a good notion of how much homeland security spending 
will cost in the coming years, but we know that the costs will be 
tremendous. As I mentioned earlier, we recently received new 
projections from CBO that our deficit this year could reach $130 
billion. We have to recognize that the world has changed.

  My concerns about this legislation, however, are not limited to its 
cost. I believe that this legislation returns to the failed farm 
policies that were in place prior to the 1996 Freedom to Farm 
legislation, and that the effect of these policies will be to make 
farmers increasingly dependent on government subsidies. These policies 
defy logic and they defy the most basic laws of economics. The 
government sets a floor price for certain agricultural commodities that 
is higher than the market price in order to support growers of those 
commodities. The result is that farmers know that they are guaranteed 
to receive a certain price regardless of market conditions, so they 
ignore market signals and overproduce. The overproduction further 
depresses commodity prices, leading to the need for ever increasing 
government subsidies. We don't need to rely on economic theory to know 
that this is true. The data show that our farmers have been caught in 
an ongoing cycle of overproduction, depressed prices, and increasing 
government subsidies for decades. According to a study by the Heritage 
Foundation, farmers have responded to existing price floors by planting 
as many as 5 million additional acres of crops that are already 
overproduced. The farm bill before the Senate today will increase the 
target prices for these commodities and increase the amount of 
subsidies that farmers can receive, which I fear will only exacerbate 
the overproduction problem. Of the new spending in this bill, $56.7 
billion is to increase commodity payments. That's nearly 70 percent of 
the new funds for agriculture. These kinds of policies do our farmers a 
disservice by creating a situation in which market prices cannot 
recover, forcing farmers to become increasingly reliant on government 
subsidies. Under current farm programs, federal government subsidies 
already comprise 50 percent of total farm income. This farm bill makes 
it impossible for farmers to move away from these subsidies.
  Proponents of this legislation argue that we must provide these 
subsidies to support small family farmers who would otherwise be forced 
out of business. However, according to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, 60 percent of America's farmers are ineligible for any 
direct government assistance. Of the 40 percent of farmers who are 
eligible for government subsidies, 10 percent receive two-thirds of the 
benefits. That means that 4 percent of our nation's farmers receive 
two-thirds of all federal subsidies. In Tennessee, the top 1 percent of 
farm subsidy recipients receive 43 percent of the payments. That means 
that about 1100 of Tennessee's approximately 110,000 farmers receive 
nearly half of the payments. The top 10 percent of farmers in Tennessee 
receive 84 percent of the payments. The bottom 80 percent of farmers 
receive only 7 percent of the total benefits, averaging less than $700 
per farmer. That is not right and it is unworthy of this Congress.
  According to the Heritage Foundation, the House version of the farm 
bill, which was less expensive than the conference report, would have 
cost $190 billion in taxes over the next 10 years and $271 billion in 
inflated food prices. The Taxpayers for Common Sense performed a cost-
benefit analysis of the Senate bill on a state-by-state basis using 
each state's share of total U.S. personal income taxes. According to 
that analysis, over the next 5 years, under the Senate bill, Tennessee 
farmers would have received average annual farm subsidy payments 
of $159 million, but Tennessee taxpayers would have paid $273 million 
to obtain it for a loss to the state of $115 million.

  With this farm bill, we had an opportunity to provide a safety net 
for our family farmers while moving towards a

[[Page S3991]]

more market-oriented approach. Senator Lugar has spent countless hours 
on the floor of this Senate, not only explaining all of these problems 
with the current system, but proposing effective alternatives that 
could move us towards a more market-oriented approach while still 
maintaining a safety net for our farmers. He proposed ideas such as 
providing federal subsidies for farmers to purchase whole farm 
insurance or providing matching funds for farm savings accounts. 
Instead, the bill before us represents a grab bag of regional special 
interests. For the northeast, there is a newer, more expensive dairy 
program. Studies indicate that this plan will increase the cost of milk 
by 10 to 15 percent. For the southern coastal states, the farm bill 
continues the sugar program, which has raised the price of sugar in the 
United States to nearly eight times the world price. The Midwestern 
states, as always, receive the overwhelming majority of the direct 
commodity payments. I understand we have some contested elections going 
on.
  I am also concerned that this farm bill will set back efforts to open 
foreign markets to our agricultural products. Everyone knew the U.S. 
market for agricultural products is essentially saturated. The real 
growth opportunity is in exports, and the U.S. has consistently made 
decreasing other nation's price supports and export subsidies a high 
priority in our discussions at the World Trade Organization. However, 
there is a high probability that this farm bill will cause us to 
violate our WTO commitments. In 1995, we committed to reduce our most 
trade-distorting domestic farm support to $19.1 billion per year. We 
have fulfilled that commitment, in part because the direct government 
payments provided under the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill were not related 
to price or production and were therefore not considered most trade-
distorting and were not subject to the $19 billion cap. The conference 
report before the Senate today will decrease these non trade-distorting 
subsidies and replace them with trade-distorting coutercyclical 
subsidies. A report by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research 
Institute concluded that there is a 30 percent chance that the U.S. 
will exceed its WTO commitments in the 2002 marketing year. Now the 
conference report does give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority 
to make a determination that the U.S. is likely to violate its WTO 
commitments and to lower farm supports, but that creates a situation 
where the law provides an entitlement for farmers, which they would be 
counting on, and then the administration would have to come along and 
take that money away. Everybody in this room knows that is not going to 
happen.

  It is unclear whether the U.S. will face immediate challenge on the 
farm bill at the WTO. The European Union has issued conflicting 
statements. However, it is clear that the passage of the farm bill has 
angered our trading partners and weakened our ability to negotiate for 
decreases in agricultural support at the WTO. E.U. Trade Commissioner 
Franz Fischler said the bill:

       . . . marks a blow to credibility of U.S. policy in the 
     WTO, where the U.S. has presented a trade-oriented agenda 
     wholly inconsistent with the new bill.

  This farm bill undermines our credibility when we push for open 
agricultural markets and reduction of the support levels provided by 
other countries.
  In conclusion, this farm bill spends an enormous amount of taxpayers' 
money at a time when we cannot afford it to the disproportionate 
benefits of a few large farms producing a limited number of program 
crops. I believe most farmers do not want forever to rely on Government 
subsidies for their living and in increasing numbers and percentages. 
They want to earn a living by producing their crops and earning a 
decent market price for them. This legislation will make that more 
difficult. In fact, it goes in exactly the opposite direction. It is a 
callous document that can only be supported in the name of political 
expediency. I choose not to do so. I will not support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we are awaiting the next speaker in the 
sequence that the Chair has been given; therefore, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum, the time to be charged equally to both sides.
  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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are awaiting the arrival of the next 
Senator to speak. In the meantime, I might just correct one thing that 
was said here, I think, on the floor. I believe the Senator from Maine 
said that trade, conservation, and research would equal 10 percent of 
the bill that we have--only 10 percent. Actually it is much more than 
that. Conservation alone is 22 percent of the funding in this bill; 
that is, $37.1 billion out of $173 billion.
  If you take all the noncommodity titles--research, conservation, 
trade, forestry, all the other noncommodity titles--it equals about 30 
percent of the funding of the bill. I wanted to make that correction.
  I want to go back to nutrition one more time and address the issue of 
funding. In the committee, when we passed our farm bill, there was 
support for a $5.6 billion nutrition title. It was supported on both 
sides. When that title was passed in our committee, it was passed 
unanimously.
  The bill then came on the floor and there were a number of amendments 
made. Many of them I cosponsored. They added additional funding. By the 
time we finished the bill, the nutrition title was $8.4 billion.

  Keep in mind when the bill left the Senate floor, the CBO rescored 
the bill and they had made a mistake. We didn't make the mistake. The 
CBO had miscalculated about $6.1 billion. So even before we went to 
conference we had to cut basically $6.1 billion out of our bill, which 
we did across the board. We did not focus on nutrition or any other 
noncommodity aspect of the bill. We just had to do it, basically, 
across the board.
  The House-passed bill had $3.4 billion for nutrition. The President, 
in his message, what he wanted was a $4.1 billion increase in 
nutrition. The bill before us has $6.4 billion for nutrition. That is 
$1.2 billion higher than we passed in our committee. It is almost 
double what the House had. So I believe we did a very good job in 
fighting for the nutrition program.
  Do we always provide more money for the neediest people in our 
society? Sure. As we go ahead as the Agriculture Committee, we will be 
looking to make sure that next year and the year after the people who 
rely upon food stamps and other feeding programs are not left behind. 
But I think we did a great job getting the $6.4 billion for nutrition.
  I received a letter yesterday from a number of food-related, hunger-
related groups--51 groups. They said they are writing to express their 
support for the nutrition title.

       The conference report makes critical steps forward for some 
     of the populations most in need of help: legal immigrants and 
     working parents with children. Additional provisions that 
     will substantially simplify the program are also critically 
     important.
       We also applaud your additional funding for The Emergency 
     Food Assistance Program. Food banks, food shelves and food 
     pantries facing growing requests will be better able to meet 
     the need.
       Given the scope of the hunger and food insecurity problem 
     facing our nation's people, we believe that passage of the 
     Farm Bill Conference Report with its investments in the 
     nutrition safety net must be a very high priority for the 
     Senate.

  As I said, this was signed by 51 groups. I will not go through them 
all: America's Second Harvest, American School Food Service 
Association, American Public Human Services Association, Bread for the 
World, Children's Defense Fund, Coalition on Human Needs, Congressional 
Hunger Center, the Food Research and Action Center, FRAC, the National 
Council of La Raza, the National Law Center on Homelessness and 
Poverty, Volunteers of America. Those are among the 51 groups.
  I ask unanimous consent this letter and those 51 groups' names be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page S3992]]


                                                      May 7, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Senate Agriculture Committee, Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Harkin: We, the undersigned groups, are 
     writing to express our support for the nutrition title of the 
     Conference Report on the Farm Bill (H.R. 2646). The final 
     package makes very important investments to strengthen the 
     nutrition safety net, especially for vulnerable working 
     families with children, needy legal immigrants, and others 
     struggling to put food on the table.
       As you know, USDA and the Census Bureau report that 
     approximately 33 million people in the United States--13 
     million of them children--have been living with hunger or on 
     the edge of hunger. The recent economic slowdown and 
     increasing need are only exacerbating this problem of high 
     levels of hunger and food insecurity, particularly for legal 
     immigrants and other low-wage workers. Substantially 
     strengthening the national nutrition safety net is critically 
     important to address this problem.
       Accordingly, we believe the Conference Report makes 
     critical steps forward for some of the populations most in 
     need of help: legal immigrants; and working parents with 
     children. Additional provisions that will substantially 
     simplify the program are also critically important. Easing 
     states' administrative burdens will reduce their costs, 
     reduce errors, reduce red tape for needy people, and speed 
     eligibility determinations and benefits delivery. This 
     lowering of unnecessary obstacles is particularly important 
     for working families.
       We also applaud your additional funding for The Emergency 
     Food Assistance Program. Food banks, food shelves and food 
     pantries facing growing requests will be better able to meet 
     the need.
       Given the scope of the hunger and food insecurity problem 
     facing our nation's people, we believe that passage of the 
     Farm Bill Conference Report with its investments in the 
     nutrition safety net must be a very high priority for the 
     Senate.
       Again, we appreciate your leadership on our mutual goal to 
     fight hunger.
           Sincerely yours,
         Alliance for Children and Families, Americas Second 
           Harvest, American Jewish Committee, Americans for 
           Democratic Action, American Federation of State, County 
           and Municipal Employees, American Public Human Services 
           Association, American School Food Service Association, 
           Asian and Pacific Islander American Health Forum, Asian 
           Pacific American Legal Center, Association of 
           Farmworker Opportunity Programs, Bread for the World, 
           California Immigrant Welfare Collaborative, Center for 
           Community Change, Center for Public Policy Priorities, 
           TX, Center For Third World Organizing, Children's 
           Defense Fund, Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights of 
           Los Angeles, Coalition on Human Needs, Congressional 
           Hunger Center, Food Research and Action Center.
         Friends Committee on National Legislation, the General 
           Board of Church and Society, The United Methodist 
           Church, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Los Angeles 
           Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness, Massachusetts 
           Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, Mexican 
           American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Migrant 
           Legal Action Project, National Asian Pacific American 
           Legal Consortium, National Association of Child 
           Advocates, National Association of Service and 
           Conservation Corps, National Campaign for Jobs and 
           Income Support, National Council of Jewish Women, 
           National Council La Raza, National Immigration Law 
           Center,
         National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, National 
           Puerto Rican Coalition, New Jersey Immigration Policy 
           Network, NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice 
           Lobby, New York Immigration Coalition, NOW Legal 
           Defense and Education Fund, RESULTS, San Bernardino 
           County, CA, Service Employees International Union, 
           Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network, 
           Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, Unitarian 
           Universalist Service Committee, United Church of Christ 
           Justice and Witness Ministries, United Food and 
           Commercial Workers International Union, Volunteers of 
           America, Welfare Law Center, Women Employed.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are awaiting the arrival of our next 
speaker. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are awaiting the arrival of either a 
proponent or an opponent of the bill. Whoever gets here first gets to 
go first.
  In that regard, I am informed that the ranking member has no 
objection to entering a quorum call with the time being equally 
divided. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent 
that the time of the quorum be equally divided between the proponents 
and opponents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join with those who have expressed very 
severe reservations and concerns about this bill. It is an 
extraordinarily expensive piece of legislation. This legislation is not 
only going to cost the taxpayers of America a great deal of money--much 
more than has ever been paid out before in the area of farm subsidies--
but it is a bill that takes us down the wrong path in the area of how 
we should address production of farm commodities in our country.
  Nobody questions that farmers are the hardest working people you 
meet. At all levels of life, as you come across people, the farmer is 
somebody who puts in incredible hours, who works from dawn to dusk in 
most instances--unless they are a corporate farm owner--the people out 
there actually doing the farming. They love their job, usually. That is 
why they do it. They are a contributor of immense proportions to our 
society, both from the standpoint of being hard workers and 
extraordinarily productive citizens, but also in setting a tone and a 
character for our Nation and the communities in which they live.
  Unfortunately, the system they are caught up in--not all, but those 
farmers who find themselves existing on the Federal payroll--is one 
that is fundamentally broken. Instead of a market system, it is a 
system of collectivization.
  It is truly ironic, in fact, when you think about it. The way the 
farm program works today for those people on the system is that the 
Federal Government essentially pays through the tax dollars of the 
American people for the net income of those farmers.
  Forty-six percent of the net income of farming as a result of this 
bill--46 percent--will be paid for by tax dollars.
  In seven States, the Federal Direct Payment Program actually exceeds 
the net farm income. Think about that for a moment.
  In the State of Wisconsin, for example, the Federal Direct Payment 
Program exceeds the net farm income by 174 percent. In Montana, it is 
178 percent. In North Dakota, it is 156 percent. There are seven States 
where it actually exceeds net income.
  If you were to set out a classic definition of collectivization or 
socialization of an industry, it would be that the tax benefits of the 
industry exceed the income of the industry. This essentially means that 
people aren't working to be productive; they are working to receive tax 
benefits.
  As I said, it is ironic that our farmers who are caught up in these 
programs find themselves in this type of situation. If you look at it 
in a historical context, the country which most aggressively attempted 
collectivization where they had a program where the farm community was 
essentially an extension of the State support program was, of course, 
the Soviet Union where the system collapsed as a result of its 
inability to be competitive.
  We, however, ironically and through the genius of our American 
farmer, have managed to actually make it productive. We have a 
productive, collective system where we are actually producing goods. 
But we are not producing them efficiently, obviously. We are not 
producing them in a form that makes a whole lot of sense. We are, in 
fact, producing goods that we don't need.
  As has been mentioned numerous times by the Senator from Indiana and 
other Senators in this Chamber, we are creating a situation where by 
definition we produce goods at a price which has no relationship to the 
amount of goods being produced. So we have more goods than we need; 
thus, we drive down the price; thus, we end up paying

[[Page S3993]]

more in subsidies to support those goods, a system which is cockeyed. 
It makes no sense.

  I heard one person come down here from the other side--the Senator 
from North Dakota--who said this bill is for entrepreneurship. It is a 
unique view of entrepreneurship because, basically, the entrepreneur 
here is trying to figure out how they can get more money out of the 
Federal Government and how they can put more crops in the ground, which 
we don't need, which produces a higher production level at a price 
which drives down the price so they can get more for the crop that we 
didn't need to begin with.
  It makes no sense. That is not entrepreneurship in a market economy. 
That is a new form of entrepreneurship in a collectivized economy. That 
is gaming the system. Gaming the system would be more appropriate than 
entrepreneurship as a term.
  I heard another Member say but this bill is going to produce so much 
in the way of paperwork in order to meet the new commodity rules that 
people are going to be standing in line for days at the Farm Service 
Agency. I feel sorry for them standing in line all day.
  As a practical matter, if you are going to opt into a system where 
you are essentially getting all your net income out of the Federal 
Government, you ought to be doing something instead of standing in line 
for that money.
  Clearly, this system has failed when our farmers are standing in line 
instead of working to produce goods, when they are using the system to 
produce crops which they don't need and which we don't need, and when 
they are getting a payment from the Federal Government which exceeds 
their income.
  The bill also is perverse in whom it supports. Most of the subsidy in 
this bill goes to a very small number of farmers who produce a small 
number of commodity crops. The State of California, which has the most 
farmers in America, by far, and which has the largest farming industry, 
by far, gets only 9 percent of the benefit under the bill. But other 
States which have commodity crops, with 3 percent of the farms, for 
example, get two-thirds of the commodity subsidies. Sixty percent of 
American farmers get no commodity subsidy at all. They are still in the 
market. Of course, that number is being reduced because this bill 
manages to pick up a bunch of commodities that have not been there 
before. We now have onions. We have apples. We have pulse crops. And, 
of course, we dramatically expanded our effort in the area of dairy and 
peanuts.
  Then there is sugar. Sugar: What a farcical exercise this is. What a 
joke on the American taxpayer this has become. Of course, it is a very 
expensive joke.
  First, we set the sugar price in this country arbitrarily at a rate 
which is 10, 15 cents higher than what the market bears 
internationally, so that the average consumer in this country, for any 
product that has sugar in it, has to pay a great deal more than they 
would if we were playing in an open market; in fact, the last number I 
saw was $1.6 billion more in subsidy. Where does that go? To the sugar 
producers. So that is the first time we hit the consumer.
  For years, the sugar industry used to come to the Senate with 
righteous statements, saying: But we take nothing out of the Federal 
Treasury; we just take it out of the consumer through the subsidized 
costs that we put on the consumer--the inflated price. Well, they were 
not happy with that. So in this bill they are going into the Treasury 
for $435 million.

  So first they hit the consumer with an inflated price, which they 
benefit from because they do not allow market-priced sugar, and it is 
to the tune of $1.6 billion; and now they have set up a commodity price 
which is going to flow through to them to the tune of $430 million. If 
it were not so obscene, it would be humorous, the level at which it 
takes from the consumer and the American taxpayer and redistributes 
that in a countermarket system.
  Robert Samuelson, who is one of the better economists in our country, 
made the point that over the last two and a half decades farm subsidies 
have consumed roughly 10 percent of what we have added to our national 
debt. That is a price that in some ways I might be willing to pay if it 
were done in a manner that had some relationship to market forces 
because I believe strongly that we need a farm economy that is strong. 
But when you totally overwhelm market forces with this type of subsidy 
system, you fundamentally undermine the capacity to have a farm program 
which, first, represents production, which we need, in the commodities 
which we want, and, second, is fair to the American taxpayers and the 
American consumer.
  So I believe this bill should be rejected. I regret that it probably 
will not be rejected. But I believe the increase in spending above the 
baseline here, which is approximately $173 billion, is way beyond 
anything we can afford as an economy or as taxpayers, but, more 
importantly, the policy in this bill totally perverts the market and, 
in my opinion, drives us in the wrong direction, away from a market-
oriented farm policy toward a more collectivized farm policy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I will yield to the Senator from 
Michigan shortly, but I would like to say, for the benefit of Senators, 
that we had a list before of speakers on the farm bill. If there are 
any Senators who wish to come to the floor to speak on the farm bill, 
that list is vacant right now, so we do have time on the bill right now 
for any Senators who wish to come over and speak. If they will just 
contact us, we can get another list put up, so we can get an appointed 
time for Senators to speak on the farm bill.
  With that, Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan. And I thank her for all of her great work on 
this farm bill. I say to her constituents, the people of Michigan, 
there isn't a person who has fought harder for their interests than 
Senator Stabenow, especially in agriculture, and especially when it 
comes to the specialty crops.
  I point out that I believe Senator Stabenow holds a record. Senator 
Stabenow is the only member of the Agriculture Committee who served on 
the agriculture committee in her State legislature, served on the 
Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives, and is on the 
Agriculture Committee in the Senate. We are proud to have her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank, first, my wonderful friend 
and colleague and leader of the Senate Agriculture Committee. He is the 
person who has brought us to this point with a farm bill of which I 
believe we can all be very proud. I am so grateful to him that he has 
understood that we in Michigan have 100 different commodities; that 60 
percent of what we grow, in fact, is fruits and vegetables, and for the 
first time specialty crops are recognized by the Congress in a farm 
bill. It would not have happened without the leadership of our Senator 
from Iowa who has led this committee so ably.
  Madam President, I could not disagree more with my friend from New 
Hampshire who spoke right before me. I believe this is a bill of which 
we should be very proud. It moves in the right direction. It helps our 
family farmers. It promotes conservation. It supports rural economic 
development. It is something that I believe is good for every family in 
the country.
  I want to start, though, by thanking all of the staff who have been 
involved in this effort. There have been hours and hours--hundreds of 
hours, weekend work--in which people have been working at a number of 
points in order to get us to this comprehensive farm bill. I thank all 
those on the Senate Agriculture Committee staff and Senator Harkin's 
staff, the majority leader's staff, and I also thank Kim Love from my 
staff who has worked so diligently fighting for the interests of 
Michigan family farmers and rural communities and all of those who 
benefit from a strong farm policy. So to each of them I say: Thank you.
  We do, in fact, have a farm bill that makes sense. I came into the 
house of Representatives in 1997 and watched and participated as a 
member of the Agriculture Committee in the ``fruits,'' you might say, 
of the previous farm bill, what was called Freedom to Farm, which, 
unfortunately, left us in a situation where every year that I have been

[[Page S3994]]

a Member of Congress we have had to pass an emergency supplemental 
because the farm bill did not work. Every single year, we were back 
saying that our farmers were not going to be able to make it, that the 
policies that were put in place with the last farm bill just did not 
work.
  So we are now using a different approach, one that takes into 
consideration the economic challenges of our farmers and what is 
happening in the world around us, and new opportunities.
  I am extremely pleased that this final bill--thanks to the leadership 
of our chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee--includes, for the 
first time, a title on energy. We in Michigan welcome that. There is 
not only ethanol, which we have debated on this floor, and which I 
strongly support, but we have soybean lubricants and other 
opportunities where I believe Michigan farmers can take the lead in 
biomass fuels. It is a real opportunity for us in Michigan as well as 
around the country. This dovetails directly with our energy bill that 
was passed not long ago.
  Again, in Michigan, we have 100 different commodities. I am pleased 
with what we have been able to do with the dairy proposal and sugar, 
and with the basic commodities, when we look at what has happened in 
terms of support for all of the commodities.
  I specifically rise to speak for a moment about what is called 
specialty crops, our fruits and vegetable farmers. I am very pleased 
that a provision I offered in the committee has in fact become a part 
of this final product, for the first time, to allow a minimum of $200 
million per year to be used to purchase surplus fruits and vegetables, 
not only to help our farmers in terms of their prices and to address 
surpluses but also to have the win-win of offering those fruits and 
vegetables for our School Lunch Program, for our senior feeding 
programs. This is a win-win situation. We should be very proud of the 
fact that through our nutritional programs we now are able to 
permanently put into place a way to help our farmers and at the same 
time make fresh fruits and vegetables available to our children and to 
those who are involved in our nutrition programs.
  There is another important provision. For those states with critical 
orchards--this is the capital for our cherry farmers, our apple 
growers, and so on--the Tree Assistance Program is reauthorized to 
provide reimbursement for trees such as apple trees destroyed by 
natural disaster. We have a really serious issue in Michigan with apple 
fire blight. Coupling that with the drought we experienced in the year 
2000, we have had a devastation in many areas of our orchards. The Tree 
Assistance Program is very important and an area I fought very hard to 
include in the final bill. I am pleased it is there.
  One of the provisions that is not in the bill in its entirety and we 
will continue to work to address this year through an emergency 
supplemental is emergency assistance, on which the Senator from 
Montana, Mr. Baucus, led the effort--to add $2.4 billion in emergency 
assistance. While we did not receive the agreement of the White House 
and our colleagues in the House of Representatives to include it in the 
conference committee, we were able to provide just under $100 million 
in market loss payments for apples. That is an important first step.
  But I can say, coming from Michigan, where in the year 2000 we had 82 
out of 83 counties declared disaster areas as a result of drought, just 
making our farmers eligible for more loans is not the right approach. 
Our farmers have enough loans. What they need is some direct assistance 
during emergencies such as drought. I will continue to fight very hard 
to address that entire emergency assistance package.
  I am also pleased that we are seeing almost a doubling of funding for 
conservation and that the new provision I was pleased to cosponsor with 
our chairman, the Conservation Security Program, that provides payments 
for farmers for good environmental practices on working lands is 
included in the conservation title. Again, for the first time, 
specialty crops are included as a part of conservation payments. This 
is very important to Michigan and very important to our producers 
across the country.
  We have many rural communities, hundreds and hundreds of rural 
communities in Michigan. From the upper peninsula all the way down 
along our coast and central Michigan, we have small communities that 
have benefited and will benefit from the strengthened rural development 
title in terms of infrastructure, water and sewer projects for which 
they will be able to receive support, broadband, and other kinds of 
infrastructure needs of our rural communities. I am very pleased the 
farm bill includes a strong rural development title as well.
  For our cooperative extension employees, we are pleased to be able to 
address an issue of long-term care insurance that came to us from 
Michigan State University. I appreciate the fact that this is in the 
bill.
  A couple of other areas of note: We have placed in the bill a 
nutrition pilot program that will allow five States to focus on good 
nutrition practices and encourage consumption of fruits and vegetables. 
This is another important way we can not only promote healthy eating, 
healthy living, but also be able to promote the nutritional value of 
our fruits and vegetables. I was pleased that the pilot program was 
included in the final bill as well.
  Of course, coming from the Great Lakes State of Michigan, I fought 
very hard for the Great Lakes Soil Erosion Program to be authorized. I 
am pleased it is authorized at $5 million a year. While this program 
has received funding in the past, it has never been authorized as an 
ongoing program. Through a combination of local and Federal funds, this 
program has been successful in keeping sedimentation out of the Great 
Lakes and educating the agricultural community about erosion and water 
quality. I am very pleased that finally, for the first time, we have 
this program authorized officially as a part of the farm bill.
  We know there is a good safety net: Higher loan rates, 
countercyclical payments, updated yields, continued direct annual 
payments, as well as conservation payments that come together in a way 
to support American agriculture, to support our family farmers. I am 
very pleased to support strongly this final conference committee.
  Let me, in closing, quote from our fruit and vegetable producers of 
the country who have put out a statement which I believe should in part 
be in the Record. It says:

       We applaud the Congress and its Members who led the fight 
     to develop some of the most progressive and positive 
     agricultural policy initiatives that have been developed 
     through a farm bill process to address the unique needs of 
     the fruit and vegetable producers in the United States.

  From the standpoint of our fruit and vegetable producers, this is a 
historic bill. From the standpoint of all of our families in the 
country, this is farm policy that makes sense for all of us. Again, I 
encourage my colleagues to support the bill. I commend our chairman 
from Iowa for his vision and leadership.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I say to Senators, we have a list of 
Senators who wanted to speak and be heard on the farm bill. I don't see 
anyone here right now. I know it is the lunch hour, but now is a good 
time to come over and speak on the farm bill, if anyone so desires.
  In the interim, I rise to point out that there was some mention made 
earlier today that somehow farmers in the Midwest and some of the 
Plains States would be better off if there were basically not this bill 
but the Freedom to Farm bill. There was a bill introduced in March for 
an emergency package for this year--that was S. 2040--that would have 
spent $7.35 billion in this fiscal year. And some have asserted that 
farmers would be better off if we could just pass an emergency package 
rather than this farm bill.
  I asked my staff and the Food and Agricultural Policy Research 
Institute to do an analysis of the conference report we have before 
us, comparing that to what farmers might receive under an emergency 
package as envisioned in S. 2040. According to the FAPRI analysis of 
the conference report, Kansas farmers, for example, would receive a 
total of $1.04 billion in commodity program payments for this crop 
year, 2002. But they would receive only $795 million this year under 
Freedom to Farm,

[[Page S3995]]

plus the emergency payments that would be made under S. 2040 for the 
same period. The same is true for Iowa. We estimate that Iowa farmers 
would get $1.7 billion for this crop year under this conference report 
but would have received only $1.56 billion under S. 2040, the bill that 
was introduced in March to put through an emergency package--sort of an 
emergency package on top of the Freedom to Farm bill. In any case, 
farmers would be better off this year under the conference report. I 
want to make it very clear that this bill will apply to this crop year.

  FAPRI also did an analysis looking ahead at between now and 2007 and 
comparing what farmers would get in certain States under this bill to 
what they would get if we continued Freedom to Farm.
  For example, my Iowa farmers will have a $485 million gain, on 
average, between 2002 and 2007 over the Freedom to Farm bill. That is a 
52-percent increase.
  Illinois farmers will get a $486 million gain, on average, during 
these years. That is a 57-percent increase for Illinois.
  Kansas farmers, under this bill, will see a $402 million gain, on 
average, between 2002 and 2007 over the Freedom to Farm bill. That is a 
91-percent increase for Kansas farmers. I think that is the highest of 
any State I have seen, in terms of the difference between Freedom to 
Farm and what we have in this bill.
  Minnesota farmers get a $335 million gain, a 55-percent increase.
  Nebraska farmers get a $380 million gain, on average, under this bill 
over the Freedom to Farm bill. That is a 68-percent increase for 
Nebraska.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this analysis done by FAPRI printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Midwest, Plains States Beneficiaries of Farm Security and Rural 
                Investment Act of 2002 (FAPRI analysis)

       Iowa farmers, $485 million gain on average between 2002-
     2007 over Freedom to Farm (a 52 percent increase).
       Illinois farmers, $486 million gain on average between 
     2002-2007 over Freedom to Farm (a 57 percent increase).
       Kansas farmers, $402 million gain on average between 2002-
     2007 over Freedom to Farm (a 91 percent increase).
       Minnesota farmers, a $335 million gain on average between 
     2002-2007 over Freedom to Farm (a 55 percent increase).
       Nebraska farmers, a $380 million gain on average between 
     2002-2007 over Freedom to Farm (a 68 percent increase).
       Indiana farmers, a $243 million gain on average between 
     2002-2007 over Freedom to Farm (59 percent increase).
       Montana farmers, $102 million gain on average between 2002-
     2007 over Freedom to Farm (88 percent increase).
       South Dakota farmers, $177 million gain on average between 
     2002-2007 over Freedom to Farm (57 percent increase).
       North Dakota farmers, $201 million gain on average between 
     2002-2007 over Freedom to Farm (60 percent increase).

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, it would be a huge mistake to walk away 
from this bill--for farmers all over the upper Midwest. It would be a 
mistake for farmers in Michigan, and especially in New England. In New 
England, the dairy farmers have been helped immensely: Maine, New 
Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island--all of 
the dairy States.
  One other group has been helped immensely, and that is the small 
specialty crop farmers, those who grow blueberries, potatoes, and other 
kinds of vegetables, including apples, and there are many in New 
England. They will be helped immensely.
  As the Senator from Michigan stated, we have a $200 million annual 
floor on purchases of specialty crops. That is what the farmers in New 
England grow. They have never had anything like this. It wasn't in the 
Freedom to Farm bill. If this conference report is defeated, that means 
New England farmers will not have anything. They will have nothing. 
Under this farm bill, they are going to be a part of our agricultural 
structure for the future.
  It would be a shame to walk away from this today--walk away from the 
farmers in New England, the farmers in Michigan, or in the upper 
Northwest. It would be a shame to walk away from the great strides we 
have made in nutrition. I pointed out earlier that the 1996 Freedom to 
Farm bill, under which we are operating, didn't even have a nutrition 
section. That was taken up in welfare reform later. This time around we 
have kept nutrition under the farm bill. We have made a huge increase 
in the nutrition programs. It would be a shame to walk away from that.
  When you look at the broad aspects of America, this conference report 
deserves to be supported. Again, if somebody asks me can I defend and 
support everything in this bill, the answer is no. But this is a 
compromise bill. This is a large country. What benefits one area may 
not benefit another. All of the support we have in there for specialty 
crops, the support we have in other areas that do not affect my State, 
I support it because I recognize that farmers in New England and all 
over the country need help and support. We need to promote better 
consumption of fruits and vegetables in this country. That is what is 
strong in this bill. So it is a good bill for America.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum as we await the arrival 
of those who want to speak on the farm bill, either in opposition or in 
support. I ask that the time during the quorum call be divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time to the Senator from Minnesota?
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for being a great member 
of our Senate Agriculture Committee. Senator Dayton has been a personal 
friend of mine going back 20-some years. It was absolutely a bright 
moment when he came to the Senate and got on the Agriculture Committee.
  I thank him for all his input on this farm bill. I say without 
hesitation many of the provisions in this bill that help our dairy 
farmers, help conservation, got our loan rates up for our farmers bears 
the imprint of the Senator from Minnesota, and I thank him for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank the chairman 
of the committee. I return the compliment. He has been a stupendous 
leader of the committee most of the time I have been there. We actually 
have two Minnesotans on the Senate Agriculture Committee--my senior 
colleague, Senator Wellstone and I. Heretofore, for a few years, we did 
not have any representation on the committee.
  I believe this farm bill is a better bill for Minnesota and it is a 
better bill for America as a result of our efforts. Without the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Harkin, we would not have 
accomplished any of this. His leadership has been extraordinary.
  I hear some of my colleagues raising objections to certain measures 
in this bill. In the context of what we walked into in January of 2001 
when I joined the Senate and that committee and the previous conditions 
in the agricultural sector, there is a disconnect between what they 
seem to be objecting to and the circumstances that existed--which, 
frankly, I was not a part of--when I came on the committee in January 
of 2001.
  The Senator from Iowa was not even the chairman of the committee at 
that time. He was the ranking member. Our distinguished ranking member, 
Senator Lugar, was chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. The 
Republicans had been in charge of the Senate for the previous 6 years. 
There had been a Republican chairman of that committee for that period 
of time.
  This means that the 1996 farm bill, if my recollection is correct, 
was constructed and passed by that committee, and the full Senate and 
House, both under Republican leadership. There was a Democratic 
President, but they undertook that initiative.
  I traveled the State in the year 2000 campaigning for office and 
listening to farmers all over Minnesota. The chairman of the committee 
was kind enough to join me for the day. I heard from farmers in 
Minnesota that they were in desperate condition. I looked at the market 
prices then in Minnesota, and

[[Page S3996]]

commodity prices were lower in the year 2000 than they were when I ran 
for the Senate for the first time in 1982. That was not even inflation 
adjusted. This is just nominal dollars. The prices for corn, wheat, 
soybeans, and milk were lower in Minnesota in the year 2000 than they 
were in 1982.

  None of the many products farmers have to buy to stay in business--
such as tractors, diesel fuel, equipment, feed--have stayed at the same 
price. In fact, they have gone up quite significantly.
  When we came into the majority in the Senate and I was joined by my 
colleague, Senator Wellstone, on the committee, the Minnesota farm 
economy was in very desperate straits. In many areas of Minnesota, the 
farm economy is the economy. It is not just farmers. It is every 
person, every business owner, every employee of a business, every 
school board member--everybody in Greater Minnesota, the majority of 
our State, knows their livelihood, the lifeblood of their communities, 
of their churches, of their schools depends on a healthy agricultural 
economy, which depends on a market price, which depends on the ability 
to sell your product in the marketplace and make a profit, make enough 
money to feed your family, buy what you need, and those dollars 
multiply through the local economy.
  We have not seen that kind of prosperity in Greater Minnesota, in the 
agricultural economy of our State, for many years.
  The Federal Government has stepped in, as it had to, given the 
failure of Freedom to Farm, with supplemental payments, with double 
AMTA payments. If it had not, we would not have farms anywhere in 
Minnesota or they would be few and operating under large corporate 
auspices. The real people, the farmers would not be there.
  Those who criticize us for going back, as they say, to a Federal role 
in agriculture should be reminded, in fairness, if they had their way 
as the architect of this bill in 1996, there would not have been any 
supplemental payments; there would not have been any disaster relief. 
There would have simply been a total reliance on the marketplace and 
with prices that were going down through the floor and into the 
subbasement with no supply management whatsoever.
  Another one of the criticisms I heard in the last couple of days is 
we are encouraging overproduction. The 1996 farm bill took all the caps 
off production individually and collectively: Produce whatever you can; 
produce what you must to survive. Once again, they are criticizing 
something that is very much their own creation.
  Another criticism I have heard recently is we are somehow putting too 
much of the taxpayers' money into the farm program. Again, coming from 
a farm State, I know how vital this Federal role in agriculture is to 
the economic lifeblood of Minnesota. I wish we did not have to put this 
much money into supporting and keeping our farmers alive. I wish they 
could get every dollar they need in the marketplace. If we had had a 
good farm program over the last number of years in this country, 
frankly, that is where they would be getting their price today. But 
that is not the case.
  In fact, the farm index for this country is now at the lowest level 
it has been since the Great Depression. That is the price we get for 
all farm commodities in America divided by the cost of producing all 
those commodities. It has dropped from 100 percent in the years 1990 to 
1992, which was the baseline, to 80 percent today. In 10 years, in just 
one decade, the prices farmers receive all across this country as a 
percentage of the cost of producing all of those products has dropped 
by 20 percent. It dropped below the break-even point, which is why so 
many farmers have gone bankrupt, and why, without these initial 
payments, thousands of farmers across America will go bankrupt.

  This is the situation the chairman of this committee inherited, and I 
think his leadership has been nothing short of miraculous and 
magnificent. The title of the movie ``Miracle Worker'' really applies 
to the distinguished Senator from Iowa. To put this bill together with 
all the differences of view, diversity, forms of agriculture, sizes, 
and different philosophical and political perspectives, it is a true 
miracle, one that was extraordinarily well done, one that would have 
been done--if the chairman had been assisted by everybody involved--
some time ago.
  Another criticism I heard in the last couple of days is that this 
bill should have been passed already. Farmers have been chafing from 
uncertainty and lenders have been chafing from uncertainty. I have 
heard that from Minnesota bankers and farmers all over the State, but I 
am thinking to myself: Despite the crisis that September 11 brought on 
all of us, despite anthrax, which I believe drove the Senator from Iowa 
and his staff out of their office in the Hart Building, the Agriculture 
Committee conducted its hearings, marked up a bill, and had it on the 
Senate floor last December so that we had 2\1/2\ weeks before our break 
to debate it and pass it and send it on to conference with the House. 
If we had done that expeditiously at the very beginning, we would have 
had that bill in conference. It could have been conferenced and signed 
by the President Christmas Eve or before.
  Instead, some would not permit that to happen. We, Senator Daschle, 
the majority leader, tried three times to invoke cloture. Three times 
we had the majority of the Senators voting to do so but we could not 
get the 60 votes necessary.
  So we left. We came back, just before the time of the President's 
State of the Union, without having passed a farm bill. So now I am 
hearing from people who voted against cloture in December three times, 
who delayed it by 5 weeks, that somehow it is somebody else's fault 
that we did not have a bill in March or February.
  We could have had a bill, we should have had a bill, and they ought 
to take responsibility. To come back today or yesterday and say that it 
is somehow the chairman's fault or somebody else's fault, I think is 
irresponsible.
  We have a bill that fortunately is well worth waiting for. It did not 
have to be waited for, but it was really well worth it in terms of the 
State of Minnesota.
  I inquire of the Chair how much more time I have available.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 10 minutes.
  Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that the chairman yield to me an 
additional 4 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 4 additional minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. DAYTON. This is a tremendous bill for Minnesota, and on behalf of 
our farmers I thank Senator Harkin. I want to pay tribute to my 
colleague Senator Wellstone who had a huge role in this. He has had a 
longtime friendship with the committee chairman. I see his 
fingerprints, his hard work, and his effectiveness in the Senate all 
over the bill that went out of the Senate committee, the bill that was 
passed on this floor and has now been incorporated into the conference 
report.
  There was an article yesterday in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, one of 
our leading newspapers, that said, by an independent analysis, the bill 
would bring $1.16 billion a year into the Minnesota economy. That is a 
huge increase in dollars coming out of the agricultural sector of our 
State and into our entire State economy. That means school districts, 
that means city budgets, that means church contributions, that means so 
much in the lifeblood of Minnesota that will be increased and improved 
as a result of this bill. I want to pay tribute to Senator Wellstone 
for his leadership in bringing that about.
  Would that these dollars would come out of market prices. I believe 
as this bill unfolds with the counter-cyclical aspect to it, and some 
of the other features, that more of this bill will be paid for in the 
marketplace, not out of tax revenues. As I say, though, without it, 
frankly, there would not be any farms in Minnesota for anybody to be 
supporting.
  As others have said, in terms of conservation, another one of the 
chairman's initiatives, in terms of energy, combined with the energy 
bill which was passed in the Senate, the funds that are going now in 
the initiatives for biofuels, for ethanol, for soy diesel, and other 
products, which I am convinced over the next 10 to 20 years is going to 
be essential to this Nation weaning itself from complete reliance

[[Page S3997]]

on oil-based fuels, it is tremendously important. This bill and the 
energy bill combined will lead us into that direction.
  In the area of dairy, Senator Harkin, and Senator Leahy from Vermont, 
have succeeded in accomplishing something that I think dairy producers 
in America would have thought heretofore was truly impossible, and that 
is to create one market for the entire country, to make available 
across the Nation the same terms, the same pricing supports, the same 
formula for price support levels from the Federal Government. That has 
not existed in the 16-plus years of Federal dairy policy and that is an 
extraordinary accomplishment in itself.

  This bill is not perfect, as others have said, but it is awfully 
good. It is so much better than what it is replacing, and given the 
conditions which it is stepping in to replace, to be picking at a penny 
here or a day or a week of something, when this bill is in place and, 
yes--when this bill is fully in place, Minnesotans in terms of prices 
for soybeans, for wheat, for dairy are going to be so much better off 
than they would have been if present law had been continued.
  I, again, thank the chairman of the committee. I urge my colleagues 
to do as I will do, which is to vote in favor of this conference 
report.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 
minutes off of the time of Senator Lugar to the Senator from Nebraska, 
Mr. Hagel. At the completion of the statement of Senator Hagel, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. Carnahan, be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report accompanying the farm bill.
  When the current farm bill debate began more than two years ago, 
agriculture leaders and Members of Congress said a new approach and a 
new policy was needed to face the challenges of a new century. The farm 
bill we debate today is not a new approach, nor is it a new policy, but 
rather it is a step backward into an antique farm policy of more 
government command and control.
  This bill could have been a good farm bill had it incorporated some 
of the innovative ideas that had been put forward--farmers savings 
accounts; more focus on farmer income support through direct, decoupled 
payments; a more significant role for rural development; giving USDA 
the ability to review environmental and endangered species legislation; 
initiatives and safeguards to keep our farm program trade compliant 
with international trade laws; expanded crop insurance programs; and 
real payment limits.
  Instead, we have been presented with an election-year document whose 
glaring shortcomings far outweigh its virtues. This bill will continue 
to expand a policy that ensures commodity prices will drop lower and 
remain low, and that land prices and rents will continue to go up. As 
one farmer in Nebraska wrote me yesterday, ``This farm bill is the same 
old thing, and will do nothing to reverse the trend of fewer and fewer 
farmers on the land. The number of farmers in Nebraska under the age of 
35 is fading fast. The status quo represented by this bill will not 
help, and we do not have a lot of time to change things.''
  As another constituent of mine said, ``This bill will not help 
farmers--it will only help bushels, bales and pounds.'' It focuses on 
incentives for more production--whether the market wants it or not.
  There are positive provisions in this Report. It contains a modest 
energy title, which promotes renewable fuel. It substantially increases 
funding for conservation programs. And it does not contain programs 
that purchase local water rights with federal funds. But the negatives 
vastly outweigh the positives.
  Of the many problems with this farm bill, one of the most serious is 
the lack of real payment limits. Currently, two-thirds of all federal 
payments go to 10 percent of the recipients--the largest operators and 
landowners. These lopsided payments encourage and subsidize 
overproduction; drive up land prices, land values and rentals; and 
allow large farm operations to outbid and buy up smaller and mid-sized 
producers with taxpayer dollars.
  The payment limits in the Senate farm bill were completely gutted by 
the Conferees, despite having passed the Senate with 66 votes, and the 
House with 265 votes.
  Without real payment limits, this farm bill will not only widen the 
disparity gap between small and large farmers, it will make it much 
more difficult in the future to gain support from non-rural Members of 
Congress. Without real payment limits, we risk derailing public support 
for the entire farm program in the future.

  The farm bill should not be welfare for small farmers. But Government 
should not be financing the demise of the family farm. There is no 
justification for unlimited government payments.
  Furthermore, we cannot overlook the effects this farm bill will have 
on the cost of farmland. Unlimited government payments will only 
encourage large farm operations and wealthy, absentee landowners to buy 
more ground, no matter how low the commodity prices drop.
  The Omaha World Herald recently reported that Nebraska farmland 
values increased by 17 percent last year, despite 2001 being one of the 
worst years on record for crop prices. The USDA reports that nearly a 
quarter of current farmland value is due to government payments.
  Yet, in many cases, the people who actually farm the land do not 
benefit from higher land prices. Nearly half of U.S. farmers rent at 
least some of their farm ground. For these farmers, this bill means 
they will be faced with even higher cash rents.
  No farm bill is perfect. But this one has enough problems that we 
will be modifying it soon. One of the big question marks is this bill's 
timing. The new farm program will go into effect this growing season--
covering the 2002 crop.
  That means while farmers are in the fields tending to this year's 
crops, they will also have to worry about updating their yields and 
acres, and doing other necessary paperwork to be eligible for the new 
program's fixed payments, loan rates and counter-cyclical payments. 
This is bad timing and will create massive confusion for farmers.
  The Senate should have seriously considered Senator Roberts' 
emergency assistance bill, which would have provided farmers with a 
real and instant safety net this year. Under the new farm bill, it will 
take four checks and more than a year for producers to get what they 
would have received right away from a supplemental measure.
  Also, by relying heavily on increased loan rates and moving away from 
payments not tied to production--price support instead of income 
support, this farm bill does not provide much of a ``safety net'' for 
those farmers who fail to produce a crop. That is a very important 
detail considering the severe drought in many parts of the country--
including much of western Nebraska.
  They are calling this bill the ``Farm Security and Rural Investment 
Act.'' That is a bit misleading.
  Of the $73.5 billion in new farm bill spending over the next decade, 
only $870 million--about 1 percent will go to rural development. 
Compared to the Senate-passed farm bill, this farm bill cuts rural 
development in half. That means phasing-down or completely eliminating 
important programs--like value-added projects for farmers that would 
help restore competition in the marketplace; rural business grants; and 
high-speed Internet access for rural areas. This is a serious 
shortchanging of rural America, especially considering that even before 
the bill becomes law, it is estimated to run at least $9 billion over 
budget.
  Consider that in Nebraska, 61 of 93 counties have lost at least 10 
percent of their population since 1980. Nationally, 556 rural counties 
have lost 10 percent or more of their residents. A sensible, relevant 
and visionary farm policy would provide a better balance between 
commodity support and rural investment than what is now in this bill.
  Soon after the Senate farm bill passed, Senator Byron Dorgan of North 
Dakota and I introduced the ``New Homestead Economic Opportunity Act.'' 
This legislation, quite

[[Page S3998]]

simply, would attract individuals and businesses back to rural areas 
that have been devastated by the restructuring of agriculture. Our bill 
would encourage young people to live and work in rural areas suffering 
population loss. It would create real incentives for new home and 
business construction, while protecting the value of existing homes. 
This is the type of legislation that should be a key part of any 
agricultural policy aimed at improving the lives of those who feed our 
nation and the world, to assure those next generations feel they have a 
future in agricultural production and rural America.
  Another glaring problem of this legislation is that it seriously 
impairs the best hope for American agriculture's long-term viability 
and vitality--trade. America's ability to create new markets for its 
products and compete in those markets--is the key to America's future 
and our competitive position in the world. Our relationships with 
trading partners are very important to our agricultural producers. 
Exports account for 25 percent of gross cash sales for U.S. farmers and 
livestock producers--a projected total of $57 billion for this year.
  This report should have included Senator Grassley's trade amendment, 
which would have helped us avoid potential trade problems, which this 
bill will surely bring, while causing significant problems in our trade 
relationships.
  This farm bill takes us back down the dark road of tired, old farm 
policy. It is a glorified carbon copy of market-distorting legislation 
that will accelerate the vicious cycle of overproduction, low crop 
prices and soaring land values. Is this where we want U.S. agriculture 
to be six years from now? Is this the best way to improve America's 
agricultural competitiveness?
  We can do better--we should have done better. I believe we will be 
forced to do better before this six-year farm bill expires. That means 
we could be revisiting this issue before six years is up.
  There are many other gaping holes in this bill. The Senate's ban on 
packer ownership of livestock was stripped, without even a study to 
replace it. Farmers Savings Accounts was completely ignored. And by 
omitting the Senate farm bill's Cuban trade provision, which would have 
allowed private financing for food and medicine, this bill punishes 
U.S. agriculture by adhering to the counter-productive strategy of 
using food as a weapon.
  The work ethic of our agriculture producers is the best in the world. 
America's farmers and ranchers produce the highest quality agricultural 
goods in the world. As a Nebraskan and as an American, I am proud of 
that effort and record. American agriculture can compete in the world 
markets. This farm bill should be allowing U.S. producers the 
opportunity to compete and succeed not holding them back and placing 
blockades in front of them.
  This conference report is the result of election year politics at its 
worst--unimaginative legislation that throws money at complex problems 
requiring more than just additional dollars. The winners will be large 
agribusiness, big landowners and large farm operations.
  This bill will pass the Senate, as it has passed the House. We will 
need to come back and fix it one of these days. Maybe then, we will get 
it right. However, there is not much margin of error left--time and 
markets are not on our side.
  I would hope my colleagues think about the consequences of this 
legislation. This is the wrong farm policy, at the worst possible time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Missouri is recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, the farm bill conference report we are 
considering today is good for American agriculture. Historically, what 
has been good for American agriculture has been good for America.
  I raised my family on a farm in rural America. I have traveled 
throughout rural Missouri for many years. I believe rural America's 
future can be limitless if we make the proper investments now. Because 
our farmers feed the world, the destiny of our Nation and rural America 
are intertwined.
  It troubles me to see our rural communities struggle to compete in 
the 21st century. Too often dwindling populations and lack of 
opportunity leave our rural communities contemplating a future much 
different from their proud past. Many youth leave and do not return to 
their family farms or family businesses, the communities that 
generations before them had called home. Those who determine to remain 
and farm the land deserve a safety net for their labors, and they have 
not had one for the past 6 years.
  We have told rural America that help is on the way. Here it is at 
last. The farm bill conference report will play a large role in helping 
rural America and American agriculture to reach its full potential. The 
strong commodity title will give our entire agricultural industry a 
degree of certainty when making business decisions, and it will provide 
additional support for farmers when times are lean.
  This farm bill's strong energy and rural development titles will help 
our farmers add value to their products, while decreasing our reliance 
on foreign oil. I have visited many innovative Missouri farmers who now 
are forming new-generation cooperatives for ethanol production. Their 
efforts help us create sustainable jobs in rural areas. This farm bill 
places our reliance less on the Middle East and more on the Middle 
West.
  The rural development title provides our communities with more 
opportunities to enhance basic services such as fire protection, 
wastewater and drinking water programs, and much needed rural business 
investment programs.

  I am also pleased this bill commits $100 million toward broadband 
access, to improve telecommunications in underserved areas. It is 
important that those who live, work, and raise families in rural areas 
have access to the technology of the 21st century.
  Missouri is the confluence of American agriculture. Parts of northern 
Missouri resemble the Great Plains. Southeast Missouri's agriculture 
has much in common with the Deep South. Missouri ranks second 
nationally in the number of farms in the State and second in beef 
cattle production. We rank among the top 10 in production of soybeans, 
corn, rice, cotton, and hay. Farmers and business people all across 
Missouri support this farm bill because it is fair to all segments of 
our agriculture industry. A farm bill that is equitable to Missouri's 
diverse agricultural base is fair to the Nation.
  I joined my colleagues from States with traditionally southern crops 
in urging the conferees to produce a compromise that is fair to all 
regions. Southern crops, namely rice and cotton in my State, are highly 
capital intensive. Family farmers growing these crops would not be 
competitive if the payment limitations provisions were to stand as 
passed in the Senate. The payment limitations compromise will preserve 
the viability of Missouri's rice and cotton producers while denying 
benefits to millionaires and others whom farm prices are not intended 
to benefit. I commend the farm bill conferees for producing a fair 
compromise. I also commend Senator Harkin and Senator Daschle for their 
outstanding leadership.
  Agriculture and a vibrant rural economy are critical to my State and 
to the entire Nation. I will be pleased to vote for the farm bill that 
I sincerely believe marks a new beginning for American agriculture.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
South Dakota, after which I ask unanimous consent, if there is no one 
on the opposite side who shows up, that the Senator from Montana be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to support and discuss the 
new farm bill, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, 
legislation the Senate will send to President Bush for his signature. 
This new farm bill is not perfect. If this farm bill contained all of 
the initiatives I helped include in the Senate-passed bill, it could 
have been more beneficial to South Dakota agriculture, which generated 
$17 billion in economic activity in 2000 to South

[[Page S3999]]

Dakota's economy, approximately twice that of the second largest 
industry in my state. However, overall, it is a modest step in the 
right direction. I have advocated for the passage and implementation of 
a new farm bill since the inadequacies of the current program were 
revealed in 1997, a time when a significant drop in crop prices 
eventually developed into a longer-term price crisis. Therefore, I look 
forward to the President signing this important legislation and 
anticipate the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, will take 
seriously their job to implement the new farm bill in a timely manner. 
I hope that USDA can administer the new bill for the 2002 crop year. I 
will work with USDA to make sure South Dakota's farmers and ranchers 
are treated fairly and appropriately under the new farm bill.
  I wish to take this opportunity to thank my friend and colleague, 
Senator Daschle, for his enduring leadership and tireless work to 
finalize the farm bill. From day one, he has been determined to pass 
legislation that would benefit America's family farmers and ranchers. 
Additionally, I commend Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Harkin 
for his persistence in shepherding this complex farm bill and reaching 
a compromise with our House colleagues in the conference committee, 
despite the substantial policy differences between the Senate and House 
bills. From the beginning of the farm bill process, Senator Harkin 
listened to my concerns, included my initiatives for South Dakota's 
farmers and ranchers in the Senate bill, and resisted many efforts by 
the special interests to remove these important reforms from the final 
bill. I thank as well, Brian Jennings, from my Senate staff, for his 
excellent work on this bill.
  Most importantly, however, I am pleased that we finally have a farm 
bill for South Dakota's agricultural producers, who have been busy with 
fieldwork and preparations for the 2002 crop year. Indeed, South 
Dakota's winter wheat crop has long-emerged from dormancy, winter wheat 
harvest will begin in the South within days, and my State's farmers 
have planted much of the spring wheat crop and other small grains 
already. Row crop seeding is underway in South Dakota, with over ten 
percent of the corn crop in-the-ground, and soybean and sunflower 
planting will begin soon. Last year, South Dakota farmers produced 370 
million bushels of corn and approximately 140 million bushels of 
soybeans, making us the nation's eighth largest producer of those 
commodities. Additionally, South Dakota ranks second in the nation as a 
producer of sunflowers, flaxseed, hay, and proso millet, and we're 
within the top 10 States in wheat production. Obviously, it is critical 
that we act quickly to move this legislation to the President's desk, 
allow USDA to begin implementation, and let South Dakota producers know 
how the legislation will affect their operations.

  Americans are the envy of the world because we enjoy the most 
affordable and the safest food, spending only 10 percent of our 
household income on groceries. Yet today, our agricultural producers 
receive about half the price for crops they pocketed 6 years ago. In 
some cases, production costs exceed farm income. Furthermore, inclement 
weather has destroyed crop and forage production, while meatpacker 
concentration, the strength of the U.S. dollar, and unfair trade 
agreements have contributed to the demise of independent producers. 
Without policy changes to provide a much needed booster-shot to the 
farm economy, USDA estimates that net farm income in 2002 could drop 20 
percent, its lowest level since the 1980s farm crisis. Without a new 
farm bill, our Nation would be unable to provide economic security to 
farmers, enjoy environmental benefits, and maintain food security and 
affordability. I am hopeful the passage of the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act will help forestall the economic decline in rural 
America and help farmers, ranchers, and rural communities return to 
prosperity and growth.
  South Dakota's farmers and ranchers have made it clear to me that 
they want to derive income from the marketplace, not the government. 
For that to happen, Congress must mend the income safety-net and 
restore fair competition to agricultural markets. That is why I worked 
hard in the Senate months ago to include many meaningful provisions in 
the farm bill, provisions that were priority-items for South Dakota 
producers. A number of my initiatives were included the final bill in 
some form, while others were dismissed by the House conferees and 
stripped from this farm bill. In summary, this farm bill meets most, 
but not all, of the objectives I set out to accomplish when we began to 
develop and write the bill last year. Namely, this bill secures the 
income safety-net for farmers, restores modest market competition for 
livestock producers, greatly increases our commitment to conservation, 
devotes more assistance to value-added agriculture and rural 
development, and focuses new attention to home-grown energy solutions. 
Mr. President, this bill provides meaningful reform in farm policy, and 
I'm pleased with a number of provisions.
  First, the farm bill contains language from S. 280, the Consumer 
Right-to-Know Act, legislation I sponsored to require country-of-origin 
labeling for beef, lamb, pork, fruits, vegetables, fish, and peanuts. 
Despite strong opposition from the Bush administration, the 
meatpackers, and other special interests, we prevailed in this effort 
that I have worked on since I was in the House of Representatives. In 
fact, my first meat labeling bill was introduced in 1992, 10 years ago. 
Western South Dakota cow-calf ranchers will be proud to know that the 
standard for ``U.S. beef'' under my provision will require it to come 
from cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States, despite 
a last-minute campaign by opponents to allow foreign cattle to qualify 
as U.S. beef. Although the labeling program must first undergo a 2-year 
voluntary implementation period, consumers will eventually be able to 
select meat and other food products by their country-of-origin at 
grocery stores. While the House-passed farm bill merely covered fruits 
and vegetables, the Senate-passed bill included an amendment I worked 
on with Senator Wellstone to cover meat and other products. The 
conference committee nearly prevented the labeling of meat because it 
was not in the House farm bill, but, I am pleased that we overcame 
their opposition. I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to all of 
the South Dakota farm organizations for supporting this legislation. 
Furthermore, I wish to commend the national farm and consumer groups 
that helped lead the way on this effort, including, the National 
Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau, R-CALF USA, the Consumer 
Federation of America, the National Consumers League, and a host of 
others too numerous to mention. In fact, over 200 organizations in the 
U.S. have written me in support of this provision. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the 
National Farmers Union regarding the passage of country-of-origin 
labeling in the farm bill.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       National Farmers Union,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnson: On behalf of the 300,000 family farm 
     and ranch members of the National Farmers Union (NFU), I 
     write to commend you for your leadership and your tireless 
     efforts to enact policies that benefit our nation's 
     independent producers.
       NFU enthusiastically congratulates you on your success in 
     the inclusion of mandatory country of origin labeling for 
     fresh produce and meat products in the conference-agreed farm 
     bill. Unequivocally, this is a hard-won and a hard earned 
     victory for our producers, growers and consumers. We greatly 
     appreciate your steadfast determination in the face of 
     sizable opposition to carry through in conference the 
     provisions of your original bill that require products 
     receiving a U.S. label must be ``born, raised, and 
     slaughtered'' in the U.S.
       NFU lauds your assiduous efforts to enact a prohibition of 
     packer ownership of livestock. You were the first Senator to 
     introduce the packer ban as stand-alone legislation. And you 
     were a leader in the fight as your legislation gained 
     considerable attention during the farm bill debate, drawing 
     as many supporters from the countryside as opponents in 
     agribusiness. While the large meat packers and agribusiness 
     were able to obstruct the packer ban from being included in 
     the final version of the farm bill, we know the issue remains 
     a priority as both the

[[Page S4000]]

     House and the Senate Agriculture Committee Chairmen have 
     stated they will hold hearings. Likewise, the tremendous 
     grassroots support for a ban on packer ownership continues to 
     grow.
       NFU, again, congratulates your success for country of 
     origin labeling. We look forward to working with you in 
     enacting the packer ban provision as well as other 
     legislation that increases competition and transparency in 
     agricultural markets. You are champion to family farm and 
     ranchers across the country.
           Sincerely,
                                               David Frederickson,
                                                        President.

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, commodity programs in the new farm bill 
will furnish America's farmers with three features to secure the farm 
income safety-net. These commodity programs will maintain the planting 
flexibility so popular under the current program, but, they will also 
provide more predictable support when prices are low. First, the farm 
bill will continue the practice of providing farmers of program crops 
with marketing assistance loans or loan deficiency payments, LDPs, to 
help them market their crops and manage price risk. These 9-month non-
recourse loans provide farmers with the necessary support to make 
market-based decisions. Second, the farm bill will also continue to 
provide de-coupled direct, or fixed, payments to farmers regardless of 
price or production. The 1996 farm bill first introduced these direct 
payments, known as AMTA or production flexibility contract payments. 
Finally, the farm bill will complement these two payment features with 
a new counter-cyclical payment program to provide additional support 
when crop prices fall below profitable levels. These new counter-
cyclical payments will also be de-coupled in a sense, because they're 
not directly tied to what a farmer plants. I am hopeful the revisions 
made to commodity programs will help restore and strengthen the safety-
net for our agricultural producers.
  South Dakota farmers will be pleased to know that for the first time 
since 1981, the farm bill will include a significant increase in loan 
rates which are the basis for marketing assistance loans and LDPs. I 
believe that increasing loan rates is one of the best ways to mend the 
farm income safety-net. First, loan rates are tied to actual 
production, instead of decoupled like direct and the new counter-
cyclical payments. Second, marketing loans are available at harvest, 
when prices are historically the lowest during a crop year. Third, 
marketing loans or LDPs are paid on 100 percent of production, not a 
partial percentage. Fourth, the loans go to actual producers who raise 
crops, rather than absentee landlords. I am also pleased that producers 
of honey and wool in South Dakota will benefit from the inclusion of 
marketing loans for their products. This is important because South 
Dakota is the Nation's fourth largest honey and sheep producer. 
Finally, I would note that for the very first time, cold season legumes 
such as chickpeas, peas, and lentils will receive marketing assistance 
loan support. The inclusion of these so-called pulse crops in the 
marketing loan program is similar to S. 977, legislation that I 
cosponsored to provide for marketing loans and LDPs for pulse crops. 
Cold season legumes are gaining in popularity in South Dakota, and I am 
pleased to help provide certainty for farmers wishing to plant them.
  Individual farmer crop-yields used to calculate support under the 
direct and counter-cyclical payment programs are critical to South 
Dakota's farmers because our yields have dramatically improved in 
recent years. Despite strong opposition from the House, the new farm 
bill will reward South Dakota farmers for their productivity with a 
modest yield update permitted for new counter-cyclical payments. This 
is good news for farmers in my State because yields have increased 
significantly since the 1981-85 period, a time frame used to base 
direct payments under the House farm bill and AMTA payments under the 
1996 farm bill. For instance, according to the South Dakota Farm 
Service Agency, the House bill would base payments on a 64 bushel-per-
acre corn yield, but the Senate bill would account for a modern-day 108 
bushel-per-acre corn crop, a 44-bushel increase to reflect realities in 
corn production. A corn farmer from Brown County, SD, called my office 
just yesterday to note that his yields are remarkably better than the 
levels set in the House-passed farm bill. Moreover, the House farm bill 
would base wheat payments on a 24 bushel-per-acre wheat yield, yet most 
wheat farmers in South Dakota produce wheat crops yielding 
approximately 36 bushels-to-the-acre today. Wheat producers in Stanley 
County would agree that given a choice, they'd rather operate under the 
rules of the Senate bill which rewards them for yield improvements. The 
final agreement will allow farmers to use updated and proven yields 
from the last four years and apply a 93.5-percent factor to that 
updated yield for their counter-cyclical payments. While the new 
counter-cyclical payments may be made based upon these updated yields, 
the fact that the House forced the conference committee to not update 
yields for direct payments is a significant and costly problem that 
will take money out the pockets of South Dakota farmers and continue to 
provide the bulk of direct payments to large cotton and rice operations 
in the South. According to calculations by the South Dakota Farm 
Service Agency, if the final farm bill had rewarded farmers by allowing 
them to prove-up modern-day yields to base direct payments, as the 
Senate bill did, then these payments to South Dakota producers would 
have doubled from $135 million to $271 million per year. While ordinary 
observers may not think a yield update is a crucial element in the farm 
bill, consider the following. If the new farm bill froze crop yields at 
levels in the House bill, farmers in South Dakota would be forced to 
use yield data nearly 30 years old by the time this farm bill expires, 
meaning young farmers may be using data older than they are to 
calculate price support.

  I am very pleased that under the new farm bill conservation programs 
will experience the most significant amount of funding ever in a farm 
bill, an 80-percent increase over current levels. I believe farm 
programs should place more emphasis on conservation initiatives that 
benefit crop farmers, livestock producers, and American taxpayers, who 
realize tangible benefits from clean air, clean water, and more 
wildlife habitat. I fought to increase our investment in conservation 
because I desire to help farmers keep lands in working condition while 
protecting our soil, water, and habitat. The most popular conservation 
program, the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, will be expanded from 
36.4 to 39.2 million acres under the new farm bill. I am pleased to 
note that the Farmable Wetlands Program, the Conservation Security 
Program, the new Grasslands Reserve Program, and a new-and-improved 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, will all be in the 
final farm bill as well. Inclusion of the Farmable Wetlands program is 
modeled after the pilot legislation I authored in 2000, S. 2980, the 
Conservation of Farmable Wetlands Act. The continuation of this program 
will ensure farmable wetlands are eligible for enrollment in the 
Conservation Security Program Chairman Harkin included in the farm bill 
is similar to S. 932, the Conservation Security Act that Senator Harkin 
and I sponsored. These programs provide a positive contribution to the 
stability of our delicate ecosystem, while providing landowners and 
producers adequate incentives to participate. It is also important to 
note that if the United States is planning to continue working within 
the World Trade Organization conservation programs provide so-called 
green payments to producers that do not violate spending limitations 
established by the WTO.

  I worked with Chairman Harkin in developing the new and innovative 
idea for an ``energy title'' in the Senate farm bill because it's time 
to recognize that U.S. farmers and ranchers can help develop home-grown 
solutions to energy problems. While the House-passed farm bill did not 
include this energy title, the final farm bill will contain one for the 
very first time. It will launch a number of new initiatives, including 
a biobased products purchasing requirement for Federal agencies if the 
products are comparable in price, performance, and availability to 
traditional products. The farm bill will also establish a new program 
to educate consumers about the benefits of bio-diesel use. Moreover, 
the energy title will provide grants and loans to farmers, ranchers and 
rural small businesses for renewable energy systems

[[Page S4001]]

and energy efficiency improvements, and, a complementary grant and loan 
program is established so that farmers, ranchers, and rural small 
businesses can purchase renewable energy systems and make energy 
efficiency improvements. Importantly, the bill will provide $204 
million over 6 years for the Bio-Energy Program, similar to S. 1960, 
the Bio-based Energy Incentives Act of 2002 that I cosponsored. My 
provision in the farm bill will reimburse existing and new ethanol and 
biodiesel facilities for using commodities to produce renewable fuels. 
A total of 42 ethanol plants and 12 bio-diesel facilities in 19 States 
received payments under this program last year. Ethanol plants such as 
Heartland Grains Fuels in Huron and Aberdeen, Broin's in Scotland, and 
Dakota Energy in Wentworth were South Dakota's recipients. This year, 
three new ethanol projects in Milbank, Watertown, and Rosholt, SD, are 
poised to collectively produce nearly 100 million gallons of ethanol. 
Because my legislation was included in the final farm bill, they will 
benefit from this incredible program.
  Agriculture is entering an exciting new dimension with value-added 
production and processing, and I have fought to ensure the energy and 
rural development titles of the farm bill will collectively help South 
Dakota create more success stories in value-added agriculture. When 
agricultural producers capture a more significant share of profits by 
adding value to their commodities or livestock before they are sold, 
it's called value-added agriculture. South Dakota has quickly become a 
leader in ethanol production, and given the number of projects 
operating in the state or at various planning stages, we're poised to 
produce over 200 million gallons annually. A typical 40 million gallon 
ethanol plant in South Dakota will provide a new market for nearly 15 
million bushels of corn, provide jobs and over $1 million in annual 
payroll, and help South Dakota farmers become part-owners of the United 
States' energy supply. The new farm bill may help create several of 
these ethanol plants, which will multiply the financial benefits and 
put thousands of South Dakota farmers in a better economic condition. 
South Dakotans are working hard to create a new value-added agriculture 
sector beyond our growing ethanol industry, including projects such as 
soybean processing, dairy cooperatives, beef and pork marketing co-ops, 
and venture capital initiatives. From the fledgling Dakota Value 
Capture Co-op in Sully County to the existing South Dakota Soybean 
Processors plant in Volga, farmers will be able to capitalize upon the 
assistance in this bill to become price setters rather than price 
takers.

  A recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that farmers 
and ranchers are expected to lose 328,000 jobs over the next ten years, 
more than any other sector of the economy. Given this startling 
forecast, the attention this farm bill places on rural development and 
job growth is critical to the future of rural States such as South 
Dakota. The farm bill contains a rural development title which will 
help foster positive results for communities and rural citizens. I am 
very pleased the Value Added Agricultural Market Development Grants 
program will receive a total of $240 million--$40 million annually--to 
provide crucial grant assistance to value-added agriculture ventures. 
While the funding level for this program was $75 million annually in 
the Senate bill, it's important to keep it in the farm bill. Another 
benefit of this rural development title is the establishment of the 
Northern Great Plains regional authority, as provided for in S. 1681, 
my legislation to re-authorize the Northern Great Plains Rural 
Development Authority. As a result, South Dakota is one of five States 
that will have access to $30 million per fiscal year to provide grants 
to States in the Northern Great Plains Authority for projects including 
transportation and telecommunication infrastructure projects, business 
development and entrepreneurship, and job training.
  Also, for the first time, the farm bill will help provide $80 million 
for rural citizens to access local television stations via satellite. 
This program provides loan guarantees to launch satellite systems that 
provide critical and timely news and weather to rural residents via 
their satellite. The LOCAL TV Act and loan guarantee begun because of 
legislation I sponsored in 2000, S. 2097, the Satellite Home Viewer 
Act. We also must strive to bridge the digital divide, and the 
inclusion of $100 million for broadband service will allow rural 
citizens to receive high-speed, quality broadband service.
  As an original co-sponsor of S. 1111, I am very pleased to report to 
South Dakotans that a new National Rural Development Partnership Act 
was included as a part of the rural development title as well. I 
believe it is important for local coordination to be a part of the 
larger national strategy to enhance rural development. The entire State 
of South Dakota is considered rural, and in many places it is 
critically depressed. Through this new program, rural economic 
development efforts will utilize the expertise of Federal agency 
officials and dedicated local officials. Too often, the facilitation 
and implementation of rural development initiatives does not reach its 
full potential because of the lack of local participation. The primary 
goal of this new program is to engage in meaningful conversions that 
will allow for the greatest success of all rural development 
initiatives. South Dakota will be a true benefactor of the new National 
Rural Development Partnership, and I am honored to have been a part of 
its establishment.
  The farm bill is not only supportive of crop farmers and rural 
communities, it also authorizes essential nutrition and food assistance 
programs. I am pleased that a provision of mine was included that will 
essentially save school lunch programs all over the country $100 
million over the next 2 years. S. 1179, the Emergency Commodity 
Distribution Act, is my legislation included in the farm bill to fix 
the way that commodities are calculated for the school lunch program. 
While not large in overall budget terms, this fix contained in my 
legislation and the final farm bill will result in important stability 
for South Dakota and nationwide school lunch programs. Moreover, the 
farm bill continues the great progress made by the McGovern-Dole Global 
Food for Education Initiative, a program that I helped create by 
serving as an original co-sponsor of S. 1036, the bill that codified 
the incredible idea former Senators McGovern and Dole had for an 
international food for education and child nutrition program. Finally, 
the nutrition title will restore Food Stamp Program benefits for all 
legal immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least 5 
years, and the immediate restoration of food stamp benefits to legal 
immigrant children and the disabled. This provision was a bipartisan 
endeavor, with President Bush helping to lead the way for this reform.

  I am also pleased the farm bill will re-authorize farm lending 
programs and provide greater access to credit for beginning farmers and 
ranchers. Under the final bill, USDA will increase its share of down 
payment loans for beginning farmers and extend the term of the loans. 
Additionally, the bill will furnish $1.3 billion over 6 years for 
research programs such as those successfully carried out by land-grant 
colleges like South Dakota State University.
  Also of interest to South Dakota is the creation of a new national 
dairy program, to replace the controversial compacts that divided dairy 
farmers between regions of the country. This is critical for new dairy 
operations in eastern South Dakota, and dairy processing facilities 
such as the new cheese plant hoping to begin operations near Lake 
Norden. In addition to extending the very important dairy price support 
program at $9.90 per hundredweight, the farm bill creates a new 
counter-cyclical program that will provide assistance to farmers when 
the price of milk falls below $16.94 per hundredweight. We in the Upper 
Midwest have argued over the years that all dairy farmers should be 
treated the same regardless of the end use of their milk and I am 
pleased that this bill supports that position.
  Despite these and other farm policy improvements, special interests 
prevailed upon the House conferees to eliminate a number of important 
initiatives from the final farm bill. As a result, Mr. President, I am 
very disappointed that the final farm bill may result in long-term 
problems for rural America.
  First, the farm bill won't include my ``Johnson Amendment'' to ban 
packer

[[Page S4002]]

ownership of livestock. The opposition from the House conferees and 
packer-apologists was overwhelming according to Senator Daschle and 
others on the conference committee. In the end, it appears the fact 
that the House did nothing on this topic resulted in it's defeat in the 
conference committee. The Johnson amendment to ban packer ownership of 
slaughter livestock and the new ``Competition Title'' were necessary 
because the national food industry continues to grow economically while 
independent livestock producers receive a small share of the consumer 
food dollar. Horizontal and vertical integration have tipped the 
balance of market power in favor of major meatpacking firms at the 
expense of family-sized livestock producers. While the Competition 
Title was narrowly defeated in the Senate Agriculture Committee, we 
conquered well-funded opposition twice during Senate consideration of 
the farm bill and added my packer ownership provision to the Senate 
bill. Many livestock producers in South Dakota told me that the packer 
ownership ban was one of the most important farm bill items. Despite 
bipartisan Senate support and an affirmative vote by Senate farm bill 
conferees the House of Representatives unanimously objected and the 
provision was stripped from the final farm bill. While the opponents of 
making livestock markets more competitive are probably celebrating the 
defeat of my Johnson amendment in the farm bill conference, it's 
critical that Congress demonstrate leadership and a willingness to act 
on this issue in a timely manner. I have already written Chairman 
Harkin to call for hearings in the Senate Agriculture Committee to 
investigate problems in the marketplace and to once again pass my 
packer ownership ban. I wish to thank the many South Dakota farm and 
ranch organizations that provided real leadership on this issue, along 
with the Organization for Competitive Markets and Senator Grassley. 
Together, we will continue the fight.

  While my country-of-origin labeling bill was included in the final 
farm bill, the provision to prevent USDA quality grades from being 
applied to foreign beef and lamb was left on the cutting room floor. 
It's discouraging to South Dakota's cattle and sheep ranchers that 
their high-quality meat has to compete with foreign beef and lamb which 
is camouflaged with a USDA choice or prime seal. I vow to continue to 
fight for a change that will only allow USDA quality grades on domestic 
beef and lamb.
  Also, the House insisted on changes to the payment limits provision I 
cosponsored in the Senate that virtually render the payment limits 
meaningless. The new farm bill weakens what are already flawed payment 
limitations and may provide a larger share of payments to the Nation's 
mega-farms than any other farm bill in history. While the overall limit 
was reduced from the House level in the conference committee--the House 
limit was $560,000 and Senate was $275,000 the inclusion of the 
``triple entity rule'' will allow large farms to double their $180,000 
payment to $360,000. Furthermore, the farm bill imposes no real limit 
on gains from marketing assistance loans because large farms can 
receive unlimited marketing loan gains through use of generic 
certificates. The Center for Rural Affairs has estimated that a 25,000-
acre California cotton farm would receive $8.4 million, thanks to the 
meaningless limits in this bill. While the bill was debated on the 
Senate floor, an overwhelming majority approved the Dorgan-Grassley-
Johnson amendment to forestall large corporate farms from receiving 
these huge government subsidies at the expense of family farm 
operations. Yet the House provision contained virtually no limits on 
these payments. The integrity of this bill and future farm legislation 
is dependent upon common sense limitations. We cannot expect the 
American taxpayer to continue subsidizing corporate farms who take 
advantage of programs that are intended to assist small family farmers. 
I was pleased to see that the language includes a $2.5 million adjusted 
gross income cap on eligibility for participation in farm programs and 
that some level of transparency will be included. Hopefully, this will 
shed light on those operations abusing the program. A new commission 
will also be established to study and make recommendations regarding 
farm program payment limitations and the impact of payment limit policy 
changes on farm income, land values and agribusiness infrastructures. I 
vow to continue working with groups such as the Center for Rural 
Affairs and Senators Grassley and Dorgan to address this issue in the 
future.

  Finally, the White House and House opposition to the $2.4 billion in 
emergency aid for the 2001 crop year led to its defeat in the final 
bill. I cosponsored Senator Baucus' amendment to include this important 
disaster aid in the Senate farm bill because several agricultural 
producers in South Dakota experienced weather-related disasters that 
damaged crop and forage production last year. In fact, 13 counties in 
western and central South Dakota have been declared a drought disaster 
by USDA, and yet the Senate language to include this timely assistance 
was killed. Congress has provided ad hoc disaster assistance to farmers 
since 1998, but, without this provision, we will have disregarded 
losses occurring in 2001. I am hopeful we can identify ways to include 
this necessary disaster funding in another bill.
  I cannot talk about this farm bill without publicly thanking the 
members of my staff who have worked so hard on this legislation for 
many months. I can confidently say that the Senate version of the farm 
bill, and ultimately this conference report, would not have been as 
good as it was without the efforts of my Legislative Assistant for 
agriculture issues, Brian Jennings. Brian's tireless effort for many 
months, and frankly over most of the past 3 years, was a major factor 
in my country of origin labeling provision being adopted by the full 
Senate and then included in the conference report as I have referred to 
earlier. And it was with Brian's help that my amendment to ban packer 
ownership of livestock was adopted by the Senate. The long days, nights 
and even many weekends that Brian has worked during consideration of 
this farm bill have paid off in many of the positive improvements this 
farm bill makes over the current farm bill passed in 1996. Brian has 
worked closely with Senator Daschle's staff, Senator Harkin's 
Agriculture Committee staff, and staff from Senator's who serve on the 
Agriculture Committee on both sides of the aisle. I also want to 
commend those staff members as well, as the Senate would simply not be 
able to function without the dedication and true public service 
provided by all of our staff members.
  Brian has worked on agriculture issues as a member of my staff since 
1998, and he has been instrumental in the success my office has had in 
fighting for South Dakota's family farmers and ranchers. And for those 
who know Brian, this comes as no surprise. He grew up working on his 
family's ranch in Stanley County, SD, near Ft. Pierre, and his first-
hand understanding of family farmers and ranchers in South Dakota is in 
part what makes him such an outstanding and effective advocate for all 
family farmers and ranchers here in the Nation's Capital. Brian's 
parents, Keith and Patti Jennings, should be very proud of Brian, as 
his upbringing by them on the Jennings' Ranch is the main reason he has 
been such an effective and strong advocate for South Dakota's farm and 
ranch families.
  I also want to thank Sharon Stroschein of my Aberdeen, SD, staff, and 
Katy Ziegler of my Washington, DC staff. Sharon and her husband Larry 
Stroschein operate their family farm near Mansfield, SD, in Spink 
County. Sharon is one of my original South Dakota staff members after I 
was elected to the House of Representatives in 1986. Her first-hand 
knowledge and understanding of South Dakota agriculture have been 
invaluable to me over the years as I do my best to represent South 
Dakota in the United States Senate. Katy Ziegler grew up on a farm in 
Minnesota, and although she only joined my Washington staff last year, 
her farm background has also helped her to provide critical insights on 
many issues that have been helpful to me and members of my staff during 
consideration of the farm bill.
  I will conclude my statement by saying that while a farm bill is not 
a cure-all, the new farm bill should be a long-term economic stimulus 
package for family farmers, ranchers and rural communities. Whether you 
support or

[[Page S4003]]

oppose this farm bill, it's important to pause and determine whether 
the bill will provide a greater optimism about what family-farm 
agriculture will look like in the future. In some ways, I believe this 
farm bill will indeed create a brighter future for family farmers and 
ranchers, but without more meaningful reforms to meatpacker 
concentration and payment limitations, I am uncertain whether the long-
term result will be as favorable as what is necessary to keep 
independent producers on the land.
  According to a preliminary analysis by the Food and Agricultural 
Policy Research Institute, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
will provide South Dakota farmers with an increase of approximately 
$200 million in benefits over the current farm bill for the 2002 crop 
year. Moreover, after passage of the House farm bill last year, FAPRI 
determined that South Dakota farmers would receive the second lowest 
percentage increase in payments under the House farm bill among all 50 
states. Therefore, despite this bill's shortcomings, it is certainly 
better for South Dakota than the current farm bill and the House-passed 
version, which catered to mega-farm agriculture and agri-business.
  In the final analysis, independent farmers and ranchers in our free-
enterprise democracy deserve the opportunity to make a living from the 
commodities they produce in fair and competitive markets. I will 
continue to fight in the Senate to provide that opportunity and reduce 
the obscene market power that is becoming all too common in crop and 
livestock markets.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Montana is recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I speak today on a matter that touches the lives of every single 
Montanan. We have experienced 4 years straight in a row of ongoing 
drought conditions.
  I rise today not to oppose the farm bill conference--I support it--
but, rather, to express my extreme disappointment that a natural 
disaster assistance provision which would provide real help to American 
family farmers suffering from drought is not included in the conference 
report.
  Not too long ago, I, along with Senator Enzi, offered a bipartisan 
amendment to the Senate farm bill that passed by an overwhelming 69 
votes. That amendment provided funding for the Crop Disaster Program 
and for the Livestock Assistance Program.
  This is not an idle matter. There are some from some States in the 
country who may not appreciate the gravity of the situation we face in 
the West. It is severe. Our Nation's agricultural producers are holding 
their breath, particularly in my State of Montana. I was at home over 
the weekend. You could feel it.
  They want to know if this agricultural disaster is going to be in the 
farm bill. They care about the farm bill. They care much more about 
whether agricultural disaster assistance is or is not included; that 
is, the agricultural disaster assistance for last year, 2001, where the 
crops were devastated. As I mentioned, it is 1 of 4 years in a row of 
drought.
  Let me be clear. Without this assistance provision in the farm bill, 
it really won't matter very much because farms are going to go under. 
We are talking about saving long-time family farmers and long-time 
ranchers whose generations have been farming. They just want to make a 
living.
  On March 28 of this year, Agriculture Secretary Veneman declared the 
entire State of Montana a drought disaster. This drought designation 
came 2 months earlier than the designation in the previous year of 2001 
and 8 months earlier than the same designation in the year 2000.
  While our State picture is dire, it is even worse in some of the 
individual communities. It is bad enough statewide, but in some areas 
it is just desperate.
  In May of 1930, the Knees Weather Station, which is approximately 30 
miles from Brady, MT, located in the central part of our State, 
registered 1.17 inches of precipitation. That is May 1930, the Dust 
Bowl years--1.17 inches. In May of last year, the year for which 
drought disaster assistance is so desperately needed, the same station 
registered 0.16 inches of precipitation--about 10 times less than the 
1.17 in the 1930s.
  I want to graphically show you what drought is doing to my State. 
These pictures are courtesy of the Great Falls Tribune which has been 
chronicling this drought for a good period of time. This is the Golden 
Triangle, the so-called breadbasket of our State. I have gone out many 
times into the fields and kicked the soil. It is bone dry. There is 
nothing there. I have talked to ranchers and farmers in farm forums in 
Shelby, Havre, and Conrad, where the drought is drying up hope, closing 
down businesses, and forcing bankers to close their lines of credit. It 
is just getting worse.
  These pictures show the problem. Some old-timers say it reminds them 
of the Dust Bowl days in the 1930s.
  This picture shows Mark Peterson. Mark is a very good farmer. He 
farms just north of Havre of Hill County. In this picture, he is taking 
a core sample of soil to look at the moisture in the field he is 
seeding. This is what Mark said:

       In the late 1970's and early 1980's, you couldn't do 
     anything wrong. Farming was fun. Right now it's hell.

  This picture shows the moisture content. He goes down for the soil 
sample. It is not just the surface, but the subsurface soil content. It 
is lower than he has ever seen.
  Here is what the Great Falls Tribune wrote, which is one of the 
largest papers in our State:

       Experts are predicting a harvest more disastrous than last 
     year's record-low winter wheat crop. Instead of admiring 
     their seedlings this spring, farmers in north-central 
     Montana's Golden Triangle are watching their topsoil swirl 
     away in the wind. As dust storms blow down Main Street, 
     agriculture-businesses are talking about layoffs and bankers 
     are running out of slack for debt-ridden farm families.
       Congress has yet to pass a disaster payment to cover last 
     year's failed crops. Many producers are banking on the money 
     to pay off last year's operating loans. Without the Federal 
     assistance and a decent harvest, 2002 could be the end of the 
     line for some producers.

  This photo shows Mark Peterson seeding winter wheat north of Havre. 
This picture does not do justice to the problem.
  I was home last weekend. This is dust blowing all across the highway, 
which is 20 or 30 miles south of where this picture was taken. I 
couldn't believe it. I have seen nothing like this.
  This next picture is a photo that shows a Liberty County employee.
  Liberty County is supposed to be a very large wheat-producing area in 
our State. What is Al Green, a Liberty County employee, doing? He is 
clearing a culvert that is supposed to carry water. It is carrying 
dust. The culvert is being filled with topsoil. You can barely see the 
culvert. In fact, he had to dig it out; otherwise, the culvert would be 
full of soil from the blowing dust.
  Here is a another example. This chart shows a makeshift fence just 
south of Chester in Liberty County. That is also in the north-central 
part of Montana. I was there a short while ago. I walked out in the 
fields. It pulls at your heart. It is so sad, so tragic to see there is 
nothing there, to see people not making it. The soil just crumbles in 
your fingers.
  As you can see, here are the fences. This fence is about 3\1/2\ to 4 
feet high. Why is it there? The farmer is trying to desperately save 
topsoil from blowing away. Clearly, you can't keep topsoil from blowing 
away unless you have a crop, unless you have moisture. But in this 
case, it is gone. He is losing his topsoil.
  The unrelenting drought in my State has brought economic hardship not 
only to agricultural producers but to very widespread areas of the 
State. In 1996--just a few years ago--the year before the 4-year 
drought kicked in, Montana received $847 million in cash receipts from 
wheat sales. In 2001, 4 years into the drought, we received not $847 
million but $317 million in cash receipts. That is a 62-percent 
decline. Why? Drought.
  It is true a lot of farmers have crop insurance. That is a critical 
risk management tool widely used by Montana producers. But, 
unfortunately, crop insurance coverage declines during consecutive 
years of drought because a decline in actual production history

[[Page S4004]]

means your coverage is less. That is the way the law is written. It is 
a vicious circle. So the producers maintain their insurance, but they 
have crop insurance that provides virtually laughable coverage.
  Agriculture is about 50 percent of Montana's economy. It is the 
backbone of our State. The drought affects not only farmers and 
ranchers, it is felt throughout the rural communities. It means a loss 
of jobs. Small businesses are forced to close their doors.
  For example, in the first 3 months of 2002, feed sales were down 
about 20 percent. That is an indication that there are fewer livestock 
in the area.
  Take Fort Benton, an average-sized agricultural community. About 80 
percent of Fort Benton's businesses are agriculture related. Clearly, 
producers are suffering. The town suffers. Those who sell agricultural 
equipment--for example tractor dealers--close their doors.
  Here is a farmer I would like you to listen to: Dale Schuler, past 
president of the Montana Grain Growers, and a farmer in Chouteau 
County, MT. He estimated nearly 2,000 square miles of crop in his area 
of central Montana have gone unharvested. So 2,000 square miles, in a 
part of Montana which usually produces tremendous wheat yields, has 
gone unharvested. That is about equal to the area of your State. An 
area the size of your State has gone unharvested in Montana. The entire 
State has gone unharvested.
  As Dale said:

       Farmers and our families haven't had the means to repay our 
     operating loans, let alone buy inputs to plant the crop for 
     the coming year. Chouteau County is the largest farming 
     county in Montana. And yet our last farm equipment dealer [in 
     the community] had no choice but to close his doors. Our 
     local co-op closed its tire shop. One farm fuel supplier 
     quit. And the fertilizer dealers and grain elevators are 
     laying off workers. I believe that we are set to see a 
     mass exodus from Montana that has not been seen since the 
     Great Depression of the 1930s.

  I have talked to a lot of farmers in this area. I asked them to 
honestly compare this situation to the 1930s. Their answer was, 
``worse.'' These are honest people. I asked them, why? They said, 
because during the 1930s, there was 1 year in between the drought years 
where it rained. There was moisture. And so some could hang on. We have 
not had that interval year of moisture. It has been consecutive. So 
when it does rain now a little bit, were it to rain this year, it sinks 
down. The moisture just keeps going down. It does not stay in the 
topsoil.
  Our creeks and lakes are drying up. They are gone.
  Some people are wondering: Gee, haven't we all passed a big farm 
bill? Doesn't that help? The answer is that it does help. It is there 
to mitigate against future agriculture disaster assistance payments. 
That is one point of the farm program. But it does not help Montana 
farmers or other farmers in the Nation.
  For last year, 2001, there was no farm bill that made any sense 
whatsoever, there were no payments that made any sense to farmers, and 
crop insurance didn't work, for the reasons I mentioned. And this is 
not just in my State of Montana.
  Mr. President, I wonder if you saw last Friday's New York Times, the 
front page. There was a photograph of the drought in the West. It was 
not Montana; it was another State. It was the same situation but in 
other States. There was a photograph very similar to this one I have in 
the Chamber. It was on the front page of the New York Times last 
Friday. I encourage you to look at it.
  One final point. We in the Congress have helped New York in times of 
desperate tragedy. We came to the rescue of New York, as we should 
have, and as we did, without reservation. It was the right thing to do. 
We are one country. We also have come to the aid and assistance of 
other needs in this country. There are lots of different examples. I 
could think of flooding in America. We have come to help out in that 
regard. It is very important.
  Here is another disaster we are facing. I know Senators from urban 
States do not quite understand it, just like we from the western States 
do not fully appreciate the devastation of New York City. But we are 
here together. We have helped New York. We will continue to help areas 
in distress.
  I urge my colleagues to remember, we are one Nation. In our part of 
the country, the north-central States desperately need help. A good 
example of that, this is a map of January of this year. The red 
indicates severe drought. So it is not just Montana, but it is also 
Wyoming.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Montana and Idaho and Wyoming are shown on the map in 
red, which means severe. But also look at parts of Texas, Oklahoma, 
Kansas, and New Mexico, look at the eastern seaboard, and these yellow 
areas, which are areas that are strained. We all know that since 
January--actually, this is dated December 8, 2001, to January 10, 
2002--it has been worse. A little intermittent moisture here and there, 
but it is worse.
  So I say to my colleagues, I support the conference report to the 
farm bill. I deeply regret that the other body did not agree to include 
agricultural disaster assistance in the bill, even though it was 
adopted in the Senate with 69 votes.
  I pledge to my people in Montana that I am going to use every ounce 
of energy at my command to get agricultural disaster assistance 
legislation passed this year, because our people so desperately need 
it.
  I urge my colleagues to sit back and listen and be supportive of what 
we need so much in our part of the country.
  I thank the Chair and thank my good friend, the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am going to yield some time from Senator 
Lugar's time to Senator Voinovich in a moment.
  I thank the Senator from Montana, first, for being a valuable member 
of our Agriculture Committee, and thank him for all of his hard work 
and his input in developing this farm bill.
  The Senator from Montana is correct. He did succeed in putting in in 
the committee this emergency funding which not only helped Montana but 
all these other parts of the country. We kept it here in the Senate. We 
went to conference, but we were told in the conference that both the 
administration and the House opposed it in the farm bill. So, 
therefore, we were not able to keep it as we came out of conference.
  We were told that if we were to come up with an emergency package, 
that would be different, that they would support that outside of the 
regular farm bill.
  I assure the Senator from Montana, as soon as this farm bill is over 
with, that as the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I will try to 
bring our committee together, hopefully, as early as next week, to, 
once again, mark up an emergency disaster relief bill and to get it on 
the floor as soon as possible.
  The Senator from Montana is right. When we have a hurricane that hits 
Florida, if we have a tornado that hits Oklahoma or Iowa, we come in 
with emergency disaster assistance. The drought that hit these areas of 
the country that the Senator from Montana spoke about is the same as a 
hurricane, tornado, or fire. It is a disaster that we, as a nation, 
should respond to with emergency funding. I assure the Senator from 
Montana, we are going to do everything we can to make sure we do that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator will yield, I very much thank the 
distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee. He has put in such 
long hours to get a good agriculture bill passed and working through 
the conference. It is above and beyond the call of duty.
  I thank the Senator very much for his indication of holding a hearing 
soon in the Agriculture Committee and reporting out a bill that gets 
disaster assistance to the people in our State.
  Mr. HARKIN. We have had the hearings. We just need to mark it up.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate the chairman helping out.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes off the Senator's time 
to Senator Voinovich.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today as a friend of agriculture 
from one of our Nation's leading agriculture States to oppose the farm 
bill

[[Page S4005]]

conference report currently before us. It is too expensive, doesn't 
help those it claims to help, refuses to acknowledge the other 
priorities and challenges currently facing our nation, and will only 
worsen the problems with overproduction which it seeks to remedy.
  According to the most recent numbers from CBO, this bill authorizes 
at least $180 billion in mandatory spending over the next 10 years, an 
$83 billion increase over existing programs. Increases such as this--an 
80 percent spending boost--are irresponsible during times like this and 
totally ignore that we are at war abroad, trying to strengthen our 
homeland defense against terrorism and that our economy is in trouble. 
When you have a situation like this you've got to set priorities and 
stick to them, even if they force you to make hard choices.
  If Congress approves this conference report, it is sending a message 
to the American people that fiscal responsibility no longer matters, 
although our record in the last couple of years should give them a clue 
that we are not a fiscally responsible Senate.
  The Cleveland Plain Dealer said it best in its editorial yesterday, 
``No Republican who votes for [this bill] can ever say with a straight 
face that he or she believes in limited government or market economics. 
No Democrat can hold that she or he believes in balancing the budget or 
preventing runaway spending.'' I agree.
  The Senate should not approve this bill today, but rather we should 
send it back to the conference committee from where it came and we 
should tell them to make the cuts in spending necessary to fit this 
bill into the new reality we're facing in this country.
  I agree with my colleague from Ohio, Congressman John Boehner, a 
member of the House Agriculture Committee who served on the Conference, 
who said last week in a press release, and I quote:

       We should pass a supplemental aid bill now to help farmers 
     during this year's crop season. And once the November 
     elections are over--when sound, long-term policy takes 
     precedence over Washington politics--we should revisit the 
     Farm bill and make the right choices for Ohio and the nation.

  I take a back seat to no one in terms of my concern for the American 
farmer. I am pleased that I was referred to as the ``Ag Governor.'' 
When I was Governor of Ohio, agribusiness was my number one economic 
development initiative. Many people--even Ohioans--don't realize that 
food and agribusiness means more than $73 billion to Ohio's economy 
each year. In fact, one in six Ohioans is employed in one aspect of 
agriculture or another.
  Nevertheless, I cannot support this conference report, and honestly, 
I am disappointed at the apparent lack of respect some of my colleagues 
seem to have for the American farmer.
  Every farmer worth his salt knows that if he or she wants to stay in 
business, they have to be fiscally responsible and make tough choices. 
Farmers are some of the most fiscally disciplined people in business 
and they know that the United States has to be fiscally disciplined as 
well. They understand that the farm bill does not focus on proper 
planning and making the right choices, but rather ``getting while the 
getting is good.''
  This bill dispenses with any lip service toward fiscal conservatism 
and the other obligations our Nation now faces and plunges full speed 
ahead with spending. It is heedless of Americas national security 
needs, and it does nothing to acknowledge the long-term fiscal 
responsibilities of our Nation. Instead, this conference report really 
just helps the Nation's agricultural conglomerates receive lots of 
money from the Federal treasury. It's an enormous transfer of wealth. 
It's really that simple.
  Gone are our efforts to let farmers operate in a free market economy 
and benefit from their own choices. We're turning our back on the 
market-oriented philosophy laid out in the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act 
which sought to wean farmers from large Government subsidies. And yes, 
in a free market there will be winners and losers, but the free market 
is what has made this country great, and it is what can make 
agriculture thrive if we let it operate without Government 
interference.
  Instead, when the waves of economic change get a little rough, 
Congress tries to retreat into the safe harbor of Government handouts 
in the expectation that it will solve the problem. The real truth is, 
however, that this will only worsen the problem. The effect of this 
legislation will be to encourage production resulting in commodity 
surpluses, lower prices, and the need for greater government support.
  And I'm not just talking about small farmers. The bill includes 
heightened incentives for large agribusinesses to overproduce as they 
seek to maximize the Federal subsidies for which they are eligible. The 
result will be continuing downward pressure on prices and continuing 
calls for emergency farm rescue legislation. When will we end this 
cycle and truly set our farmers free to work as they see fit and 
respond to the changing market with their own judgment, skill, and hard 
work?
  The agriculture community in my State recognizes this trap and has 
told me that this bill sends the wrong message to farmers by 
encouraging farmers to grow for the program and not for the market.
  Many of my colleagues constantly discuss how this bill so effectively 
meets the needs of America's small farmer. As the Cincinnati Post so 
eloquently responded to that claim in its editorial yesterday, ``That 
is hogwash.''
  This bill does nothing to help the small farmer, but rather penalizes 
the small farmer--the supposed beneficiary of this bill. There is no 
effective payment cap, which will continue to allow large 
agroindustrial operations to continue to reap millions of federal 
dollars in subsidies, perhaps using them to buy out small family 
farmers in the end.
  The majority of America's farms do not benefit from Federal 
subsidies, and the formulas created in this bill will result in 10 
percent of the producers getting two-thirds of the money.
  To make matters worse, I was disappointed to read in the Akron Beacon 
Journal that this bill includes a provision that would protect payments 
made under this program from public scrutiny. I believe that it is 
important for the American taxpayer to have access to information 
regarding how their tax dollars are spent.
  I also believe that the specific programs in this farm bill 
demonstrate very little understanding of the broader needs of American 
taxpayers. It is a regional rip-off that includes new program payments 
for sugar, peanut, and dairy producers. It also increases the payments 
to large cotton, rice, corn, wheat, and soybeans producers. Finally, it 
revives programs which were terminated in the 1996 Farm bill--the 
honey, wool and mohair payments.
  Additionally, I am concerned that this bill could have a devastating 
effect on farm exports. The formula for countercyclical payments 
included in this bill could place us in jeopardy of violating our 
obligations under the World Trade Organization and weaken our demands 
that Europe and other countries cut subsidy payments to their 
agricultural producers.
  The conference report does include a mechanism for the Secretary of 
Agriculture to cut off payments if it appears that we are in danger of 
violating our WTO obligations. Is it reasonable to expect that a 
political appointee will have the strength necessary to make this 
decision?
  For that reason alone the Bush administration should veto this 
conference report.
  I have heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
comment that this legislation does not present a budget problem because 
it is within the budget parameters outlined in the FY2002 Budget 
Resolution. I disagree.
  The new budgetary outlook argues against the bill.
  Late last year, as the Senate began debating the farm bill that 
ultimately passed the Senate, Senator Kent Conrad, the chairman of the 
Senate Budget Committee, who clearly must understand our countrys 
financial condition, said, ``the money is in the budget now. If we do 
not use the money . . . it is very likely not going to be available 
next year.'' He was more prophetic than he could have ever imagined.
  When we passed the budget resolution last year and allocated $83.5 
billion to reauthorize the farm bill, the budget outlook appeared much 
brighter than it now does. At that time it

[[Page S4006]]

looked like we had surpluses as far as the eye could see.
  Well, my friends, things have changed.
  When we passed the FY2002 Budget Resolution we were operating using a 
CBO estimate that said we would have a $313 billion surplus in FY2002. 
However, as everyone now knows there won't be any surplus this year. 
Instead, there is going to be an enormous deficit.
  The public needs to know the facts. When you take CBO's latest budget 
estimates for FY2002, released this past March, and you deduct the $51 
billion cost of the recent economic stimulus package, and you subtract 
the part of the $27 billion defense supplemental we will pay out this 
year, and then you consider that tax receipts are running $50 billion 
less than expected, you end up with at least a $100 billion deficit in 
the current fiscal year.
  Put another way, the budget outlook for FY2002 swung by $400 billion 
in just over a year. I remind my colleagues, when I talk about a $100 
billion budget deficit, I am talking about a unified budget deficit. In 
other words, this year we are going to borrow the entire $163 billion 
Social Security surplus and then go out and spend all of it and then on 
top of that we are going to go out into the capital markets and issue 
$100 billion of new debt and spend all of that.
  Put another way, we are going to have to borrow at least $263 billion 
to fund the Government this year. And next year it looks just as bad. 
We are on track next year to borrow and spend the entire $179 billion 
Social Security and on top of that go out and borrow another $100 
billion to pay for the operation of the Federal Government.
  Since there is no surplus this year or next year, and I doubt anytime 
soon, I ask my colleagues, from where is the money for the farm bill 
going to come? Well, I will tell you from where it is going to come. We 
will borrow it.
  When people come to my office and ask for new or additional spending 
I always try to point out to them that every dollar of new spending is 
going to require us to borrow more money. And I ask them, do they think 
their request warrants borrowing money to pay for it? It is just that 
simple. Every additional dollar of spending we enact puts us deeper 
into debt and requires the Treasury to borrow more money.
  And who do you think is going to pay off that new debt? Our children 
and grandchildren, that's who. The burden of paying off that debt is 
going to fall to them because it is increasingly clear that we are not 
going to be paying off debt anytime soon.
  In fact, this week the Treasury Department is auctioning bonds to 
raise $24 billion in additional money. What is telling about this 
auction is the duration of some of these bonds being issued. They 
mature in 9 years and 9 months.
  What that tells me is that the Treasury recognizes that the Federal 
Government is going to be borrowing money for a long time to come. The 
actions of the Treasury speak volumes about our long-run budget 
predicament.
  Another illustration of how bad things have gotten is the pressing 
need to raise the debt ceiling, which now stands at $5.95 trillion. 
Last year we were told that we would not have to worry about raising 
the debt ceiling till the end of the decade.
  But now we know that we are going to bump into the debt ceiling in a 
couple weeks. Again, this illustrates the extent of our budget 
predicament and how the situation has changed.
  The budget outlook is bad and bound to get worse. The fact is that 
these recent budget deficits are a systemic problem; they are not a 
cyclical issue that will take care of itself. Here is why.
  First, the recent and large increases in military and homeland 
defense spending are permanent increases. Almost all this spending is 
going to be mirrored in future budgets. The need to defend the homeland 
is not going to go away any time soon and neither will those costs.
  Likewise, increases in defense spending to rebuild the military 
involve long-term commitments that won't decline any time soon. My 
point is that neither of these significant expenses is cyclical; they 
are here to stay.
  Second, some people might think a surge in economic growth is going 
to bail us out of our budget problems. Well, my friends, I want 
vigorous economic growth as much as the next person, but I must point 
out to my colleagues that CBO's projections already assume robust 
growth.
  In fact, CBO projects that the economy will grow at 5.4 percent next 
year. This is the same level of economic growth as the consensus Blue 
Chip private forecast. My point is that CBO's numbers are based on the 
assumption that the economy is going to experience robust growth; it's 
already built into the numbers.
  And the fact is that if the economy got going much faster than CBO 
and the private sector project, that would probably mean an increase in 
inflation. And we all know what happens when we face inflation, or even 
the threat of inflation. The Federal Reserve puts the brakes on by 
raising interest rates.
  Again, my point is that we face the prospect of chronic deficits, and 
the economy is not going to bail us out. The fact is that we can't 
avoid making hard choices and prioritizing. If we don't, then we face 
more farm bills down the road, if we can give out this type of money 
with this bill.
  As a Senator who came here to try to bring some fiscal discipline to 
this place, I am just dismayed by our complete lack of fiscal 
responsibility. We just spend and spend and spend around here like 
there is no tomorrow. And this farm bill is a fine example. As the 
Akron Beacon Journal, wrote in straightforward language in a May 7 
editorial, ``This farm bill is really, really bad.'' It's that simple 
folks.
  I cannot in good consciousness vote for this conference report, and I 
urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it. If that fails, I 
respectfully urge the President to veto it. If he doesn't, and we 
choose to give out this type of money with this bill, every other group 
with a concern or problem will come before us and say, ``Well, you did 
it for them.'' And what will our response be? We won't have one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas, and I ask unanimous consent that after her remarks, the 
Senator from Mississippi be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the farm bill 
conference report that I believe will help rebuild rural America, 
strengthen our rural infrastructure, and reinvigorate our rural 
communities and our main street businesses. If there is anyone in this 
body who thinks that is not necessary at this time, I urge them to 
travel to rural America, visit the rural communities in their States, 
to better understand the devastation that rural America has been going 
through over the past 10 years.
  Many in our country have experienced the benefits of a good economic 
time. Yet in rural America we have not seen all of those benefits. This 
farm bill will come to our rescue. It is with great relief, after years 
of struggle under the Freedom to Farm debacle, that farmers can now 
hope for a new farm bill that will offer them a helping hand in growing 
the safest, most affordable, and most abundant food and fiber supply in 
the world.
  After almost a year of hearings and studies, drafting and redrafting, 
committee meetings and markups, debates and amendments, we have finally 
arrived at a bill that addresses the many needs of the broad and 
diverse mosaic of the American farming and rural lifestyle. Like my 
colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee, I entered into this 
fray at the very beginning, fighting for a better farm policy than the 
old one, and I have fought all the way through this past year up until 
this very moment. With this bill, we reach out to virtually every part 
of rural America. We strengthen the safety net for farmers of major 
crops in every part of the country by adding a new countercyclical 
program to help them combat low prices in some of their toughest of 
times and by strengthening support for other farm production in dairy 
and specialty crops.
  We encourage greater care of our environment by an 80-percent 
increase in

[[Page S4007]]

conservation programs, including the establishment of the Conservation 
Security Program, which will make for better farming practices on land 
that is in production, rather than simply protecting marginal lands out 
of production.
  As many people in Arkansas know, the conservation programs offered 
through this farm bill--the Wetlands Reserve Program, Conservation 
Reserve Program, and the new Grassland Reserve Program--are all 
tremendously beneficial not only to our farming operation, taking 
marginal land out of production and allowing producers to refocus their 
efforts on their more productive lands, but they enhance the beauty of 
the environment that we as rural Americans all cherish.
  We also provide better support for livestock producers in the greater 
funding of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. We expand 
agricultural trade programs to assist our farmers in a global 
marketplace, providing increased funding for important programs, such 
as food aid, which have played an instrumental role in foreign 
relations in the last difficult 8 months.
  To those who complain about whether or not we have given our full 
attention to making sure this bill is WTO compliant, I say we have. For 
those who complain about it--particularly those from other countries 
who have liked to talk down and talk badly about the bill we have come 
up with--are we just going to let them run over us or are we going to 
stand up and say we are simply asking for a level playing field for our 
producers, to be able to have their Government support in a global 
economy, just as those other nations have continued to provide their 
producers in this global marketplace?
  We significantly expand the nutrition title, making important changes 
to and increasing funding for the Food Stamp Program, as well as for 
emergency food assistance. The $6.4 billion in the nutrition title is 
essential to States such as Arkansas, where even though we may be 
unbelievable producers of food products, we still suffer desperately 
from hunger in our children. The school nutrition programs, as well as 
the feeding and nutrition programs for our elderly, are absolutely 
essential to show our Nation and the rest of the world that our 
producers are not only the best, but that our Government is concerned 
about making sure those products get to some of the neediest.
  We also improve the soundness and reliability of the farm credit 
system.
  We increased funding for agricultural research to assist producers to 
be even more efficient and effective in their production.
  This bill provides permanent funding for technical assistance 
programs to our Nation's private forest landowners, and we establish a 
new energy title with funding dedicated to renewable resources and 
biofuel development which produces a tremendous amount of benefits: It 
lessens our dependence on the importation of foreign oil, it creates a 
better environment, and it creates an additional marketplace for our 
growers and producers to be an effective part of lessening our Nation's 
dependence on foreign oil.
  Together these improvements to our new farm policy will help reverse 
the course toward disaster on which rural America has been sliding and 
will put our farmers back on the road to financial recovery and provide 
hope for the future in rural America.
  Of course, whenever Congress rewrites major authorizing legislation, 
particularly legislation this complicated and varied, there are going 
to be provisions that have different impacts on very different parts of 
the country. So we compromise and put together the best bill we 
possibly can, one that best responds to the diverse needs of our vast 
country, and that is exactly what this bill represents. In this 
respect, I believe this farm bill is a great success.
  It is said that success has many fathers, and so, too, does this farm 
bill. It is the product of many people on both sides of the aisle and 
on both sides of the Hill. This process has taken us all together, 
including time on the Senate floor and in conference, more than 5 
months already. We have spent about 6 or 7 weeks in debate alone. Every 
stone has been turned. Every nook and cranny has been looked into. 
Nevertheless, given the enormity of this process and the complexity of 
this bill, it is not surprising perhaps that some people want to 
prolong our consideration of this bill, either to return this report 
back to the conference for more revision, or simply to prevent the 
passage of any farm bill at all. They do not believe our farm producers 
deserve their Government's support.
  I have spoken on the floor many times about the urgent need to pass a 
farm bill. Farmers in my State have already begun their planting 
season. Many of them were forced to alter planting decisions or forego 
planting altogether because they were unable to arrange financing with 
local financial institutions which were, in turn, unable to extend 
credit without some commitment by Congress to support the farmers.
  Those farmers were able to go ahead with planting or did so with the 
expectation that Government support in some form would be forthcoming 
this year. And they need that support as soon as possible. In other 
words, Arkansas farmers needed this bill yesterday, not today and not 
tomorrow. But there are others in this body who want to continue to 
talk about this bill. So let me address some of the concerns I have 
heard expressed, particularly perhaps concerning the payment 
limitations.
  I have heard many complain that the conference report does not retain 
all of the restrictive provisions inserted in the Senate bill by the 
Grassley-Dorgan amendment on payment limitations.
  By now everyone knows of my unyielding opposition to the Grassley-
Dorgan payment limitations amendment, and by now everyone has heard me 
or one of my colleagues explain the catastrophe the Grassley-Dorgan 
amendment would have unleashed on my State and others who grow cotton 
and rice. I am greatly relieved that the Grassley-Dorgan amendment was 
modified by the conferees because in its original form, the amendment 
would have cost my State a little less than $400 million in direct 
losses, and more than $1.3 billion in indirect impact. It would have 
affected more than half of my cotton farmers and a third of our rice 
farmers. It would have impacted entire counties, not just individual 
farmers but also the local bankers, the farm supply stores, the corner 
grocers, even local schools and churches as a result of the significant 
reductions in land values and tax revenues.

  By now, everyone knows of the utterly unfair and disproportionate 
impact Grassley-Dorgan would have had on Southern farmers versus 
farmers in other parts of our country, but this bill still provided a 
compromise on payment limitations. We went from the 550 limit in the 
House, compared to the 275 limit in the Senate, to 360, which was a 
good compromise. That does not mean there will not be people who will 
be hurt or who will be affected by that 360. There will be. But it is a 
reasonable compromise that we could reach.
  Why, then, I find myself still asking, would other Members of this 
body from large farm States continue to seek the bankruptcy of my 
State's largest industry and largest source of employment? What is it 
that they think Grassley-Dorgan would accomplish that would remedy the 
problems in their own areas?
  They say two things: First, they say they are trying to prevent large 
farmers from hogging an unfair share of Government subsidies that are 
then used to drive smaller farmers off the land.
  Looking back on the debate we have had so far, I have had a hard time 
reconciling this explanation with other points that are made. For 
example, I remember hearing that only a small portion of farmers would 
have been affected by this amendment, but if so few farmers would be 
affected, then its impact on land values would also have been very 
limited.
  I am also bothered by something that my good friend from Iowa, 
Senator Grassley, mentioned during his floor statement on the subject 
yesterday. I have deep respect and appreciation for Senator Grassley 
and have enjoyed working with him on a multitude of issues, but I could 
not disagree with him more strongly, more vehemently than I do on this 
particular issue. I suspect that our disagreement is driven by the 
harsh disproportionate effect his payment limits amendment would have 
on my State compared to his.
  Senator Grassley described the conference report as something that

[[Page S4008]]

should make cotton and rice farmers happy and something that would make 
Iowa farmers unhappy, ostensibly because his payment limitation 
amendment had been moderated by the conference. But given that my State 
consists largely of cotton and rice farmers and his State has none of 
either, it really sounds like a concession, perhaps, that the amendment 
would have had a disproportionate effect on Arkansas.
  What, by implication, is the alternative? That he would be happy only 
if cotton and rice farmers were not? I do not believe that is the case, 
truly. Or that the interest of my farmers in my State are opposite to 
the interest of the farmers in his State? I do not believe that either. 
I reject that. I reject that categorically.
  It used to be that farm policy was written with the interest of all 
farmers in mind, and that is exactly what our chairman and the other 
members of the conference committee have tried to do. It is unfortunate 
that so many people have abandoned the notion that legislators from 
across the country should recognize their shared interests and work 
together to write farm policy that is beneficial for all.

  Any problems this farm policy may eventually have are likely to be 
due to the collapse of this farm coalition among States. I hope we 
learn from this experience the next time we have to write major farm 
legislation.
  Senator Grassley's statement also raises another question in my mind: 
How would undercutting cotton and rice farmers in Arkansas, or anywhere 
else for that matter, help corn and soybean growers in a part of the 
country where cotton and rice are not grown? How would that help 
moderate rising land values in Iowa?
  The answer on both counts is that it would not. Slashing the value of 
the industry in my State would do nothing to help the farm industry in 
Iowa. If anything, driving cotton and rice out of Arkansas would 
actually hurt corn growers because farmland in Arkansas would 
eventually be dedicated to corn production which would simply drive 
down the price of corn and hurt corn farmers everywhere.
  The second argument I have heard from proponents of the Grassley-
Dorgan amendment is that we must try to prevent so much money going to 
big agribusiness and giant corporate farm entities. They refer to 
generic certificates in disparaging terms, such as ``loophole.'' This 
is our emergency disaster system which is only applied when prices are 
at their rock bottom and input costs are at their ultimate high on our 
capital intensive crops.
  Also, it should be noted that the Arkansas entities most cited as 
examples of giant corporate agribusiness are rice cooperatives which 
process rice for thousands of rice farmers from Arkansas and 
surrounding States. The support these cooperatives receive is simply 
passed on to their member farmers. It is incorrect to suggest Riceland 
Foods in Stuttgart, AR, is pocketing tens of millions of dollars when, 
in fact, Riceland is paying that money out to thousands of its member 
farmers.
  It should be noted that these cooperatives enhance their marketing 
leverage and, by relation, the marketing leverage for their farmers 
through the use of generic certificates. They pool all of the 
production and market the collected rice to customers around the 
country and around the world as needed.
  Generic certificates allow them to do this. Otherwise, without 
effective use of those certificates, the cooperatives would be unable 
to pool member production and would have to erect paper walls between 
each member's contributions so they could be sure no one farmer 
received marketing loan support on an amount of rice that would put him 
over some arbitrary payment limit.
  Burdening the co-op with such requirements would defeat the purpose 
of creating a cooperative in the first place; that is, to enhance the 
processing and marketing power of the co-op members, those individual 
family farmers.
  Again, what, by implication, is the alternative? That the cooperative 
in Stuttgart, AR--Riceland Foods--should not have been established? 
That it should not be able to serve its members as a cooperative?
  Well, that is exactly what is implied by the expressions of shock 
that such an entity as Riceland Foods would receive so much in farm 
supports.
  I would bet many of the Members of this body, and also of the House, 
who have cited the amount of support sent to rice as an example of why 
stricter payment limits are needed are also many of the same Members 
who have voted time and again to encourage the development of 
cooperatives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes, at 
least.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have other Senators lined up who have 2:30 
appointments.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I will be very quick.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I add my compliments to the chairman of this great 
committee, also to our majority leader, Senator Daschle, as well as the 
other members of the conference committee who have worked so hard.
  I am very proud of the incredible improvements and increased 
technology that our American farmers have accomplished over the past 
20th century and I think this bill complements that. Our producers grow 
the safest, most abundant and affordable food and fiber anywhere. They 
do it under some of the strictest environmental regulations and rules 
and with great pride and appreciation for their environment.
  The American people enjoy a safely grown food supply for which they 
pay less than any other country in the world. I am proud to support 
this bill, and I am more than proud to support the American producer 
and the American farm family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Mississippi, under the previous order, 
has 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that after he finishes, the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, be recognized for 10 minutes 
off of Senator Lugar's time, and Senator Hutchison of Texas be 
recognized for 10 minutes off of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, writing this new farm bill was a very 
difficult challenge. I am very pleased our conference committee has now 
completed its work and the legislation now in the form of a conference 
report has been approved by the other body and is now before the 
Senate.
  It is a bill that has the support of President Bush. This is the 
statement by the President that was issued on May 2, which I will read.

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

  One of the primary objectives of the new farm legislation should be 
to improve the predictability and effectiveness of the financial safety 
net available to farmers. This bill does that. Farmers across the 
Nation will now be able to make better management decisions for their 
farm operations. This farm bill will continue the marketing loan 
program and provide farmers with a newly designed target price 
mechanism to stabilize and make more predictable the level of 
Government support when market prices are low. The target price will 
remain constant throughout the 6-year life of this farm program.
  Farmers have requested that the new farm bill allow for updated crop 
base

[[Page S4009]]

acres and crop payment yields. This bill does that. It provides 
producers with the option to update both base acres and payment yields. 
By updating base acres and yield, the makeup of farm operations will be 
determined by recent planting history as opposed to outdated records 
from the 1980s.
  This bill will protect more of our natural resources by increasing 
the number of acres eligible for enrollment in conservation programs. 
The Conservation Reserve Program acreage cap is increased from 36.4 
million acres to 39.2 million acres. The Wetlands Reserve Program 
acreage cap is increased from just over 1 million acres to 2.75 million 
acres. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program is authorized at $700 
million over the life of this farm bill, compared with $50 million 
under current law.
  The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which provides cost-
share assistance to the livestock industry to comply with environmental 
regulations, is increased from $1.3 billion in the 1996 farm bill to $9 
billion over the life of this bill.
  This bill also authorizes programs to increase our market access in 
other countries for both commodities and value-added products.
  The nutrition title contains increased Federal support for school 
food programs. Free and reduced priced meals will help students 
nationwide do a better job in the classroom. The bill not only provides 
funding for the School Lunch Program, it establishes a pilot program to 
provide school children with fresh fruits and vegetables.

  The rural development title of the bill will enable rural communities 
to receive high-speed broadband services.
  The conference committee also noted the large backlog in waste and 
water assistance programs at the Department of Agriculture. The bill 
authorizes funds to eliminate this backlog of pending applications for 
grants and loans. That will greatly assist rural communities, some of 
which are facing emergency drinking water shortages.
  A Rural Business Investment Program also authorized in this bill will 
provide loan guarantees for new and better job opportunities in rural 
communities. If the Senate does not adopt this conference agreement, 
the Congress will be forced to consider yet another ad hoc financial 
assistance package for agriculture that could result in billions of 
dollars of additional emergency spending without providing farmers a 
dependable agricultural policy for the future.
  I thank the members of our staff who worked so hard in our conference 
committee to bring about the result that we achieved. Especially, I 
wish to mention Chuck Connor, who represented the President, the 
administration, at our conference meetings. He was available to answer 
questions and assist with information that we needed. Hunt Shipman, who 
represented Secretary Ann Veneman, the Secretary of Agriculture, did an 
outstanding job providing assistance to the members of the conference 
committee. I want to mention Mary Waters, who also is an assistant to 
the Secretary of Agriculture, who was very helpful to us all. And 
members of my personal staff, Hunter Moorhead, who is my agricultural 
legislative assistant, worked long and hard nights and weekends, for 
many months, to help put this legislative package together. He did a 
truly outstanding job; my chief of staff, Mark Keenum, who had 
previously filled that role, also provided very valuable and helpful 
information, insight, and assistance, along with one of my newer staff 
members, Emily Brunini, who recently joined our staff. For their 
services and assistance, I am particularly grateful and want the Senate 
to know of their outstanding work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. under a previous order, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report. I do so first by talking about a couple of things that are good 
in this bill. Oddly enough, one of the things I am most excited about 
in this bill is a move from a Depression-era farm program, the Peanut 
Program, that has actually been taken into somewhat more of a modern 
era--not to the market, which is what I would like it to ultimately 
have gone to, but we have taken it from a quota system, where the 
Government is micromanaging the production of peanuts, excluding those 
who did not have a license or quota to grow peanuts. We got rid of that 
onerous Government-controlled program, and the farm bill is treating 
peanuts as we do the rest of the commodity programs.
  In that respect, we had a program way out here on the left, regarding 
Government involvement, and moved it to the right. The problem is in 
the rest of the bill. We were to the right, and we have moved it to the 
left. We now have Government back into the business of supporting 
crops, micromanaging what goes on around the country, leading to what 
has been heard from many who oppose the legislation, to more certain 
misery in farm country, more concentration, more large farms.
  Most of the money in this bill for production is going to the row 
crops. In Pennsylvania, we have some corn, we grow a little bit of 
beans and other items. But the bottom line is most of my farmers are 
not the big row crop farmers who qualify or participate in these 
programs. The benefits will not go to the vast majority of States and, 
I argue, farmers in this country who do not live in the South or 
Midwest, who are the principal beneficiaries of the program. Two-thirds 
of the commodity money will go to 10 percent of the farmers in America. 
Two-thirds of the money in this bill for production will go to 10 
percent of the farmers in America. Where is the great sympathy for the 
small farmer?
  All of the programs are justified because we need to help rural 
America, the small farms. We have to keep the fabric of rural America. 
Two-thirds of the money goes to 10 percent of the farmers. They are not 
small farmers.
  As to this concept that we are here to preserve the rural way of life 
and this will be a breath of fresh air for rural America, this is 
another nail in the coffin of the family farm in America, by the 
Government not only giving all this money to these large farmers and, 
by doing so, creating an oversupply situation so those who do not get 
the money are going to have lower prices, but our little farmers will 
not have markets to be able to make any kind of profit in what they do.
  This is bad policy for farming. If we did anything such as this for 
any other industry in America, we would be called one of the great 
socialist regimes in the world. Imagine talking about the paper 
industry and saying we will provide all the subsidies and programs for 
anyone in the paper industry, or in the furniture business, or in the 
lighting business. We would be laughed out of this place if we tried to 
do that. Yet we are going to micromanage agriculture and pour hundreds 
of billions of dollars into big farms, where only a very few States are 
going to benefit from this program. It is wrong for America. It is 
wrong for farming. It sets a horrible precedent. The sad thing is, on 
top of all else, it will be very expensive for the taxpayers of 
America.

  Senator Lugar has reestimated a $57 billion increase in commodity 
supports for crops. We are talking about a $57 billion increase over 
the next 10 years. I guarantee today--I put a nickel on the table--that 
number will be at least $25 billion more, just in supplementals for 
farmers. Why? Because prices will be so darn low, we will have to put 
in more money to bail out those who are hurt.
  By the way, most of this helps farmers who have a crop. If you don't 
have a crop, there is not as much help. We will come back and help 
folks for the floods, for the droughts, and for everything else. This 
is going to be much more expensive than what we are talking about 
today. We have shown the rest of the world we are really not interested 
in opening markets, we are not interested in growing our exports, we 
are really not interested in setting an example for the world as to how 
we can be better trading partners.
  It is incredibly ironic, when we negotiate trade promotion authority, 
we bring up a bill that has everything we deplore about the Europeans. 
That is what we are doing in this bill. We are setting a bad example 
that costs the taxpayers billions, and we are not helping the little 
farmer who needs the help. We are not helping the little guy out there 
trying to make it.
  Why? Because all of the subsidies are going to the big farms. They 
will produce. They have no incentive not to produce. They are being 
guaranteed a price to produce. Produce all you want.

[[Page S4010]]

Drive that price down. Put my little farmer who gets no subsidy out of 
business. Congratulations. We struck a blow for rural America. We 
struck a blow for the taxpayer. The problem is, the blow is right 
between the eyes. And it will knock them down, and in too many cases it 
will knock them out.
  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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, these past few years have been 
horrible for farmers. Low prices, the recession, and weather-related 
catastrophies--like the severe drought conditions we suffered in my 
home State of Texas--have made it extremely difficult for our Nation's 
agricultural producers to sustain their farms and ranches, and maintain 
their ability to feed Americans and the people around the world. These 
extraordinarily difficult times reinforce the need for Congress to 
support a strong and effective farm bill that provides a solid safety 
net and enhances the ability of our farmers and ranchers to compete 
domestically and abroad.
  This farm bill is not perfect, and I understand why many of my 
colleagues are opposing it. There are many provisions that concern me 
as well. This legislation undercuts the very foundation of the Freedom 
to Farm concept. Freedom to Farm was the right approach for American 
agriculture, but our farmers were denied open markets and fair trade 
because of our competitors' subsidies and tariffs. Now, instead of 
opening markets and lifting trade barriers, we are moving back to 
direct price supports. I am worried this could stimulate overproduction 
and drive commodity prices down even further. I am also concerned with 
the uncertainty that will follow this bill's country of origin labeling 
requirements.
  However, Texas farmers and ranchers are backed against the wall. Like 
many farmers all across America, Texans have been praying for two 
things--rain and certainty. Texas farmers have been waiting for months 
to make their planting decisions for this year's crop, and their 
lenders cannot help them until this farm bill is passed. This is a 
difficult vote for me. However, at the end of the day, this bill 
provides critical assistance to those who produce our food supply. This 
is why I will reluctantly vote for this imperfect legislation.
  This farm bill will answer the desperate calls for help from 
America's farm and ranch country. Most importantly, it provides a 
strong safety net for our farmers. The payment incentives in this bill 
will free America's farmers from depending on Congress to continually 
provide emergency assistance when prices drop. Over the last 4 years, 
Congress has spent nearly $30 billion on such emergency assistance for 
farmers. This aid was necessary, but its inefficient delivery did not 
provide the certainty that farmers and lenders need for crucial 
management and financial decisions.
  This farm bill may threaten our World Trade Organization commitments, 
so I am pleased that the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to 
regulate this spending on our domestic farm programs. Currently, more 
than 25 percent of American farm income comes from exports. We must 
continue to fight to open these markets, and we cannot hinder access to 
foreign consumers who will provide new opportunity and income for our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers.
  Finally, this legislation protects the States' water rights and 
creates the strongest conservation provisions of any farm bill in 
history. Many of America's livestock and dairy producers depend upon 
these programs for essential soil and water conservation. The severe 
drought and flooding that has occurred across the country makes this 
funding even more critical as farmers work to sustain and enhance the 
productivity of their land.
  America's agricultural challenges must be addressed immediately. This 
bill takes a step--I hope the fundamentals will improve, so we can 
attempt--freedom to farm again in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time does this side have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 29 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. And how much time does Senator Lugar have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has 75 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if there are any Senators who wish to 
speak on the farm bill, now would be the time to do that; otherwise, we 
might be wrapping this up very soon. But we will run the clock a little 
longer to give any Senators an opportunity to come over and speak. 
Whoever, pro or con, they will be recognized to speak. With that 
understanding, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask the time be 
divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time to the Senator from Virginia?
  Mr. ALLEN. I ask I be granted up to 10 minutes from the time 
allocated to Senator Lugar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my concerns about the 
conference report on the farm bill. I understand the desire--and share 
the desire--to make improvements in existing farm legislation. I know 
the conferees worked very hard to address all of the concerns of 
Senators and Representatives from all over this country. A strong farm 
bill is a high priority, and I certainly agree with others who share 
those views.
  In my home State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, agriculture accounts 
for a significant part of our diverse economy, creating nearly 10 
percent of the total jobs statewide. I worked with members of our 
Senate Agriculture Committee to address the concerns of Virginia 
growers and the agricultural communities.
  Several of these concerns were primarily addressed in the Senate 
version of this bill. However, sadly and regrettably, I cannot vote for 
this bill. My concerns are quite simple and represent not only the 
interests of farmers in Virginia but also every American, whether or 
not he or she is engaged in agriculture.
  There are several points I want to make. Number one has to do with 
Virginia peanuts. I thank Senator Harkin. While I may not be joining 
with him at this time, earlier I thanked him because if this conference 
report was like the Senate version, I would be up here saying this is a 
good bill. However, with regard to Virginia peanuts, this conference 
report is not a good bill. Back in December I objected to the 
consideration of this bill, not just for peanut farmers but for others, 
as the current farm bill doesn't even expire until the end of this 
year. I thought, and continue to believe, it is unfair to our farmers 
and ranchers to hold hostage their way of life, to debate and implement 
changes that may harm their income in the middle of the year--indeed, 
during the plowing, planting, and now the growing season. I do not 
think it is right to move the goalposts on someone after the ball has 
already been kicked.
  In 1996, when the Senate last debated the farm bill, the target price 
for peanuts was lowered from $670 a ton to the current level of $610 
per ton. This level was not due to expire until the end of fiscal year 
2002, which is September 30 of this year.
  Today, a farm bill will pass, and the conference report on it takes 
that level from $610 a ton to $495 per ton, a decline of almost 20 
percent.
  I worked hard to make some positive changes in the Senate bill. We 
increased on the Senate side the target

[[Page S4011]]

price of peanuts from $480 in the House version to $520 in the Senate 
bill.
  We increased the marketing loan rate from $350 to $400 and we 
increased the quota transition payments from 50 cents to 55 cents. 
Unfortunately, the conference cut most of these gains.
  Virginia has about 76,000 acres of peanuts and 4,000 peanut farmers. 
While these numbers may not look large to some Senators who have big 
corporate farms in their States, these peanut farms are the basis of 
local communities throughout Southeastern Virginia.
  The fact is, they are going to be devastated by this bill. And that 
means it is going to affect the implement and equipment dealers, those 
who sell the fertilizer, seed, and herbicides. Obviously, it will 
affect the whole community. Despite the hefty expense of this bill--
which for taxpayers is an expense of $4 billion--it will ensure the 
demise of many Virginia peanut farmers.
  Last week I brought a tin of Virginia peanuts to the Senate floor. I 
also did so today because I want to share with my colleagues this great 
product which will continue to disappear, sadly, from the landscape of 
American commerce. The bottom line is that it is simply not fair for 
our hard-working farmers to be dealing with a moving target--at the 
expense of the American taxpayer.
  The peanut section of this bill alone will cost every American man, 
woman, and child almost $15 during the lifetime of this bill. Compare 
this to the current peanut program which operates at no net cost to the 
taxpayers. The way I see it, it is a losing proposition. The taxpayer 
loses, as do Virginia peanut farmers.
  The second point of concern is regarding the budget. The bill not 
only is expensive on the peanut front, but it also busts the budget.
  The Budget Act allocated $73.5 billion for the farm bill. The 
Congressional Budget Office now says the legislation will increase 
agricultural spending by $82.8 billion over the next 10 years--nearly 
80 percent over the cost of existing programs. The 10-year cost of this 
bill, estimated at no less than $170 to $180 million, equates to a 
subsidy of agriculture of more than $640 by every man, woman, and child 
in America.
  In a time where budget surpluses have turned into budget deficits--we 
are fighting a war and fighting through a recession with the highest 
unemployment rate in over 8 years--we should not be diverting money 
from Social Security surpluses.
  This is a policy that stimulates supply, drives down prices, and it 
hurts the farmers who it is meant to help. Simple economics says that 
an unchecked increase in production will lead to slumping prices, and, 
as Senator Hutchison of Texas said, it will ultimately result in 
increased interest rates.
  The decline in prices will shrink the profits of farmers, driving 
them to borrow more money to stay in their business. And the inevitable 
increase in interest rates will only compound their problems. The 
result will be a continuing downward pressure on prices and continuing 
calls for emergency farm rescue legislation.

  The third issue of concern I would like to mention is trade. While 
this bill is not officially a violation of WTO, it is inevitable that 
there may be trade violations and claims made by foreign governments. 
This bill has already come under attack from U.S. trading partners and 
could set back our current efforts to strike free trade agreements.
  The Uruguay Round agreement on agriculture limits U.S. spending to no 
more than approximately $19 billion a year on domestic farm supports. 
The reason for that was to not distort production and trade. It is very 
likely that these limits will be exceeded in the future.
  Furthermore, the new country of origin labeling requirement, besides 
being fundamentally impracticable and unworkable, will trigger 
retaliation from some of our most important trading partners--Canada 
and Mexico.
  I also have other concerns about cuts in some specific programs that 
were at least in the Senate version going in the right direction which 
were beneficial to the people of Virginia.
  The conference report drastically cuts rural utility service funding 
that would deploy rural broadband programs and loans to rural electric 
cooperatives for service upgrades.
  Also, the conference report deletes the Senate provision for $70 
million for a nutrient reduction pilot program in the Chesapeake Bay.
  I know the Presiding Officer has a few tributaries that flow into the 
bay, as, of course, does Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. 
Unfortunately, the Senate provisions were knocked out.
  As Governor, we worked very hard--and I know the Presiding Officer 
did as well when he served as Governor--to reduce nutrients going into 
the bay so that grasses, fish, crabs, oysters, and mollusks could 
return. Unfortunately, that valuable nutrient reduction program was 
knocked out of the conference report.
  In summary, ultimately, I would like to see us pass a solid farm bill 
that provides a quality safety net to our hard-working farm families, 
which also keep prices affordable and low for consumers, which doesn't 
raid Social Security, and which does not grow the size of Government at 
the expense of every hard-working American.
  Indeed, I voted for the Senate version of the farm bill. While there 
are many salutary improvements in this bill, there are too many harmful 
results for Virginians and Americans.
  Today, this conference report takes a step backward on this 
philosophy. It goes against the market-based principles instilled in 
the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, and it does so at a cost that is too high 
to pay.
  Today, regrettably and sadly, I will have to vote against this bill, 
and in doing so represent the interests of Virginia peanut farming 
communities and also the long-term interests of all farmers who deserve 
both adequate support and adequate predictability.
  I vote for fiscal responsibility and to protect the Social Security 
trust fund. I vote to keep the word of the U.S. to our trading partners 
that is vital to expanding markets for American farm products. And I 
vote on behalf of the taxpayers of Virginia and nationwide who 
understand the great importance of agriculture but simply cannot afford 
excessive, wasteful government spending.

  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, before I yield time to the Senator from 
Nebraska, I wish to respond to my friend from Virginia with whom I have 
a good relationship. We have worked closely on this.
  Let us be frank. I wish we could have had the whole Senate bill 
passed, as we passed it once before. As you know, we had to work these 
issues out in conference.
  As concerns the Chesapeake Bay, this has been a concern of mine for a 
long time, especially in terms of the agricultural runoff. That is why 
I was supportive of the provision that the Senator mentioned. But the 
House would not accept the carve-out of EQIP for the Chesapeake Bay 
nutrient reduction pilot program.
  Experience being the best teacher around here, we put it in the 
conference report.
  There is a new authority for the Secretary under a section called 
Partnerships and Cooperation. In which the Secretary can designate 
special projects and enter into agreements with non-Federal entities to 
provide assistance. This could well help with the Chesapeake Bay. In 
fact, the Partnership & Cooperation authority was specifically crafted 
with programs like the Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program 
in mind. I want to read the language:

       The managers intend for the Secretary to use this authority 
     to help producers avoid the need for further Federal and 
     State regulations to protect both water and air. The 
     Secretary is strongly encouraged to be proactive in 
     establishing partnerships in critical areas such as the 
     Chesapeake Bay.''

  The Chesapeake Bay is the only specific region mentioned in the 
entire Partnerships & Cooperation report language section. That is 
intended to give the Secretary notice of the special status of the 
Chesapeake Bay. I wanted the Senator to be aware of this report 
language.
  I also say to the Senator, as long as I am chairman of this 
committee, we intend to make sure the Secretary follows through on 
this. This is one of our national heritage spots. It is one of our 
national treasures, the Chesapeake Bay. We fully intend that the 
Secretary will use her authority to enter

[[Page S4012]]

into those arrangements just as we specified. It is the only area 
specified in the report. We did not specify any other area than the 
Chesapeake Bay. That is just under that program. They draw on the 
existing conservation programs.
  Secondly, we increase the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 
which the Senator mentioned, from $2 billion to $11 billion, a 5\1/2\-
fold increase. Under the EQIP program, farmers in the Chesapeake Bay 
area could receive funds and help for mitigating the runoff of 
nutrients.
  The third part that will help the Chesapeake Bay is the new program 
called the Conservation Security Program that is in this bill. It is a 
new entitlement program--open to all producers. For example, if a 
farmer in the Chesapeake Bay wants to cut down on nutrients, wants to 
cut down on fertilizer, wants to stop soil runoff, wants to have 
resource management improvements there at a non-degradation level, and, 
to be the best manager of that land, that farmer could qualify to 
receive a payment from the Government by entering into an agreement 
with the Secretary.
  So I say to the Senator from Virginia, there are at least three parts 
of this bill which will be helpful in mitigating and stopping the 
runoff of nutrients and soil in the Chesapeake Bay area.
  I am sorry we could not get the specific carve-out, but I can assure 
the Senator as sure as I am standing here--that under those three 
provisions in the conservation title will provide producers in the 
Chesapeake Bay more opportunity for conservation in the next 6 years 
than there has been in the past. That is all I can assure the Senator.
  Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator will yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator. I hope the Senator heard my remarks 
and how complimentary and grateful I am for the work the Senator did on 
the Senate version.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. ALLEN. All of those different approaches are good. And there are 
competitive grants. I am going to work with the Senator.
  We did have that $70 million for that nutrient reduction pilot 
program. While all that is good--and I am going to work hard, and I am 
glad you were able to provide that--it is still not as good as the 
other version. If the House would have only listened to you more. But, 
again, I thank you for at least keeping that. And we will work together 
to reduce nutrient runoff, whether it is filter strips, grass strips, 
riparian buffers, to reduce the nutrient and sedimentary runoff into 
the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. Actually, they are not all 
competitive grant programs. CSP is open to all producers who qualify. 
However, I do look forward to working with the Senator and others 
concerned about the Chesapeake Bay on this issue.
  Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska, my neighbor to the west.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank my neighbor to the east from Iowa, 
the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, for the 
opportunity to be here today and to rise in strong support of the farm 
bill conference report.
  I say to my friends and colleagues who oppose this bill, and appear 
to prefer nothing to something, if you like importing 50 percent of the 
energy needs of this Nation, you will love importing 50 percent of our 
food needs, if this measure fails and domestic agriculture as we know 
it fails.
  I am not sure whether I am pained more by the current state of the 
farm economy--which pains me greatly--or by many of the attacks on this 
farm bill, which I believe will set production agriculture on a course 
of financial stability over the next several years.
  This farm bill, by every measurement, is not perfect. It was not 
perfect when the Senate passed it in February by a vote of 58 to 40. 
Neither was the House bill that passed last year in September. But both 
the House and the Senate recognized, then, that their respective bills 
were a vast improvement over the so-called Freedom to Farm legislation 
that preceded it. And we passed it and sent it to conference.
  Granted, changes were made in conference, changes which I wish had 
not been made. But the overall bill is still a good piece of 
legislation. It will provide substantial new funding for commodity, 
conservation, and nutrition programs. The bill reflects many priorities 
that Nebraskans have asked for in this bill, including a reliable 
commodity program, higher loan rates, funding increases for popular 
conservation programs, a new incentive program for hard white wheat, 
and new funding for renewable energy initiatives, just to name a few.
  The farm bill includes a continuation of direct payments and a new 
countercyclical program. Direct payments are fixed over the life of the 
bill. Loan rates are fixed for 2002 and 2003 and reduced by 1.5 percent 
for the 2004 through 2007 crop years. Target prices will increase as 
loan rates are decreased.
  The bill will increase funding for conservation programs by 80 
percent, providing $9 billion in additional funding for the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program and increasing enrollment in 
the Conservation Reserve Program--a very popular CRP Program--from 36.4 
to 39.2 million acres. It also establishes the new Conservation 
Security Program which offers incentives to producers for conservation 
on land under production.
  Media reports place the amount of 2002 subsidies available for 
Nebraska at $1.1 billion compared with $675 million under the 1996 law. 
That is a half a billion more dollars to Nebraska farmers. This is good 
for Nebraska's farmers, and it is good for Nebraska's economy.
  As I said throughout the long process of developing and considering 
and passing a new farm bill, we need this legislation to help the 
agricultural sector of the economy. It seems to me that agriculture is 
an afterthought for most policymakers in Washington, often left out of 
important tax and economic legislative initiatives, as well as an 
afterthought in many of our trade initiatives and agreements.
  Now, with this bill, I think we have changed that attitude. With the 
new farm bill, and with the energy bill's emphasis on ethanol 
production as an alternative to foreign oil dependence, and other 
renewable energy, we have taken steps to improve agriculture's position 
on the priority ladder. This bill must be looked at as not only food, 
but fiber and fuel.
  Again, as with any piece of legislation, this conference report isn't 
perfect. I am disappointed, in particular, that the final version was 
stripped of the Senate provision I cosponsored that required payment 
limitations to huge farming operations. But we can have that fight 
another day, and I hope it will be soon.
  On balance, the new farm bill is a giant step forward from where 
agricultural programs had been under the dramatic failure of the 1996 
Freedom to Farm Program. It improves the efficiency of Federal programs 
and provides a higher level of assistance to our farmers. For this 
reason, I will vote for this legislation because I believe it is a vote 
in favor of fairness and stability for rural communities and the 
Nation's agricultural economy.
  Throughout the development of this bill, I have always sought ways to 
support our farmers and ranchers. And I have looked for reasons to vote 
for this bill at every opportunity. But it seems to me that some of my 
colleagues have looked for excuses to oppose it, and now they threaten 
to kill the conference report and cast our producers back into the 
disaster known as Freedom to Farm.
  It strikes me that many of those who oppose the bill were some of the 
same ones who supported Freedom to Farm. These are strong words, I 
know, but this is a very difficult time for agriculture.
  I am here today to tell you that nothing is not better than 
something. This bill represents an honest attempt to improve farm 
programs for our farmers. Sure, maybe we could have done even better--
and we probally could do better--but the conference report which is 
before us today is such a vast improvement over the past that we cannot 
let the perfect become the enemy of the good, particularly when our 
farmers need the support provided in this bill. And they need it now.
  In the final analysis, my decision to support this legislation was 
easy. The

[[Page S4013]]

conference report provides the much-needed stability that farmers in 
Nebraska have lacked for the last 5 years. It is about time. It allows 
for major expansions of conservation, nutrition, rural development, and 
trade programs.
  It fits within the budget, and, on the whole, it is a good bill for 
Nebraska. I see positive reasons to vote in favor of this conference 
report which I think will be good for American agriculture.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from Iowa, the distinguished chairman 
of the Agriculture Committee. I compliment the chairman and ranking 
member and the conferees who worked so hard to produce a final product. 
This one was not easy. There is the old saw about watching sausage and 
the law being made. It probably applies to this bill as well as any 
others.
  I commend our House colleagues for continuing the tradition of 
bipartisan work on the farm bill, for soliciting broad input, for 
finishing the bill early this year, for not pitting farmers against 
farmers and one region against another, processors against farmers and 
environmentalists against farmers. In my view, the House did succeed in 
avoiding the temptation to politicize farm policy, and I believe the 
product they have reached in conference with the Senate is good for all 
agriculture.
  The staff worked long days, nights and weekends, as did, of course, 
the conferees. It is not very often that we do anything around here 
ahead of time. For that, the conferees deserve special recognition.
  Clearly, there are many provisions in the bill that I support. There 
are some issues on which each of us would have a much different take, 
we would have handled differently, if not burdened by the natural 
constraints of a democracy. I know that some Senators are making a 
strongly held case that this legislation costs too much. I have my own 
misgivings about the price of farm policy. I will focus on that in my 
remaining remarks.
  First, as with any estimate, it is based on assumptions. The new 
assumptions used in this case to calculate a score include new 
expectations of market prices for individual commodities years in 
advance of reality. These estimates are done in good faith. But, of 
course, it is laughable to think that we know what farm prices will be 
over a period of years that depend on world demand, trade preferences, 
the relative strength of foreign currency, peace, war, and weather.

  The reason this latest score is higher is because the expectations of 
market prices have been revised downward. If market prices are less, 
then there is more urgency for the stronger safety net included in this 
bill, not less.
  Let me point out something many people overlook. There are folks 
saying this is 70 percent more expensive than the last farm bill. If 
you look at the underlying farm bill, yes. But we didn't stick with the 
underlying farm bill. When the world market for agcommodities crashed 
with the Asian contagion, the Asian flu in the late 1990s, Congress 
stepped up to the plate. We have been providing emergency assistance 
because we did not want the artificial collapse in the demand of world 
prices to bankrupt farmers. What we are doing now in this bill is 
essentially building into the safety net the level of spending that we 
have reached when we have had to come forward with emergency 
appropriations for the emergency costs each year.
  I guarantee, if we had passed the old farm bill, if we had kept the 
old farm bill in place, if the year 2003 rolled around and it appeared 
that we were going to have the same disastrously low farm prices we 
have this year, we would have come right back here and people would 
have said: Yes, you can't have large segments of agriculture going 
bankrupt because they can't get a return from the marketplace.
  As most of us know, when farmers come into our Senate offices, they 
have a broad agenda. Some of it we deliver; most of it we have not, 
despite the best efforts of a good many Members of this body. I will 
mention on my side alone, Senators Lugar, Roberts, Grassley, Cochran, 
and others. Yes, farmers want a stronger safety net, but they would 
much rather get their returns from the marketplace than the mailbox. 
They would rather have lower taxes and less regulation, more market and 
trade opportunities, modernized transportation options, all of which we 
as a body, collectively and individually, have promised them but have 
delivered too little.
  Many Senators who oppose the farm bill argue that trade and taxes and 
relief from regulation are what farmers need. I agree. Farmers heard 
that 7 years ago. It hasn't been delivered, despite the best efforts of 
a determined minority of us. I will continue fighting for all of those 
measures that are good for farmers, good for the economy, and which 
will significantly reduce the cost of this farm bill.
  In the meantime, I am going to support a responsible safety net built 
in to provide relief for farmers when the world demand situation and 
our exclusion from the world market keep prices artificially low.
  If we want to reduce the cost of this farm bill--and certainly all of 
us do--we should pass the full farm agenda, not just the farm bill. We 
should pass a trade bill. We should pass the energy bill, such as the 
bill we passed out of the Senate. I hope our House colleagues are 
taking a look at it because that is very good for farmers as well as 
for energy and the environment.
  We should not place more mandates on farmers every time regulators 
have a new idea. We should improve our land and water transportation. 
We should reduce taxes. We should encourage more use of farm products.
  If we do that, the farm bill will cost much less. American farmers 
will be getting their return from the marketplace rather than the 
mailbox, and the American farmers will be happy. The taxpayers will be 
happy, and we will all be happy. Farmers, just as others in the 
economy, should be free to fail, but they should also be free to 
succeed. That will not happen if we continue to ignore the rest of the 
farm agenda.

  There is another criticism of the farm bill; that is, that it 
provides a disincentive for international market liberalization. It 
will encourage foreign trade-distorting subsidies.
  I think the opposite is the case. I do not believe our European trade 
competitors find it compelling or would be persuaded if we produced a 
good example. In fact, they probably would find it laughable that we 
are thinking about how to clean up our act when they haven't cleaned up 
theirs. President Ronald Reagan didn't get the Soviet Union to pull its 
intermediate-range missiles out of Eastern Europe by saying: We are not 
going to do that. He put in the Pershings. He put the pressure on them. 
The Soviet Union collapsed. It is naive to think that we can 
unilaterally disarm and go into negotiations and expect to win. The 
same applies with food policy.
  Additionally, I know many Members are sensitive to editorial opinion 
that is decidedly against this policy. I was asked today by some 
reporters about an editorial in a newspaper I generally respect. They 
said they really condemn this as pork.
  I said: Normally, they write good editorials, well-reasoned and based 
on fact. This was not one of them. They don't know what they are 
talking about.
  Many of those newspapers are published in high-rise buildings in some 
of our wonderful metropolitan areas. I doubt if they know what a 
combine is or how you raise cattle or the impact of the world market on 
farmers.
  Still, I can't say that all the points the editorial opponents raise 
are invalid. But there are a great many things those people in the 
ivory towers take for granted. They take for granted the volume, the 
low price, the high quality, the unparalleled safety of our food supply 
and the national economic contribution made by U.S. farmers and the 
many suppliers who ultimately end up with the farmers' money.
  Editorial writers may be critical of farm policy, but they are 
critical with full stomachs. In the emerging countries of Asia and 
Africa, they say that a well-fed country has many problems, but a 
hungry country has but one problem. Fortunately, we don't have it. We 
ask our farmers to produce more with less, to accept more Federal 
mandates

[[Page S4014]]

without the ability to pass costs on to consumers, and we ask them to 
compete in an international marketplace with competitors whose 
government gives much greater levels of assistance. Then we have a 
period of good worldwide weather that has produced surplus world 
production, which has ensured that market prices around the world are 
low. The big city papers can take our food supply for granted, but 
those of us who live in flyover country--the real America between the 
two coasts--cannot and neither can the consumers in this country and 
elsewhere, who are unwittingly the biggest beneficiaries of the hard 
labor and sacrifice of those who struggle on the farm.

  I do agree that those critical of this bill are raising an argument 
that we need to have, and that is where we draw the line. Given the 
numerous ad hoc disaster bills, it is clear that the status quo is 
yielding little discipline from a fiscal standpoint. With this new 
program and its strengthened and more expensive safety net, I say to 
farmers: The criteria for additional ad hoc disaster is now 
significantly more demanding, if not prohibitive.
  The budget issues raised by those critical are not without validity 
and we will have a good opportunity to see if those who support this 
dramatically stronger safety net will resist the impulse to pile on 
more and more in the months and years ahead.
  While I support this farm bill, I warn all farmers that like the 
previous farm bill, the commodity title will not increase market 
prices. Those who came to the floor with frequency the previous 4 years 
suggesting the previous farm bill was a failure because market prices 
were low knew better then and I hope everyone understands now that this 
commodity section is a safety net only. The rural development and 
research titles should help expand markets and reduce costs to some 
degree but not the commodity title.
  If we want a chance to increase market prices over the long term, we 
will have to give the rest of the farm agenda of trade, taxes, 
transportation, energy, and regulatory relief a fraction of the urgency 
we have demonstrated here in being so generous with other people's 
money.
  The President has indicated that he approves of this legislation and 
the House passed it on a bipartisan basis by a 2-1 margin. The farm 
groups and livestock groups support the legislation.
  I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member and those who 
participated and worked so hard on this conference report and urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may 
require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, yesterday, during the course of the debate, 
I pointed out that ever since the conference report came to the other 
body and the House of Representatives passed that conference report, 
there has been a reevaluation of the amount of money that the bill we 
are now looking at would spend.
  Frequently in the past, we have talked about the budget of a year 
ago, allocating $73.5 billion over a 10-year period of time for farm 
legislation. In fact, when we commenced the conference--that is, the 
Senate committee with our House conferees--the evaluation of the bill 
the Senate had passed was that it was $79.5--$6 billion too much--with 
the action we took here on the Senate floor. So in the early days of 
that conference, the $79.5 billion that was estimated for our product 
had to be scaled down by $6 billion. That came out of many programs. 
But in due course it was achieved, so that we could at least confer 
with our House friends on the basis of both of us having a $73.5 
billion product.
  I dwell on that because much has been made of $73.5 billion of 
additional spending beyond the so-called baseline. The baseline is a 
euphemism for the totality of farm programs that continue on--ones that 
were provided by Freedom to Farm, and some were provided by other farm 
bills in the past; in other words, a pretty large aggregate of farm 
spending. That baseline was frequently estimated in many speeches 
during this debate at about $100 billion. So in rough figures, the 
debate started with the thought that we would have about $100 billion 
of baseline--all the programs that continue on and an additional $73.5 
billion of spending--and that would occur on a 10-year basis at $173.5 
billion. Now we know the $73.5 billion has now been evaluated as $82.8 
billion, so it is up $9.3 billion. The reason is that the Congressional 
Budget Office, taking a look at our assumptions--and the assumptions 
came down principally to the price of row crops--corn, wheat, soybeans, 
cotton, and rice. The estimates that were in our bill were that the 
prices of those row crops would be higher than CBO's, and the experts 
they have brought in now believe that will be the case--in essence, 
that a downward trend of prices is continuing.
  So since we are now providing much higher target prices or, in fact, 
reinstating those in a countercyclical program, and at slightly higher 
loan rates, since the base market prices are expected to be much lower, 
the gap is larger; thus, the taxpayer input into the farm bill. So we 
have moved from $73.5 billion to $82.8 billion. Now comes the news that 
the baseline likewise has been reevaluated by the Congressional Budget 
Office. I have gone back to the drawing board, and the baseline was not 
exactly $100 billion. Our staff, by our best calculations, finds that 
it was $97.6 billion. So we had $2.4 billion there that we had not 
expected. That is the good news. But the bad news is the new baseline 
is $107.155 billion. That is roughly $9.5 billion higher.
  So our assumption, as we start this conference, that we had $100 
billion of baseline and $73.5 billion of new spending--thus, $173.5 
billion--is in fact now $82.819 billion. That is the new situation for 
the new spending and a baseline of $107.155 billion, for a grand total 
now of $189.974 billion, or roughly $190 billion.
  Now, that is a lot more money, Mr. President. That $173.5 billion has 
been transformed, even in the course of this debate on the Senate 
floor, up to $190 billion--a change of $16.5 billion, just for the same 
bill, with no change in any of the stipulations. Mr. President, I made 
a prediction yesterday--and many have ratified that in their remarks, 
and some disagree with it--that we are likely, in fact, to see CBO look 
at the same programs year after year and reevaluate them higher--both 
baseline and new programs. Why? Because this farm bill stimulates 
overproduction. It does nothing with regard to our trade situation.

  We have had extraordinary speeches in which some have said we are 
really fouling up the waters if we hope to ever get more exports to 
deal with other countries in some sort of diplomatic way, to gain entry 
for our crops, which we certainly need to do. But others have said, 
listen here, this is an American bill, this is not a French bill, or an 
English bill, or a Canadian bill and, by golly, it doesn't make any 
difference what they think about it. Fair enough. But, of course, it 
does, because we are hoping to negotiate with these countries for entry 
for our exports. At some point, perhaps we will be diplomatically 
successful. Every farmer prays that will be the case. But it is 
certainly not the case for the moment.
  As a result, the supplies continue to pile up. Why? Because this bill 
is very generous to the row crops in offering incentives to plant more 
and to take advantage of the higher loan rates and the higher target 
price. As a result, not only will there be surprises that have come out 
on the floor in the last 2 days in which something that used to be 
$173.5 billion is now $190 billion of expenditures, but those figures 
are likely to escalate further each of the 6 years of the duration of 
this bill, unless amended.
  Now, Mr. President, at some point, Senators may say this is simply 
too much. I have raised the question, as have others, that the $15 
billion that is spent on additional reestimates of what we have done is 
money that might have been spent on health care--either reforming 
Medicare, for prescription drugs for the elderly, for shoring up Social 
Security, or for education programs that come up even in this debate. 
The distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, 
decried the lack of attention, really, to the President's suggestion to 
leave no child behind and the funding needed for that.
  I once again point out that we find it, I suppose, possible to 
discuss farm bills

[[Page S4015]]

in a total vacuum, but without realization of the war, homeland 
defense, or the basic issues in most of our campaigns, there is almost 
an obsession with spending this money--all of it.
  Without being redundant, I point out, as the Chair and others have 
heard, that if, in fact, this money were to go to small farmers, 
medium-size farmers, even fairly large farmers who are in danger of 
going out of business, a case could be made for some of it. But the 
fact is that in the row crop situation--and this is roughly 60 to 70 
percent of all the moneys, even after you talk about conservation, 
research, and the small crops, and so forth; that the basic row crops 
is roughly 60 to 70 percent of the money and two-thirds of that money 
goes to just 10 percent of the farmers--it is an inescapable 60 
percent, three-fifths of all the farmers in the country do not get the 
row crop money at all, and that is where almost all the increases have 
come from in the Congressional Budget Office reevaluation.
  It is that part of the program that, in fact, has attracted most of 
the money, has concentrated it on relatively few farmers, and even when 
the Senate passed a fairly modest cap that no individual farmer should 
receive more than $275,000 each year--not in the total of the farm 
bill, but each year--there were loud protests from our House 
colleagues. As a result, that was scrapped. Through the two- or three-
entity rule or all the various rules, certificates, what have you, the 
net effect is there are no limits.
  If, in fact, you are an ingenious farmer and a big farmer, this is a 
bonanza. Already bankers have sent in testimony in behalf of this and 
said things ought to be in pretty good shape for the next 6 years, in 
terms of the collateral for loans because land values escalate, and 
that is the basic collateral, unless you are one of 42 percent of 
farmers who rent and unless, in fact, you are a small farmer which no 
amount of money from a country banker is likely to resuscitate, and 
certainly not this bill.
  After one bromide after another about how it brings stability, 
certainty, and so forth to American farmers, I say a few American 
farmers--very few, as a matter of fact--will do very well.
  What I find baffling is how this body, with these facts squarely in 
front of us--established now as we know by the Environmental Working 
Group Web site farm by farm, county by county so there is 
incontrovertible evidence of exactly who gets what and in what 
proportion, what percentage, State by State--it is not speculation any 
longer--to the dollar, year by year, even updated for 2001 now in a 
recent update of the site--still Senators hue to the thought that 
somehow Freedom to Farm failed and this bill in front of us now will 
make an enormous difference for most farmers in the country.
  My own view is that it will not. In fact, I believe most farmers in 
the country will be hurt. These speeches that I give on the floor I 
give in my home State. Despite some of the rhetoric in which people 
have talked about people in skyscrapers writing articles, people who 
have never seen a combine, never seen a cow--I will testify I have seen 
a combine, I have seen a cow, I have even seen a farm, even own one, 
even tried to deal with these programs year by year so that I 
understand exactly what happens to farmers as a product of what we do.
  Mr. President, I simply want to offer as one explanation of what we 
are doing a remarkably timely article that appeared in the Washington 
Post this morning. This is not the Washington Post editorial writers or 
someone remote from farming, but it is a gifted economist, Robert 
Samuelson, who has long written for Time, Newsweek, and others. I quote 
portions of what Samuelson says because I think they are appropriate 
for our debate.

  Samuelson says:

       Farm subsidies are a splendid example of old-fashioned 
     politics: using public money to buy votes. It's the quest for 
     popularity and power, and not campaign contributions, that 
     matters. Under the new bill, the subsidies are estimated to 
     cost almost $200 billion over the next decade. . . .

  Samuelson misses that, according to my calculation, by $10 billion. 
We are now up to $190 billion, but with the meter still ticking.

       If farm prices (mainly for wheat, corn, soybeans, and 
     cotton) are lower than expected, the subsidies will be 
     higher.

  He is right on that point.
  Similarly, higher farm prices would mean lower subsidies.

       The point is to stabilize farm incomes--to prop them up in 
     periods of low prices and thereby save ``family farming.'' 
     The subsidies have existed in one form or another for almost 
     70 years, and there's no evidence that they work. Farmers and 
     farm workers accounted for 21 percent of the labor force in 
     1929, before the New Deal's first agriculture legislation. 
     Their share today is about 2 percent, even though the amount 
     of land in farming is almost the same (1 billion acres in 
     1931, 932 million in 1997).
       Bigger tractors, more fertilizer and better seed varieties 
     and cultivation methods have promoted farm consolidation and 
     larger harvests. In the 1940s, American farmers grew an 
     average of 34 bushels of corn per acre; in 2001, the average 
     was four times that, 137 bushels an acre. Government 
     subsidies simply haven't been able to overcome the pressures 
     for bigger and more efficient farms.
       Indeed, the subsidies have perverse side effects. Higher 
     subsidies boost land values, because (like crops) they add to 
     the land's cash-producing potential. In turn, higher land 
     prices and rentals mean higher costs for new farmers. 
     Similarly, farm subsidies stimulate production, which 
     depresses prices. The combination of higher costs and lower 
     prices squeeze farm incomes.
       The subsidies also hamper efforts to open foreign markets. 
     Precisely because American farmers are so productive, they 
     need exports to absorb their surpluses. But foreign markets 
     are heavily protected by subsidies and high tariffs, because 
     farmers almost everywhere are a politically favored group. 
     According to a recent U.S. Agriculture Department study, the 
     average food tariff around the world is now 62 percent. It's 
     hard to convince other countries to cut their subsidies and 
     tariffs if we won't cut our own.
       The survival of farm subsidies, despite their huge 
     shortcomings, partly reflects political inertia. Once 
     extended, government benefits are hard to withdraw. It would 
     seem ``unfair,'' and farmers--despite constant complaining 
     about details--have become dependent on subsidies. The 
     subsidies also endure because they're protected by the ``iron 
     triangle'' of congressional committees, interest groups and 
     government agencies.

  Here, the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

       Without farm programs, all would be much less important.
       To sustain their power, farm legislators and lobbies ``are 
     willing to trade their votes for almost anything,'' says 
     economist David Orden, of Virginia Tech, a longtime student 
     of farm politics.
       But what increasingly protects farm subsidies is political 
     competition. With Congress split--and control of the House 
     and Senate hanging on a few races--swing voters must be 
     courted. Both parties are in a bidding war.
       The result is much bipartisan hypocrisy.

  Indeed.

  Each one of us has been involved in political campaigns, and we will 
be involved in some more. We are aware of that situation. So is the 
public. I cannot believe the public hearing this debate, understanding 
the escalation of the monies that have been required to accommodate the 
long list of additional crops, groups and farm entities in American 
life, will not, in fact, find the whole situation to be very 
disturbing.
  As Samuelson concludes, at least the good thing is that it is 
democracy at work; people appealing to voters. What each one of us, I 
suspect, will have to finally determine is who the voters are.
  I submit that out in America there are a lot of people who are very 
sympathetic with regard to American agriculture, and many of them are 
in this Senate. But I also suggest that the American people want us to 
determine some priorities, that we have a responsibility as trustees of 
the Public Treasury, and as trustees of a good number of things in 
American life, to have some wisdom and some sense of justice with 
regard to all of this. This is why I will vote against the conference 
report, because I believe it has reached outrageous proportions in 
terms of expense. It narrowly focuses most of these new outrageous 
expenses on a relatively few farmers. It will depress prices almost 
certainly and thus increase the cost of the whole enterprise year by 
year. It is destructive of relationships abroad that are necessary if 
we are to export more and, as a matter of fact, it really needs to be 
revised very substantially.
  Fortunately, we have a farm bill that does continue for several more 
months. It has been criticized routinely, but I noted two things in the 
course of the debate today, and in a bipartisan way,

[[Page S4016]]

as I mentioned. The distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, 
mentioned that due to very technical aspects of payments--the Senator 
stated, very gifted as he analyzed the bill and understands it--many 
farmers who are expecting to get money this year will be disappointed. 
The checks will be spaced out in various increments. The Senator from 
Kansas was suggesting that perhaps it would have been in the better 
interest of most farmers to have a supplemental bill that costs much 
less than the new bill we are talking about, and to have provided the 
money as anticipated.
  Now, the Senator did not advocate another supplemental bill, but if 
my analysis is correct, others will. And why not? Why should this be 
the final farm debate of the year if in fact more need and difficulty 
can be found, as it clearly will be in the administration of this bill 
should it pass?
  There will be a number of people who will need to be employed by the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Hundreds of hours will be spent by 
ordinary farmers figuring out whether they take the base of the past or 
the base of a recent year's yield, and how to apply for all of this. We 
have quite a turmoil ahead of us, and the money does not necessarily 
flow in that process. The Senator from Kansas recognized that and 
described it rather acutely.
  In addition to that, the distinguished chairman of our committee has 
mentioned he might wish to call a meeting of the Agriculture Committee 
next week to mark up disaster assistance legislation, maybe in the 
order of $2.4 billion. I made the prediction yesterday, despite all of 
the certainty, finality, and the thought that this does it as opposed 
to Freedom to Farm, we are very likely going to have two debates every 
year in addition: One, for a supplemental, a group, wherever it may be 
in our society, who believes that somehow things did not work out well 
for them and; secondly, disasters, weather disasters, health disasters, 
whatever may have happened in the appropriations process.

  I simply ask of Senators, once again, how much and how long does this 
process continue?
  I trust there will not be any further reestimates by CBO even in the 
course of this afternoon. The shock of going from $173.5 billion to 
$190 billion during the course of this debate should be substantial. I 
hope that both at USDA, at the White House, as well as in this Senate, 
people are evaluating the sums of money that are now involved.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the two managers of the 
bill. It is my understanding the manager for the minority, the senior 
Senator from Indiana, has agreed graciously to transfer 20 minutes of 
his time, that is under the unanimous consent agreement, to Senator 
Harkin. Is that right?
  Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct. We would be pleased to give 20 
minutes of our time to Senator Harkin so that speakers can be 
accommodated.
  Mr. REID. I would, on behalf of Senator Harkin, yield 10 minutes to 
the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the 
authorizing Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar, for yielding time, 
and the flexibility offered to me by the assistant majority leader to 
speak to this conference report.
  I have for the last few moments been listening to the senior Senator 
from Indiana talk about his frustrations and problems with this 
conference report and with agricultural policy. I must say I agree with 
so much of what he said.
  When one is handed a political document and they try to fix it, and 
the politics gets worse, the document ultimately does not get better. 
Tragically enough, that is what we were handed in the Senate in the 
bill coming out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. We tried to make 
it better. It was not much better before it went to conference, and I 
am not sure what we now have is a much improved version.
  I say that not only as a student of agricultural policy, once having 
served on the authorizing committee, but now serving on the Agriculture 
Appropriations Committee, growing up a farmer and a rancher, being 
active as an agricultural young person in FFA, both as a State officer 
and a national vice president, I have been involved and closely 
connected to agriculture in my State and around this country for a long 
while. As someone who recognizes the importance of agriculture to my 
State and good farm policy, I am in a quandary, as are many of my 
colleagues who have come to speak over the last several days to the 
issue of a new 5-year agricultural policy for our country.
  How do I evaluate this in the context of how will it impact my State, 
primarily, and then secondarily, what does it do to the country, both 
to the producers of agriculture, the farmer, the rancher, but what 
about the consumer? How does it fit in the consumer market basket? How 
do we put all of that together because that really is the charge of the 
Congress when they evaluate agricultural policy?
  It is with those thoughts in mind that I joined with Senator Roberts 
some weeks ago on the very thing Senator Lugar was talking about a few 
moments ago, and that is the opportunity of a supplemental to send a 
message to production agriculture, as the tractors are ready to go into 
the fields across America, that there was a policy in place, that we 
were not going to play politics with it and that they could take 
something to the bank to negotiate with the loan officer on a line of 
credit for the farming year.
  Senator Roberts introduced that legislation a couple of weeks ago, as 
the conference committee was pushing toward finality. We now have that 
in this document, in this conference report. The question is, What does 
it mean? What is its impact? How long does it take to reach regulatory 
form in a way that gets to the ground?

  We will live out this year's farm policy because it does not expire 
until the end of the fiscal year. It is possible, while I think some 
will meet it with resistance, that we will see a supplemental on the 
floor to solve some of the immediate problems because this bill does 
not deliver immediate aid to American agriculture. It spreads it out 
over an extended period of time when, in past policy and in current 
policy today, they would have received some immediate assistance.
  This does not solve a problem in the short term. Then, again, farm 
policy is more about the long-term view as we deal with the day-to-day 
problems of agriculture, in policy but also with the supplemental.
  How do I evaluate this farm bill? Let me state what is bad. That is 
how I looked at it--what is bad, what is good, how do I balance it out, 
how do I vote for Idaho farmers and ranchers.
  Idaho is one of the fastest growing dairy States in the Nation. We 
rank fifth in overall numbers of cows producing. It is a growth area in 
Idaho agriculture, and our dairies are 500-, 
1,500-, 2,000-cow units. We are one of the big growth dairy States. 
Frankly, policies that access markets and open up markets are the best 
policies for Idaho. We are an exporter. We do not have to be in the 
business of subsidizing an efficiency for the sake of the politics of 
the local dairy environment. Our farmers have transitioned into a much 
more competitive situation in modernizing themselves to fit the needs 
of the current consumer base.
  When I look at a national milk program that basically only subsidizes 
or helps build a floor for cow units of 170 cows or fewer, my guess is 
that is talking about what used to be when it comes to dairy policy 
instead of what ought to be. That is not good policy because it 
perpetuates relative inefficiency or it subsidizes it in a way we ought 
not be about. We have always been proud in American agriculture that 
efficiency was the name of our game. Our production set us apart from 
the rest of the world. We ought not be about subsidizing something that 
is not efficient today. We ought to promote efficiency and 
productivity. I don't think dairy policy does that.
  If we really want to help out the bottom line of our Nation's dairy 
men and women, it would be much more advantageous to look at 
alternatives to this bill's price support program, which is purposely 
biased to a select dairy operation size.
  What about forestry? Yes, when we talk agriculture, we talk forestry. 
One

[[Page S4017]]

of the largest divisions of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is the 
U.S. Forest Service. It is tremendously disappointing to see the 
biomass and stewardship provisions stripped from this farm bill. Why 
can't we get involved in the business of actively managing our forests 
instead of simply letting them grow old, die, and burn up? Right now, 
forests are burning in Arizona and New Mexico. It is a dry year. Part 
of the reason they are burning is that we have had no active management 
and we have watched the fuel base of those forests build. That is true 
in the Black Hills, an area not far from the chairman's home area. It 
is critically important we actively manage our forests instead of 
putting the fence around them and saying to the 
environmental community: Here is a preserve. Come look at it while it 
is alive because it is dying unless we create dynamics in it that will 
build back life and vitality.

  We did not do that. We walked away from that. The House and the 
Senate could not agree. We will do what we have been doing for the last 
several years: We will legislate through appropriations. That is not 
necessarily a way to create policy, but that is probably what we will 
end up doing because this was the wrong way to do it.
  The Senator from Iowa and I and others got involved with the 
assistant majority leader in an issue over water when he was trying to 
take States' water rights and reshape them and create water banks, 
denying Western States their prerogative on western water rights. We 
were able to get a big chunk of that knocked out. But then Nevada got a 
sweet deal, a couple hundred million dollars to go to a specific area 
in Nevada. That is the name of the game around here. At least we saved 
water rights. Water rights cannot be bought, nor should they be owned, 
by the Federal Government. They ought to have a right to have rights 
where water is needed and water is utilized. But in western arid 
States, that is a provision that is exclusively the States'.
  In my opinion, those are some of the bad provisions in this bill.
  Now let me talk about some of the good provisions because there are 
some. I have been on the floor numerous times in the last good number 
of years talking about sugar and the sugar program. It is an important 
part of the agricultural base of my State. We got the forfeiture 
penalty eliminated. That was critically necessary. With the sugar 
policy, we are moving back to a no-cost-to-the-taxpayer approach. That 
is good. That is the right way to move policy. We have done so for 
sugar.
  We included wool in a marketing loan and an LDP program. As we know, 
and especially with western range sheep industries and with wool, that 
market has all but collapsed as a result of imports and as a result of 
access by Australian and New Zealand interests in this market. This 
helps create flexibility and staying power on the part of the sheep 
rancher of our country--the sheep farmer. I think that is important.
  In my State, there is a class of crops called pulse crops, peas and 
lentils. Those are a valuable rotation crop, especially in the high-
grain-yielding country where they have 120-bushel dryland grain. It is 
a marvelous producing crop in the north end of my State that moves into 
Washington. One way to maintain the integrity of the soil and the 
balances to plant lagoons is nitrogen-bearing crops that put humus back 
in the soil and create the dynamics of a positive farm program, and yet 
those crops have been without a loan program or LDP all these years. We 
were able to create those dynamics in this farm bill. That is a 
positive provision.
  Another positive part of the program is the conservation title. It 
includes the EQIP funding and the CRP acreage. Certainly in my State, 
CRP has been a very dynamic program, creating the kind of conservation 
and soil management in some of our more steep grounds, some of our 
foothill country, that not only has put that country back to grass, it 
has created great wildlife habitat for upland game birds--an extremely 
positive program.
  Another area of the conservation title is the Grasslands Reserve 
Program for 2 million acres of pasture lands. I helped write that 
provision. I introduced legislation with several colleagues. It is 
possible the chairman was involved in that issue. We have worked 
together to create the Grasslands Reserve Program.
  There are positive conservation titles in that farm bill. That is one 
of the good things I see in this bill.
  As to rural economic development, many Members, as we argue for a 
farm bill, in part argue to create profitability in agriculture because 
of the dynamic and dramatic negative economics in many of the rural 
areas of our States. While we know that at least the number of farmers 
is dropping even though the number of acres farmed remains the same, it 
changes the dynamics in small rural, agricultural America. As a result, 
many have worked over the years to create new dynamics for the purpose 
of economic development in rural America. This is a title of 
importance. It is important we do so. The funding is reduced. The title 
is stronger.
  Over the years, I hope we can build back some of that funding to 
strengthen rural economic development. If new industry is to come to 
rural America, then the infrastructure overall in America has to remain 
whole. I have worked on and have a new rural health care title that 
will allow our rural hospitals low-cost loans to buy back some of the 
equipment that is now obsolete.

  I was visiting a hospital in Soda Springs, in the southeastern corner 
of my State. It is a rural area. Much of that equipment is 25 and 30 
years old in that hospital. You cannot call it state of the art, even 
though they deliver quality health care. That is a hospital 30 miles 
from the next hospital, in which rural health care is critically 
necessary. This legislation in the long term will help us.
  My time is rapidly running short. I know others wish to speak as we 
near the hour we will vote on this issue. Overall, this is not the farm 
bill I would have written. My guess is, we are going to be back 
rewriting it more than once over the course of the next several years.
  Somebody said: Why aren't you on the authorizing committee anymore, 
Senator, and therefore on agriculture appropriations? Because, I said, 
my guess is we are going to be rewriting this farm bill at least once a 
year for the next 5, and that will be done in the Appropriations 
agriculture subcommittee as we work on these programs.
  This is an expensive farm bill. My guess is in the end we will find 
we cannot afford it all and we will begin to adjust some of this 
downward--and I think that is appropriate. We are on the verge of 
busting the budget on which we earlier agreed, but then, again, without 
a budget resolution and without a fixed application of where we are 
going with agriculture, it is possible to argue that this bill doesn't 
meet that test.
  In the end, I am going to support the conference report. I think the 
farmers of my State in the majority want that to happen. There are 
provisions in this bill that I can support and I have outlined the 
positives and the negatives.
  I hope we can pass this out and in the end the President will sign 
it, although I know the White House and the Department of Agriculture 
and the Secretary are very frustrated over where this Congress wants to 
take agricultural policy at this moment.
  Sometimes compromises are not necessarily good. Tragically, in the 
end, even in bipartisan environments, at times we do not always work 
the will that ought to be worked to produce the kind of positives and 
the dynamics we ought to in the marketplace.
  I am as frustrated today as any other agricultural Senator is about 
prices, commodities, international markets, and the viability of the 
agricultural economy of our country. I do not deny where we are 
heading, with larger agriculture and all we are attempting to do to 
resolve those problems.
  As a result of that, we have a conference report that I hope a 
majority of the Senate will move in favor of, and therefore pass this 
conference report out and send it to the President's desk.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how much time is left on Senator Lugar's 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 19 minutes.

[[Page S4018]]

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself 4 minutes. I have permission to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on and most 
likely pass a 6 year farm bill.
  Supporters of the bill say it will cushion family farmers and rural 
America from financial hardship. That may be true, but unless you are a 
big meatpacker or a cotton and/or rice producer in the South, the new 
farm bill is not what it is cracked up to be.
  I am afraid that for Iowa farmers, the bill's shortcomings outweigh 
its virtues. So I will cast my vote against the bill.
  There are two main reasons:
  No. 1, during the last year, farmers in Iowa made clear to me they 
wanted Washington to crack down on the sky-high payments going to large 
corporate farms. It is ridiculous that we shovel the lion's share of 
the farm benefits to a handful of large corporate farming operations.
  No. 2, Iowans also urged me to push public policy that would keep 
competition alive in the livestock industry by banning packer ownership 
of animals fed for slaughter.
  My amendments got these two main family-farmer priorities included in 
the Senate version passed last February, but my amendments were dropped 
by the conferees.
  Who is this bad for? It is bad for small and medium sized farmers, 
the very people a farm bill is suppose to help. Throughout the history 
of farm bills, their intent has been to aim the majority of the benefit 
to small and medium sized producers, the Congress has missed before, 
but in my opinion we have never missed so badly.
  We sent strong family-farmer oriented provisions to the conference 
and we got nothing in return, except a bill that is so complex family 
farmers won't receive their 2002 crop benefits until right before 
harvest of the 2003 crop. That might make sense to the conferees, but 
it does not to me or any of the other farmers that are calling and 
emailing my office asking questions about this bill and why we made the 
farm bill so complicated.
  This clearly does not address the needs of small and medium-sized 
producers in Iowa that put a premium on the issues of payment limits 
and banning packer-ownership, so I am going to vote against this bill 
and do anything I can to remedy the issues regarding competition that 
the conferees discarded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I rise today and apologize to my colleagues. I 
reserved a lot of time to come speak but I have gotten involved in the 
debate about our effort to get trade promotion authority. I think it is 
time well spent. I think the average farmer, in terms of real 
prosperity, is going to get more if we are successful in trade 
promotion authority than they are going to get under this bill. So I do 
not have any apologies to make about the use of the time. I think for 
farmers and for America trade promotion authority is a lot more 
important.
  I am going to vote against this bill because it is a bad bill. We 
have created a miracle in America, and I think this bill is going to 
add to that miracle. The miracle is we have the best farmers, with the 
best talent, with the most effective research system in history, 
working the best land, with the best tools, and we have created a 
situation where rural America is no longer a good place to make a 
living.
  How is all that possible? It is possible because we have created a 
program that encourages overproduction and, in the process, 
impoverishes the very people who are trying to make a living farming 
and ranching in America. We have artificially inflated the value of 
agricultural land. We have spent money at a level unprecedented in 
history. We continue that in this bill. Surely there has to be concern 
that the top 10 percent of the recipients under this bill will get 37 
times as much money on average as the bottom 80 percent will get. How 
can it make sense to have a bill where 10 percent of the beneficiaries 
will get 37 times as much money as the bottom 80 percent will get?
  The average family in America, two-wage-earner family, earns about 
$49,000 a year. When President Clinton was in office we tried to reduce 
the taxes paid by two-wage-earner families by stretching the 15-percent 
tax bracket. Our Democrat colleagues said they were opposed to it 
because they said it only helped rich people. I remember pointing out 
on the floor that these rich people made on average $21,600 each. Each 
member of this working couple family, the ones who were going to 
benefit of stretching this 15-percent bracket, made $21,600. Many of my 
colleagues said those are rich people.
  I pointed out, when did $21,600 a year qualify you as being 
rich? But, nevertheless, we were unable to do it because President 
Clinton vetoed the bill.

  When the Senate debated this bill, we had an amendment that Senator 
Grassley offered that put a cap on the amount of payments a person 
could receive under this bill. His amendment said that no one could get 
more than $275,000 of taxpayer money under this farm bill. Remember 
that many of our Democrat colleagues said if you made $21,600 you were 
too rich for a tax cut. Senator Grassley offered an amendment that said 
the Government can give you over 10 times that amount--$275,000 per 
farmer. We adopted that amendment--I am proud to say I voted for it--66 
to 31. Then we went to conference. Both Houses set a lower cap as to 
how much money any individual farmer or rancher can get under the bill. 
And, all of a sudden, what happens? They go to a cap of $360,000--
higher than either House adopted.
  Then, we have a three-entity rule.
  Then, we have a husband-and-wife rule.
  Then, we have a commodity certificate rule.
  The bottom line is, you can get millions of dollars under this farm 
bill. One individual can get millions of dollars. So apparently it is 
OK to pay one person in agriculture millions of dollars, but we can't 
give a tax cut to people who make $21,600 a year because they are rich. 
I don't understand that. I don't know how you can justify it. Needless 
to say, since I am voting against this bill, I am not going to have to.
  By raising these loan rates in this bill, we have guaranteed that we 
are going to glut every market with every commodity. Under this bill, 
every commodity that gets this loan guarantee is going to be under 
pressure to overproduce.
  Anybody who knows anything about the functioning of the farm economy 
knows that when you set that loan rate above the market price, which 
this bill does, you are going to have people producing for the loan. 
The commodities are then going to be dumped on the markets.
  For 6 long years under this bill we are going to have gross 
overproduction, we are going to drive prices down, and we are going to 
have all kinds of commodities in storage. We are going to have all the 
excesses we had under the farm bill prior to the bill that we are 
considering here.
  But that doesn't seem to be enough. This bill brings new commodities 
into these programs. We eliminated some of these programs before but 
now they are brought back to life.
  It seems to me the bottom line of this bill is that it is going to 
guarantee overproduction--I am sorry this is going to happen because I 
think it is going to be very harmful to rural America. It is going to 
guarantee depressed prices, and it is going to mean increased 
Government interventions to try to limit production.
  So the Government, once again, is going to be telling people what to 
grow and what not to grow. I think that is a step in the wrong 
direction.
  This bill also allows people who came to America illegally to get 
food stamps. I am opposed to that. I am not trying to be hardhearted. 
But there is a very real problem when you give benefits to people who 
violate the law--you encourage them to violate the law.
  When the Senate debated this bill, I offered a compromise which was 
adopted. That compromise said anybody who has been here for 5 years and 
is now here legally can qualify for food stamps, but that no one who 
comes and stays here illegally for one year or more can qualify.
  The reason I offered this compromise is because we want people to 
come to America who want to work. We want

[[Page S4019]]

people to come to America with their sleeves rolled up, not with their 
hand held out. It fundamentally changes America when you do that. 
Having a provision that says you can come here illegally and still get 
food stamps is like putting a neon sign up on the border that says: 
Violate the law. Come into America illegally, and we will give you food 
stamps.
  Let me sum up by saying I am not saying this bill is the embodiment 
of all evil. There are some good things in this bill. Doing away with 
the old peanut quota, God knows, was a good thing. But I believe we are 
paying people too much to buy out the old quota.
  The point is: Having the Government limit the ability of people to 
grow peanuts makes absolutely no sense. But by setting these loan rates 
so high, we are going to end up with a peanut-like program in all of 
these other areas over the next 6 years because we are not going to be 
able to pay for this program.
  Finally, we said when we adopted the bill that it was going to cost 
$73 billion. It turned out that it cost $82 billion. Every penny of 
that will come right out of Social Security.
  We have colleagues who stand up on the floor day after day saying 
don't spend the Social Security surplus. When you vote for this farm 
bill, you are spending the Social Security surplus.
  Not everything in this bill is bad. There are some improvements in 
the bill. But, overall, it is a move back to Government control of 
agriculture.
  Is there a silver lining in this? I think there is. I think this will 
probably be the last farm bill we pass. I think what has happened is, 
thanks to the Internet, people understand that while we talk about the 
small farmer, the fact is the top 10 percent of the people are getting 
37 times as much in Government payments as the small farmer. This bill 
goes so far that it tilts the balance. In the end, I think this will 
undo this type farm bill, and in the long run it is good for America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, the 
time will be charged equally to both sides.


      effect of payment limits means-test on conservation programs

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Harkin and 
Ranking Member Lugar for their excellent work on the farm bill. And I 
want to point out, in particular, their work to improve conservation 
programs.
  I would like to engage Chairman Harkin in a colloquy to elaborate on 
congressional intent behind the effect of the $2.5 million means-test 
with regard to conservation programs. It is my understanding that the 
purpose of the means-test is to prevent wealthy individuals with 
adjusted gross income of more than $2.5 million from receiving 
government benefits on land signed up for conservation programs. 
However, it was never the intent to subject non-profit organizations 
that actively work on conservation activities to the means-test. Isn't 
this correct?
  Mr. HARKIN. Senator Lincoln is absolutely correct that the intent is 
not to exclude these non-profit groups that are actively involved in 
delivery of conservation programs. The work that non-profit 
organizations do under these conservation programs helps expand 
wildlife habitat and protect and improve all natural resources. This 
provision was not intended to limit participation by non-profit land 
trust groups or wildlife groups, like Ducks Unlimited, the Nature 
Conservancy, or Pheasants Forever, or any other non-profit group that 
participates in the agricultural conservation programs.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you for that explanation, and thank you for the 
hard work you and your excellent staff have put into the farm bill and, 
particularly, into the conservation title.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, and thank you for your hard work in getting 
this important farm bill, with its strong conservation title, passed.


  CHANGES TO THE VALUE-ADDED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT MARKET DEVELOPMENT 
                             GRANT PROGRAM

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy 
with the chairman to elaborate on the intent behind some of the changes 
made to the value-added agricultural product market development grant 
program in this farm bill. My understanding is that under this new 
language, USDA should seek to fund a broad diversity of projects that 
increase agricultural producers' share of the food and agricultural 
system profit, including projects likely to increase the profitability 
and viability of small and medium-sized farms and ranches. I certainly 
agree that USDA should seek to approve applications for projects likely 
to benefit producers with small and medium-sized agricultural 
operations. Do you agree that the language of this provision will allow 
USDA to do this?
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. Yes, I believe that 
the changes we have made to this program will allow USDA to fund a wide 
variety of value added projects that benefit small and mid-sized 
producers as well as larger producers and organizations of producers. 
For example, we broadened the definition of ``value-added'' to insure 
that producers who add value to agricultural products by the manner in 
which they produce them may now apply for value-added grants to market 
their products. This is important, because many small and medium-sized 
farms have found that they can increase their profits and stay in 
business by converting their farms to organic and other types of 
higher-value production. It is clear that many consumers will pay more 
for products that are grown and produced in specific ways. This 
broadening of the value-added grants program will assist farmers or 
groups of farmers engaged in producing these kinds of high-value 
products in developing business plans and marketing their products, 
thereby contributing to the success of these kinds of ventures. I also 
expect that a large share of the grants will continue to be made to 
produce new non-food products, expanding the markets of corn, soybeans 
and other crops well beyond the market for foods. The bill also 
specifically allows for grants for on-farm renewable generation such as 
wind turbines.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I understand this bill also broadens eligibility for 
the program.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Minnesota is again correct. The 
expectation is that USDA will extend edibility to a broad range of 
producer groups, including farmer and rancher cooperatives. Business 
ventures with majority control by producers many receive up to 10 
percent of grants provided. Nonprofit organizations controlled by 
producers, whose mission includes working on behalf of producers, and 
who otherwise meet the eligibility criteria established by USDA, shall 
also be eligible for grants under this program.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I commend my colleague from Iowa on his work on this 
provision. I certainly hope that USDA will make every effort to fund a 
wide variety of projects and to make grants of a wide variety of sizes, 
including small and mid-sized grants where appropriate.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is certainly my expectation. I thank my colleague 
from Minnesota for his hard work on this provision in committee, and 
for his support of the changes we have made in the program.


                             chesapeake bay

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, would the distinguished floor manager 
yield for the purpose of a colloquy concerning two programs of great 
importance to the continued efforts to restore and protect the 
Chesapeake Bay.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would be happy to yield to the senior Senator from 
Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. I am deeply disappointed that the conference report 
does not include two provisions included in the Senate-passed farm bill 
which sought to address the critical environmental needs of the 
Chesapeake Bay. The first provision, the Nutrient Reduction Pilot 
Program, sought to encourage the development of innovative solutions to 
the nutrient pollution problem in the bay by creating new incentives 
for farmers to reduce the application of nitrogen by at least 15 
percent below what is normally considered best practice and to provide 
financial protection in the event of reduced yields. The second 
provision strengthened the role of the U.S. Forest Service in the 
restoration of the bay watershed. While I understand that disagreements 
with the House Conferees prevented the inclusion of these programs in 
the final bill, it is my understanding that the conference report does 
include

[[Page S4020]]

provisions that will be helpful in implementing the Nutrient Reduction 
Pilot Program.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. In fact, the conference report 
includes specific language in section 2003 that establishes 
Partnerships and Cooperation, a program specifically intended to allow 
states like those in the Chesapeake Bay region--and the Chesapeake Bay 
is specifically mentioned--to submit innovative proposals which 
coordinate and implement all of the conservation programs in the bill 
to achieve priority conservation objectives. It is modeled in many ways 
on the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. The language 
specifically provides that all the resources of the different 
conservation programs can be used, and indeed it provides that in 
addition to committing acres and resources from the different 
conservation programs to a special partnership, the Secretary has 
special flexibility with regard to 5 percent of the funds available for 
all conservation programs to use them for any activities authorized by 
any conservation programs. This bill will make on average $1.2 billion 
per year available for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program; 
any of these funds can be committed to a special partnership, and I 
think it would be reasonable and I would certainly be willing to work 
with the Senator from Maryland to encourage the Secretary to commit $20 
million per year to the Chesapeake Bay region's innovative proposals to 
reduce nitrogen application using market-based strategies. Maryland is 
also specifically included in Section 2501, the Agricultural Management 
Assistance Program, making it eligible to share in at least $110 
million to implement, among other things, resource conservation 
practices.
  Finally, the Senator from Maryland has my commitment and the 
commitment of the majority leader that we will work with him to address 
his concerns about the continuing loss of forestlands in the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed by enhancing the support and resources of the U.S. Forest 
Service to the bay cleanup effort.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chairman for his continued efforts on 
behalf of the Chesapeake Bay and its farmers and I look forward to 
continuing to work together with him in this regard.


             technical assistance for conservation programs

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished Senators from Iowa and Mississippi.
  Mr. President, the 1996 farm bill contained a provision which led to 
serious disruption in the delivery of conservation programs. 
Specifically, the 1996 act placed a cap on the transfers of Commodity 
Credit Corporation funds to other government entities. Is the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa aware of the so called ``section 11 
cap?''
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Indiana for raising this issue, 
because it is an important one. The Section 11 cap prohibited 
expenditures by the Commodity Credit Corporation beyond the Fiscal Year 
1995 level to reimburse other government entities for services. 
Unfortunately, in the 1996 farm bill, many conservation programs were 
unintentionally caught under the section 11 cap. As a result, during 
the past 6 years, conservation programs have had serious shortfalls in 
technical assistance. There was at least one stoppage of work on the 
Conservation Reserve Program. The Appropriations Committees have had to 
respond to the problem ad hoc by redirecting resources and providing 
emergency spending to deal with the problem. This has been a problem 
not just in my state of Iowa or in your states of Indiana and 
Mississippi; it has been a nationwide constraint on conservation.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chairman for the clarification, and I would 
inquire whether the legislation under consideration here today will fix 
the problem of the section 11 cap for conservation programs.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his attention to 
this important issue. Section 2701 of the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002 recognizes that technical assistance is an 
integral part of each conservation program. Therefore, technical 
assistance will be funded through the mandatory funding for each 
program provided by the bill. As a result, for directly funded 
programs, such as the Conservation Security Program (CSP) and the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), funding for technical 
assistance will come from the borrowing authority of the Commodity 
Credit Corporation, and will no longer be affected by section 11 of the 
CCC Charter Act.
  For those programs such as the CRP, WRP, and the Grasslands Reserve 
Program (GRP), which involve enrollment based on acreage, the technical 
assistance funding will come from the annual program outlays 
apportioned by OMB--again, from the borrowing authority of the CCC. 
These programs, too, will no longer be affected by section 11 of the 
CCC Charter Act. This legislation will provide the level of funding 
necessary to cover all technical assistance costs, including training; 
equipment; travel; education, evaluation and assessment, and whatever 
else is necessary to get the programs implemented.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chairman for that clarification. With the 
level of new resources and new workload that we are requiring from the 
Department, and specifically the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, I hear concerns back in my state that program delivery should 
not be disrupted, and the gentleman has reassured me that it will not.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is then my understanding that, under the provisions 
of this bill, the technical assistance necessary to implement the 
conservation programs will not come at the expense of the good work 
already going on in the countryside in conservation planning, 
assistance to grazing lands, and other activities supported within the 
NRCS conservation operations account. And, further, this action will 
relieve the appropriators of an often reoccurring problem.
  Mr. HARKIN. Both gentlemen are correct. The programs directly funded 
by the CCC--EQIP, FPP, WHIP, and the CSP--as well as the acreage 
programs--CRP, WRP, and the GRP--include funding for technical 
assistance that comes out of the program funds. And this mandatory 
funding in now way affects the ongoing work of the NRCS Conservation 
Operations Program.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chairman for his efforts to resolve this 
problem.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I also appreciate the Chairman's work to ensure that 
adequate resources are available for technical assistance.


        ALLOCATION OF SENIORS FARMERS' MARKET NUTRITION PROGRAM

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank Senator Harkin 
for all of his hard work in putting together this Farm Bill. One of the 
most important parts of this legislation deals with nutrition, and 
ensuring that all Americans have access to a healthy meal. I am 
especially pleased to see an additional $5 million in funding provided 
for the Seniors' Farmers Market Nutrition Program for fiscal year 2002. 
In the 2002 Agriculture Appropriations bill, we provided $10 million 
for this important program, and encouraged the Secretary to use 
additional funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation if necessary. 
However, although there is a clear need for these additional funds, and 
the Secretary has been reminded of this language on several occasions, 
these additional funds have not been released. The result of this is 
that 9 States and territories, including my state of Wisconsin, 
received funding for this program last year and applied this year to 
continue their programs, but were turned away. I intend to include 
report language in the homeland security supplemental bill I am 
currently working on in the Appropriations Committee directing the 
Secretary to use any additional funds that become available to provide 
funding for these states. I appreciate my friend's efforts to include 
this additional money in the farm bill, and am hopeful that it will 
provide at least partial relief to the drastic funding cuts being felt 
by these States.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from Wisconsin for raising this 
important matter. I agree with his comments and am pleased that we are 
able to provide additional resources, through the farm bill, to assist 
States that did not receive funding for this year. I also hope that 
funding for States that successfully completed applications, and 
received insufficient funding, is increased. Clearly, there is a 
funding

[[Page S4021]]

shortage for this program and I want to stress that the purpose of the 
$5 million in the farm bill is not meant to replace the CCC funds 
mentioned by my colleague, but rather to supplement them. I support my 
colleague in his efforts to ensure that no State or territory that 
wishes to participate in this program is turned away. The Seniors' 
Farmers Market Nutrition Program provides an important service, one 
that brings low-income senior citizens and local farmers together in a 
mutually beneficial relationship.


                        tree assistance program

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin, and congratulate 
him for his leadership over the past year. The farm bill is a 
tremendous victory on so many fronts. I want to especially thank him 
for the landmark inclusion of specialty crops in this farm bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator informed me from the beginning that specialty 
crops like apples, cherries, blueberries, cherries, and asparagus are 
critically important for Michigan's agriculture economy. She has been a 
powerful advocate for specialty crops and I appreciated your hard work 
throughout this process to include them in this farm bill.
  Ms. STABENOW. The farm bill before us has a $2 billion specialty crop 
program which provides a minimum of $200 million per year in USDA 
Section 32 purchases for nutrition programs. This new allocation of 
funds will provide much needed help for growers of fruits and 
vegetables. It has been a true privilege to work with the Senator to 
develop this new program.
  Mr. HARKIN. I think all of our colleagues on the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry and in the Senate would agree that 
the Senator's strong backing was absolutely instrumental in obtaining 
the $2 billion specialty crop purchase program.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator. I would like to discuss another 
critical program that we included in the farm bill for specialty 
crops--the Tree Assistance Program, TAP.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, TAP is a critical program that provides 
reimbursement for trees, like cherry trees and apple trees, which have 
been destroyed by natural disaster.
  Ms. STABENOW. TAP is very important, especially in Michigan. In 2000, 
our apple growers in the southwest region of the state suffered from 
devastating fire blight that destroyed over 10,000 acres of apple 
orchards resulting in an estimated total loss of $98 million for apple 
growers in Michigan.
  Unfortunately, the funding for TAP expired the year before and none 
of these growers could apply for assistance.
  I thank the Senator for reauthorizing TAP in the farm bill. In the 
Senate version of the farm bill, the reauthorization for TAP included 
the following language regarding eligibility, ``(a) shall apply to tree 
losses that are incurred as a result of a natural disaster after 
January 1, 2000.''
  Mr. HARKIN. I supported retroactive eligibility for TAP and supported 
that provision in the bill that passed out of the committee. A majority 
of the Senate also supported this provision.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator. I look forward to working with him 
to insure that the apple growers in my State who suffered such terrible 
losses in 2000 will receive help through the Tree Assistance Program.


                             Section 10816

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers and other 
members of the conference for their efforts to maintain the Senate's 
intentions with respect to section 10816, which requires country-of-
origin labeling for seafood products, among others. This provision is 
very important to the seafood industry in my State of Alaska.
  However, I note that the definition of ``wild fish'' applies to 
``naturally born or hatchery raised fish and shellfish harvested in the 
wild.'' This may lead to some confusion. As my colleagues know, fish 
generally are ``hatched'' rather than ``born.'' In addition, I 
understand it was the Senate's intent to apply this definition to 
hatchery fish only when they are released shortly after hatching, and 
live the rest of their lives in the same environment as naturally 
occurring fish of the same species.
  I wish to ask the managers if my understanding is correct, and agree 
that the definition of wild fish should be interpreted to mean 
``naturally or artificially hatched fish that grow to maturity and are 
harvested in the wild.''
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska both for 
his comments on the conference and for his question. His observation 
that fish are hatched rather than born is well taken, and I agree with 
the way he has rephrased the definition. It is indeed our intention 
that the definition of ``wild fish'' apply only to fish that spend the 
bulk of their lives in the wild. This differentiates them from 
``farmed-raised fish,'' which are raised in confinement until they are 
harvested.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am grateful to my colleague for bringing 
this point to our attention, and concur that wild fish are those which 
spend most of their lives free of confinement, whereas farm-raised fish 
are those which are held in pens or tanks until harvested.


                             KLAMATH BASIN

  Mr. WYDEN. I want to thank my Senate colleagues, specifically 
Chairman Harkin, for their continued attention to a matter of such 
importance to the people of the Klamath Basin in Oregon and California. 
I especially want to thank my friends and colleagues, Senators Gordon 
Smith, Boxer, and Feinstein, for their initial help in getting Klamath 
language and money accepted into the farm bill. And I want to recognize 
the hard work and dedication of the chairman, Senator Daschle, and 
their staffs for sticking by the Klamath Basin until the bitter end. I 
also want to thank my friend on the other side of the Capitol, 
Representative Walden, for his dedication to the Klamath Basin. Thanks 
to his collective bi-partisan effort, today I can come to the floor to 
discuss the future for the Klamath Basin with some hope.
  Mr. HARKIN. Your dogged attention to the Klamath provision was 
critical and appreciated. I thank you for all your support in getting 
this important legislation off the Senate floor.
  Mr. WYDEN. The conference report provides $50,000,000 under section 
1240I Ground and Surface Water Conservation. It is important for the 
legislative history of this section to note that the conference report 
states.
  In carrying out the program . . . the Secretary shall promote grounds 
and surface water conservation by providing cost-share payments, 
incentive payments, and loans to producers to carry out eligible water 
conservation activities with respect to the agricultural operations of 
producers, to--(1) improve irrigation systems; (2) enhance irrigation 
efficiencies; (3) convert to--(A) the production of less water-
intensive agricultural commodities; or (B) dryland farming; (4) improve 
the storage of water though measures such as water banking and 
groundwater recharge; (5) mitigate the effects of drought or (6) 
institute other measures that improve groundwater surface water 
conservation, as determined by the Secretary, in the agricultural 
operations of producers.
  In addition to all those excellent purposes, this section requires 
that a Secretary may only provide this money to a producer if the net 
result is ``a new savings in groundwater or surface water resources in 
the agricultural operation of the producer.'' Chairman Harkin, it 
appears to me that these purposes coincide with the purposes of the 
original Klamath language in the Senate farm bill: water conservation 
and improved agricultural practices; aquatic ecosystem restoration; and 
improvement of water quality. Do you read it the same way?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I do.
  Mr. WYDEN. The difference is that the original language brought to 
light the need to recover endangered species, including both anadromous 
and resident fish species; and maintenance of the National Wildlife 
Refuges.
  Mr. HARKIN. Even so, Senator Wyden, the $50,000,000 provided by this 
farm bill conference report for the Klamath Basin used under this 
program should benefit endangered species and the refuges in the 
Klamath Basin. Any program that improves water quality and quantity, as 
this one does, will necessarily support the recovery of threatened and 
endangered species.
  Mr. WYDEN. I agree. I am grateful that the other long-term benefits 
that were to be considered under the original Senate Klamath language 
will still

[[Page S4022]]

be considered under this provision: benefits to the agricultural 
economy through incentives for the use of irrigation efficiency, water 
conservation, or other agricultural practices; wetland restoration; and 
improvement of upper Basin watershed and water quality. Due to the 
cooperative nature of all farm programs, I remain hopeful that this 
provision will be implemented in a manner that respects and uses the 
local expertise of the Klamath Basin farmers. In addition, this program 
should be implemented in the Klamath Basin while the administration 
considers the long term effects of the water savings.
  The original Senate Klamath language required the USDA to spend $175 
million over 5 years, through the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service and the Farm Service Agency, on Klamath Basin hydrology and 
wetlands restoration using any applicable USDA program. The particular 
programs were not noted in order to provide some flexibility for the 
Department and basin farmers. The current language limits that 
flexibility, but fills an important purpose in the basin.
  I am thankful that the President established a cabinet level Klamath 
Working Group, made up of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and 
Commerce, thereby fulfilling another purpose of Senate Klamath language 
that authorized the creation of a Klamath Basin Interagency Task Force 
made up of agencies from the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and 
Commerce. It is my hope, however, that while the Senate Klamath 
language required public non-federal notice of work and intended plans 
by the Interagency Task Force to provide local awareness and the 
conference report does not, the current Administration Working group 
would provide such public notice.
  But there is more work to be done. While the $50,000,000 provided for 
producers to conserve water in the Klamath Basin is a start, it will 
not complete the entire hydrological restoration necessary in the 
basin. The basin requires specific projects such as these I list here 
to restore the basin: $3,479,000 for feasibility studies by the Bureau 
of Reclamation, included in the President's funding request for the 
Klamath Project for FY 2002; $4 million to purchase, one time, 2700 
acres at Goose Bay in Upper Klamath Lake (TNC); $25 million over 5 
years for the restoration of the Upper Klamath Lake tributaries (such 
as the Sprague, Williamson, and Wood Rivers); $40 million over 5 years 
for the restoration of historic Upper Klamath Lake wetlands; $20 
million over 5 years for the restoration of Lake Ewauna below Upper 
Klamath Lake that is essential for sucker habitat; $1 million for 
riparian fencing, grazing management, stream-bank restoration and 
revegetation under CRP; $5 million for the purchase of the Barnes 
property by the Bureau of Reclamation for the whole project to be 
managed by the Bur Rec, county commissioners, local water irrigation 
districts, USDA and F&W Service and the Tribes, using some portion of 
the money for a set-aside to match state and private wetland 
restoration dollars from entities such as OWEB and Oregon Water Trust 
and designate some portion of the money for scientific work including 
scientific work by the Klamath Tribe Department of Natural Resources; 
$4,500,000 of new funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 
conduct in-stream flow studies in the basin deemed necessary by the 
Secretary, including in-stream flow studies below Iron Gate Dam; $20 
million for the voluntary lease of water rights; $1 million for the 
evaluation of intentional winter flooding of volunteer agricultural 
lands: Dry Year Reserve--to idle basin irrigated acreage--promoted by 
Water Users through Bur Rec but could be done through shorter contracts 
in WRP; $15 million for the purchase of water easements; $10 million 
for the construction of groundwater wells in conjunction with USGS 
surveys; $5 million authorized for grants to local irrigation 
districts, through the Rural Development/Utilities accounts to improve 
irrigation of Klamath Basin practices that will conserve water and 
improve water quality.

  In addition to the above concerns, this money will not be available 
to the native American tribes in the basin, the Klamath, the Yurok, the 
Kurok, and the Hoopa. This is a shame. These tribes make up an 
important user group in the basin and no real long-term solution will 
be achievable without them.
  Mr. HARKIN. Senator Wyden, where appropriate and within the 
jurisdiction of the Committees on which I serve, I will be happy to 
work with you in the pursuit of beneficial programs and funding for the 
Klamath Basin.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


                conservation programs in the everglades

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking 
Senator Lugar for their excellent work on the farm bill before us 
today. I am pleased to recognize that this legislation expands and 
improves many of the conservation programs administered by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. Farmers are the best conservationists in the 
world and this farm bill gives them more tools to be even better 
stewards of the environment.
  I would like to engage Chairman Harkin and Senator Lugar in a 
colloquy to elaborate a bit on the very good language in the Statement 
of Managers that calls upon the Secretary of Agriculture to work with 
appropriate State and Federal officials to use USDA conservation 
programs to supplement the work of the Comprehensive Everglades 
Restoration Plan as it is implemented in the South Florida Ecosystem.
  Our success in restoring the Everglades depends a great deal on the 
health of Lake Okeechobee and the systems which feed into that great 
lake, such as the Kissimmee River and its chain of lakes. It is my 
understanding that the direction in the Statement of Managers is 
intended to use conservation programs to enhance the health of those 
ecosystems as well. Am I correct in my interpretation of that very good 
language?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is absolutely correct in his interpretation 
of that language and I wish to thank him for his assistance to the 
committee on this matter. There has been no stronger advocate of the 
Everglades through the years than the senior Senator from Florida.
  Mr. LUGAR. I agree with the Chairman. I, too, have been pleased to 
work on behalf of Everglades restoration through the years. The 
conservation programs of USDA are improved by this legislation and I am 
pleased that the conferees to the farm bill recognize the promise of 
these programs to assist in Everglades restoration.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the distinguished Chairman and the ranking member 
of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry for 
their work on the farm bill and the assistance it will render to 
restore the Everglades. For instance, work in areas such as the 
Kissimmee River system will serve, among other things, to enhance the 
natural storage of water necessary for restoration further south in the 
system. Implementing the type of conservation practices included in 
these Department of Agriculture programs in areas such as the Kissimmee 
River and Lake Okeechobee can improve restoration efforts 
substantially.
  I look forward to working with Secretary of Agriculture Veneman, and 
other State and Federal officials to utilize these programs in a 
coordinated and effective manner.


                               wild fish

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, title X of the farm bill contains 
provisions that would provide country of origin labeling for certain 
covered products. This program will specifically inform consumers right 
at their local markets whether they are eating U.S. products, or 
products produced under the laws of another nation. In a time of 
uncertainty about our economic, environmental, and personal security, 
we want to provide this level of assurance to our citizens and to our 
producers. U.S. origin labeling is important because it will allow 
consumers to vote with their wallets to support U.S. farmers, ranchers, 
and fishermen. This is important in the case of wild-caught fish, 
particularly in Hawaii, where we have traditionally relied on our vast 
ocean ``backyard'' for sustenance, chasing highly migratory species 
like tuna and swordfish as well as closer to shore species.
  I ask the distinguished Senator from Iowa, one of the managers of the 
bill, if this is not the purpose of the country of origin provision?

[[Page S4023]]

  Mr. HARKIN. Indeed, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii is correct 
about the intent of the provision.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator. As Senator Harkin has since learned, 
the provision contains a technical matter that would undermine this 
important purpose. As Hawaiian fishermen well know, because of their 
migratory nature, certain species of fish are often caught outside of 
the 200-mile U.S. exclusive economic zone--more than 50 percent of the 
catch landed by Hawaii vessels are harvested on the high seas. These 
include tuna, swordfish, and squid. Whether U.S. fishermen are in U.S. 
waters or on the high seas pursuing highly migratory species like tuna, 
from the time they leave the dock to the time they return to port, our 
fishermen are subject to U.S. law--some of the most stringent 
conservation, safety and health restrictions in the world. This has 
often led to economic hardship. I do not object to the purpose of such 
costly measures, but what do I tell these fishermen when they are 
undersold in the market by the foreign-caught fish, which are harvested 
in an indiscriminate and environmentally unsound manner? I would like 
to tell them that they will benefit from a U.S. label, and that their 
legal compliance will be rewarded in the marketplace. But the technical 
matter in the farm bill will not allow this to happen. Moreover, it 
will result in a labeling gap that will confuse consumers. Under the 
language in the bill, a migratory fish that is harvested beyond the 
200-mile zone by a U.S. fisherman on a U.S. registered vessel, 
processed under U.S. regulations, and landed at a U.S. dock, does not 
qualify for a U.S. origin label.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank Senator Inouye for summing up a complicated 
issue in simple and clear language. When you and I discussed this 
issue, I was immediately concerned. There appears to be a simple 
solution for labeling of wild-caught fish: allow fish caught by a U.S. 
flag vessel to be labeled with the U.S. as the country of origin. This 
would have the added benefit of bringing the point of sale label into 
conformity with the approach taken by U.S. customs regulations. 
Moreover, the extreme perishability of some ocean products require 
processing at sea. For example, squid must be processed where ever it 
is caught or it will spoil--thus, if caught by a U.S. flag vessel on 
the high seas, it would have to be processed on the high seas according 
to U.S. requirements.
  I had shared Senator Inouye's hope that this technical correction 
might be included in the farm bill, and I worked with him, and Senators 
Daschle and Harkin toward that end. Although time did not permit the 
inclusion of the provision, I believe that Senator Harkin may have a 
few words to offer.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank you Senator Hollings. When Senator Hollings and 
Senator Inouye brought this matter to my attention, I welcomed their 
expertise in marine matters, and did my best to have the suggested 
technical amendment included. Regrettably, during the eleventh hour, it 
proved not to be possible.
  I hope, however, that this amendment may find another vehicle for its 
speedy passage.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee for taking the lead on making the broadband 
initiative a part of the farm bill. I also want to thank the ranking 
member of the committee and Senator Daschle for their work on this 
program. The $100 million provided in the farm bill for broadband is 
unprecedented and long past due to ensure Rural America has the same 
access to broadband service as its urban neighbors.
  Several years ago, I introduced legislation to establish a new 
Federal broadband program. The chairman is a cosponsor of this 
legislation. And now, after 2 years of a pilot program similar to my 
bill, the farm bill gives the rural broadband program under the Rural 
Utilities Service an authorization and funding. That funding will 
create hundreds of millions of dollars of broadband loans each year.
  The Rural Utilities Service, RUS, once known as the Rural 
Electrification Administration, REA, has administered a 
telecommunications program for over 50 years. It has been an 
unprecedented success. In 1949, about 40 percent of American farmers 
had phone service. Today, that has changed dramatically and nearly 
everyone at least has a telephone. Not only do these investments need 
to be maintained, but we need to make new investments in the next 
generation of telecommunications technology, known as broadband, to 
ensure that all Americans have access to the Internet.
  The RUS lending record in its telecommunications program which would 
be the envy of any financial institution in America. In over 50 years, 
there has not been a single loan loss in the RUS/REA telecommunications 
program. In recent years, the agency has been leading the American 
information revolution by financing some of the most advanced 
telecommunications systems in the Nation.
  The broadband provisions of this bill should significantly advance 
the deployment of broadband technologies in all regions of the country. 
It should spur the deployment of new wireline, wireless, cable, and 
satellite broadband infrastructure and service. It promotes 
technological neutrality and a definition of broadband, which is 
meaningful, flexible and appropriate to spur significant advancement in 
all technologies.
  For the purposes of ensuring a successful implementation of this 
program, it would be helpful if the chairman could respond to a few 
questions about the legislation.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would be pleased to answer the questions 
of the Senator from North Dakota. But first, I want to thank the 
Senator for your and your staff's work on this issue. Together, we've 
come up with a great intiative that will serve Rural America in the 
information age. The Senator and his bipartisan group of supporters are 
to be congratulated for their work on this important legislation. It 
will spur new investment in rural broadband.
  Mr. DORGAN. Does the legislation give the Administrator of the Rural 
Utilities Service flexibility to adopt a definition of broadband, which 
encourages advancement in all modes of communications?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. The legislation seeks to foster 
significant advancement in all rural applications of broadband. In this 
context, technological neutrality should not be used to preclude 
progress in any given technology. For example, what is broadband in a 
fixed setting may be different than what is broadband in a mobile 
wireless setting. In both cases, the measure of broadband capability 
should be based on capability of the network, not the individual 
devices used to access the network. This legislation is intended to 
help rural citizens gain access to modern broadband information 
networks.
  Mr. DORGAN. Does the chairman expect the RUS to maintain its high 
standards of determining the financial feasibility of broadband loans?
  Mr. HARKIN. This expansion of authority should not be viewed by 
anyone as a loosening of financial feasibility standards at the RUS. 
Simply put, if there is not a reasonable likelihood of repayment, the 
loan should not be made. That is how the RUS and the REA have operated 
for 65 years and that is how the agency should operate with this new 
authority.
  Mr. DORGAN. Given that record of success and assuming a treasury rate 
of interest, would it be reasonable that the $20 million a year 
included in this bill for the early years of this program could fund a 
treasury rate of interest broadband loan program of at least $750 
million a year?
  Mr. HARKIN. Under credit reform, there are essentially two components 
to determining the subsidy rate for any loan program. Those components 
are any discount from the treasury rate of borrowing and the risk 
related to the loan. The RUS telecommunications loan program has not 
suffered a loan loss. In fact, the RUS telecommunications loan program 
has over its life, made money for the Government. Broadband lending 
within the RUS parameters does not necessarily bring with it a higher 
risk profile.
  The process by which the Office of Management and Budget determines 
subsidy rates for Federal loan programs is sometimes viewed as a 
mysterious process to say the least, given the year to year swings in 
the subsidy rates for the same or similar programs and classes of 
borrowers. Given the record of the agency, however, and

[[Page S4024]]

given the treasury rate of interest assumption of your question, $20 
million a year in direct budget authority provided could generate a 
minimum loan level of $750 million a year.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as the author of S. 280, the Consumer 
Right-to-Know Act, and the provision in the new farm bill requiring 
retail-level country of origin labeling for beef, pork, lamb, fruits, 
vegetables, peanuts, and fish, I feel compelled to offer my views on 
how country-of-origin labeling should be implemented by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, USDA. This farm bill provision is not overly 
prescriptive because I believe USDA deserves some degree of discretion 
to develop rules and regulations to ensure this labeling program is 
effective. That being said, I believe it's equally important for USDA 
to adhere to the intent of Congress in passing this important labeling 
legislation, and to comply with my intent as the primary author.
  Well-funded opponents of country-of-origin labeling who like to 
import cheap meat and other products into the United States and 
camouflage those products as ``Made in the USA'' will make outrageous 
claims about how country-of-origin labeling is difficult to administer, 
how it will cost them and USDA resources, and how it just can't work. 
It's awfully ironic they say these things, when virtually every single 
other item consumers buy at the retail level indicate their country-of-
origin. The fact is that labeling can be implemented in a low-cost 
manner, and Congress expects USDA to work with all interested parties 
to make labeling a reality.
  Nevertheless, passage of country-of-origin labeling will not stop 
those who don't want consumers to know the origin of meat and other 
items at the retail-level to try to water-down and minimize this 
legislation through the rulemaking process and other avenues. 
Therefore, it's important that USDA know my intent with respect to this 
program.
  My labeling provision amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 
(7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) and adds subtitle D, a requirement for retail-
level country-of-origin labeling for covered commodities at the final 
point-of-sale for consumers.
  This section mandates retail-level, country-of-origin labeling for 
covered commodities, including beef, lamb, pork, farm-raised fish, wild 
fish, peanuts, and perishable commodities. The purpose of the section 
is to inform consumers about the origin of the meat, fish, peanuts, and 
perishable commodities they purchase at the retail-level. The items 
that qualify as covered commodities must be labeled with their country-
of-origin.
  Under present law, most products require labeling according to their 
country-of-origin if they are produced outside of the United States. 
However, some products, such as fruits, vegetables, and peanuts have 
been excluded from this requirement. Further, meat from livestock or 
fish born outside of the United States, or born and raised outside of 
the United States, and slaughtered or processed within the United 
States, are not required to be identified as a foreign product.
  With respect to meat, the labeling requirement in the farm bill shall 
apply to all muscle cuts of beef, pork, and lamb, including, but not 
limited to, steaks, roasts, chops, tips, ribs, and loins, as covered 
commodities that must be labeled as to their country-of-origin. 
Furthermore, ground beef, including, but not limited to hamburger and 
ground beef patties, whether frozen, chilled, or fresh, ground lamb, 
and ground pork qualify as covered commodities for purposes of country-
of-origin labeling.
  If, however, a covered commodity is an ingredient in a processed 
food, the section does not require that item to be labeled as to its 
country-of-origin. For example, if beef, pork, or lamb is an ingredient 
in a can of soup, lunch meat, meat snack, frankfurter, meatball, meat 
salad, stew, pasta, frozen dinner, frozen entree, or frozen pizza, than 
the section does not require the food item containing beef, pork, or 
lamb to be labeled with its country-of-origin. However, this exemption 
shall not apply to ground beef or hamburger, as mentioned above, which 
must qualify as a covered commodity for country-of-origin labeling at 
the retail-level.
  While retail-level country-of-origin labeling is required of grocery 
stores and supermarkets, food service establishments are not required 
to notify the country-of-origin of covered commodities that are 
prepared or served to consumers. Because many polls indicate consumers 
wish to know the origin of the food they eat, and many individuals 
consume food items from food service establishments, food service 
establishments and restaurants are encouraged to voluntarily notify the 
consumers as to the country-of-origin of the food products sold at 
restaurants.
  At this point, I want to make it unconditionally clear that what is 
meant by this provision with respect to ``retailer'' is that any 
retailer selling any covered commodity, beef, pork, lamb, fruits, 
vegetables, peanuts, or fish, is required to indicate the country-of-
origin of that covered commodity at the retail-level or final point of 
sale. While the definitions section of the country-of-origin labeling 
provision refers to ``retailer'' in the Perishable Agricultural 
Commodities Act, PACA, of 1930, this reference is made only to draw a 
distinction between retailers and restaurants, because the labeling 
requirement applies to retailers but not restaurants. Let me make it 
unquestionably clear right now that the only reason S. 280 and the farm 
bill country-of-origin labeling language refers to the word 
``retailer'' is that Congress wanted it to be understood that country-
of-origin labeling would be required at the retail-level, the final 
point of sale, as opposed to labeling in restaurants, regardless of 
whether the product to be labeled by its country-of-origin was a cut of 
beef or a fruit or vegetable. The intent is to require labeling of all 
covered commodities at the final point of sale, regardless of what the 
retailer sells, and not to inadvertently allow any retailer to avoid 
the labeling requirement simply because that retailer may only sell 
perishable agricultural commodities.
  In the case of meat, the farm bill provision intends for retailers to 
designate a covered commodity as having a United States country-of-
origin only if the meat is from an animal that was born, raised, and 
slaughtered in the United States. An exception is made for beef from 
cattle born and raised in Alaska or Hawaii, and transhipped for a 
period not in excess of a period of days through Canada into the United 
States for slaughter. I understand that the World Trade Organization, 
WTO, committee on Rules of Origin has not yet completed its work on 
harmonizing rules of origin on Chapters 1 and 2 dealing with cattle and 
beef. Therefore, I encourage the Secretary and U.S. Trade 
Representative to immediately develop a position constituting a born, 
raised, and slaughtered standard to determine the origin of meat within 
the WTO which will be consistent with this section and the current 
voluntary beef labeling program.

  My legislation does not intend to prescribe the specific type or 
method of country-of-origin label that must be used on covered 
commodities. The means by which the country-of-origin is designated may 
differ on a commodity-by-commodity basis. For example, an affixed-label 
may designate the country-of-origin of a steak or package of ground 
beef, while a sign on a holding bin may indicate the country-of-origin 
of fruit or vegetables. The section provides examples by which the 
country-of-origin of a covered commodity may be provided at the retail-
level, including a label, stamp, mark, placard, or other clear visible 
sign on the covered commodity or on the package, display, holding unit, 
or bin containing the covered commodity at the final point of sale to 
consumers. For purposes of consistency and equitable national 
treatment, I encourage the Secretary to work with industry to create a 
label that includes the country-of-origin and the commodity. For 
example, a cut of beef to be labeled as a product of the United States 
may be labeled, ``United States beef.'' Similarly, a tomato from Mexico 
may be labeled ``Mexican tomato.''
  With respect to the type or method of country-of-origin label to be 
applied or used for covered commodities, the Secretary is encouraged to 
seek input from producer and farm organizations, consumers and consumer 
groups, and industry and businesses affected by the

[[Page S4025]]

section. The Secretary shall attempt to create a labeling program that 
is easy-to-understand and as uniform as possible for like commodities 
to be covered under the labeling requirement. Furthermore, retailers 
and those responsible for country-of-origin labeling are encouraged to 
develop labels that are legible, noticeable, uniform, and easy-to-
understand for consumers.
  My legislation gives the Secretary discretion to work with those 
responsible for tracking the origin of items and for designating the 
country-of-origin to develop a system that meets the intent of the 
section in an efficient and convenient manner. I recognize that USDA 
must develop a system by which to verify the origin of animals for 
country-of-origin labeling to be effective. The section provides the 
Secretary with the authority to require a verifiable record keeping 
audit trail to help verify origin, as well as a requirement that anyone 
engaged in supplying a covered commodity to a retailer must provide 
information indicating the origin of the covered commodity. For the 
retailer to know the country-of-origin of a covered commodity, and for 
the Secretary to enforce this section, all participants and businesses 
affected by this Section should cooperate to develop this verifiable 
record-keeping audit trail.
  However, especially concerning meat labeling, it is not necessary to 
impose a mandatory animal identification program in order to implement 
country-of-origin labeling because proven models already exist within 
USDA to verify the country-of-origin or birth of animals for various 
purposes. One such model is the quality grade certification system that 
signifies the quality grade of certain meat cuts, such as USDA 
``choice,'' ``prime,'' or ``select''. The USDA stated in a report ``The 
Benefits/Cost Analysis of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling'' 
released in 2000 that the Agricultural Marketing Service, AMS, and 
industry could model this certification program to implement country-
of-origin meat labeling. Additional models that can be applied include 
the existing voluntary country-of-origin labeling program for beef, 
which uses an affidavit to verify origin, ``Certified Angus Beef'' and 
similar programs that USDA implements to aid industry in promoting 
certain meat cuts for breed, the National School Lunch Program, and the 
Market Access Program, MAP. USDA has effectively administered these 
existing programs. Therefore, I intend for the Secretary to capitalize 
upon these existing programs rather than creating a new mandatory 
animal identification system in order to verify origin. The programs 
used by USDA were listed in the section to serve as models for the 
department, producers, packers, retailers, and others to ensure the 
proper implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling.
  Moreover, USDA Health Certificates issued by the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service, APHIS, ensures the tracking of all imported 
animals for slaughter without the need for a mandatory, animal 
identification system. By law, no animal may be imported into the 
United States without being accompanied by a USDA-APHIS health 
certificate. The application form for this certificate requires 
documentation as to the origin of the animal(s) being imported into the 
United States. The record keeping system applied for tracking imports 
may be helpful to the Secretary in carrying out this section.
  It is also my understanding that many livestock auction markets and 
sale barns in the United States have requested individuals selling 
cattle or other ruminant animals to sign affidavits verifying that the 
cattle were not fed mammalian parts, so as to ensure cattle buyers and 
customers that those cattle will not contract Bovine Spongiform 
Encephalopathy, BSE or mad cow disease. The Secretary is encouraged to 
determine if this system of tracking animals for prevention of the 
spread of BSE may work similarly for keeping records for country-of-
origin.
  I intend that the enforcement of this section be implemented in a 
most reasonable fashion, so as to accommodate unintentional violations 
with the program. As such, the section provides the Secretary with the 
authority to first issue a warning to a retailer violating the section, 
rather than a fine. For example, on the first occasion a retailer is 
found out of compliance with the labeling requirement, the Secretary 
may notify or warn the retailer in writing, and provide the retailer 30 
days in which to take steps to comply with the labeling requirement. If 
subsequent to the 30 day period the Secretary determines that the 
retailer has willfully continued to violate the section, the Secretary 
must provide notice and opportunity for a hearing with respect to the 
violation before any further enforcement action can be taken. Finally, 
after such steps are taken, and a retailer remains in violation of the 
labeling requirement, the Secretary may fine the retailer in an amount 
determined by the Secretary.
  In the case of enforcement, I intend that the Secretary take into 
account the special circumstances of small businesses affected by this 
section. I recognize that this new program and its requirements may 
require some time and complexity to comply with, especially for small 
businesses, therefore, the Secretary is encouraged to cooperate with 
any small business affected by this section so that the requirements 
are understandable, reasonable, and simple. Small businesses may need 
additional assistance to comply with this section, therefore, I 
encourage the Secretary to take into consideration these and other 
special circumstances which may make it difficult for small businesses 
to meet the requirements. Furthermore, to the maximum extent 
practicable, the Secretary shall enter into partnerships with States to 
enforce this section.
  Finally, I intend for the Secretary to promulgate such regulations 
that are necessary to implement the labeling requirements under this 
section as soon as possible. The Secretary may be under pressure from 
opponents to country-of-origin labeling to delay the implementation of 
this section. Those of us who wrote this legislation and worked hard to 
enact it will make sure that this section is implemented in an 
expeditious fashion, without unnecessary delay.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President I am a strong supporter of the American 
farmer. I represent the largest farm State in this Nation and I believe 
in protecting the family farmer and helping to provide for rural 
America.
  California's farm economy produces approximately $30 billion annually 
and I take pride in the great number and vast diversity of crops the 
State produces.
  From the vegetables in the Imperial Valley to the dairy farms in the 
Central Valley and the wineries of Napa Valley, the State of California 
produces more of what goes on America's dinner table than anywhere 
else.
  In March, I visited the great Central Valley of California to hear 
what my constituents had to say about the agricultural policy we craft 
here in Washington, DC.
  I heard how much farmers depend on the programs in the farm bill and 
I am pleased that the Senate will be voting on the farm bill conference 
report today. Even though I have some concerns about what is in the 
conference report and this is by no means a perfect bill, I will vote 
to send this legislation to the President's desk because virtually 
every California farm and nutrition group has lined up to support it.
  However, I want to highlight my serious concern over an egregious 
ethanol program in this farm bill that was included at the last minute 
in conference.
  Mr. President, only 2 weeks ago the Senate passed a terrible energy 
bill that mandates three times the amount of ethanol we produce in our 
fuel supply. Now after mandating a market for ethanol in the energy 
bill we are providing billions of dollars in subsidies to corn farmers 
in this farm bill.
  On top of the subsidies to the corn growers in the Midwest, and the 
mandated market for ethanol, and high trade barriers that protect the 
domestic ethanol industry, now, in a provision in this farm bill, we 
will be subsidizing the expansion of ethanol production through the 
``Bioenergy Program.''
  Many may wonder what the Bioenergy Program is. The Bioenergy Program, 
created in 2000 by the Department of Agriculture, provides cash 
payments to promote additional production of ethanol and biodiesel. 
Bioenergy includes: Ethanol, made mostly from corn; and biodiesel, made 
mostly from soybeans.

[[Page S4026]]

  Congress has never authorized this program until now. The farm bill 
authorizes spending $150 million annually over the next 4 years for a 
total authorization of $600 million. The Congressional Budget Office 
anticipates that the program will not be fully subscribed and therefore 
scores the program lower at $204 million.
  Essentially, the Bioenergy Program pays subsidies to firms when they 
purchase additional corn to make more ethanol or soybeans to make more 
biodiesel. For example, if a company increases its ethanol production 
by 1,000 gallons, the government will reimburse the firm $320 for the 
additional corn it took to make these 1,000 gallons of ethanol.
  At best, this is an incentive to help small ethanol producers expand 
their production of ethanol. At worst, this is another government 
payout to ethanol firms like ADM to subsidize corn they would buy 
anyway to make their product.
  In 2001, 26 ethanol firms, all based in the Midwest, received 
payments from USDA under the Bioenergy Program. Archers Daniels Midland 
received the most, $7.5 million out of $32.7 million in total payments 
or 23 percent of the overall amount. Under the Bioenergy Program 
authorized in the farm bill, ADM will continue to be eligible to 
receive $7.5 million each year for the next 4 years, a total of $30 
million by 2006. ADM has sales of over $20 billion annually, yet under 
this Bioenergy Program, the government is subsidizing its expansion and 
growth.
  Consider the following:
  No. 1. The Government already subsidizes farmers who grow corn, which 
is used to make ethanol.
  No. 2. The Government subsidizes producers of ethanol by giving firms 
a 5.3 cent ``tax break'' from the 18.4 cent per gallon tax on gasoline.
  No. 3. In the recent energy bill, the Senate mandated a market for 
ethanol that will force three times the amount we produce into the fuel 
supply by 2012.
  No. 4. Domestic ethanol producers are protected from foreign 
competition by a high 54-cent per gallon trade barrier.
  No. 5. On top of all this, why is Congress subsidizing ethanol 
producers to expand?
  There is new information on the environmental and health impact of 
ethanol.
  During the debate on the energy bill, I mentioned that I have grave 
concerns about the long-term effects of nearly tripling the amount of 
ethanol in our gasoline supply because the impact on the environment 
and public health is largely unknown.
  Although the scientific opinion is not unanimous, existing evidence 
suggests that: one, reformulated gasoline with ethanol produces more 
smog pollution than reformulated gas without it; and two, ethanol 
enables the toxic chemicals in gasoline to seep further into 
groundwater and even faster than conventional gasoline.
  And this week new evidence from the Environmental Protection Agency 
casts an even darker shadow on ethanol's environmental record. A letter 
was made public this week disclosing that toxic emissions from ethanol 
plants appear more dangerous than previously thought.
  I wish we had known about EPA's recent testing of ethanol plant 
emissions while the Senate was debating the ethanol mandate in the 
Senate Energy Bill.
  I would like to insert this letter for the Record and read from it.
  The letter is to Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels 
Association, the ethanol lobby. It is from Stephen Rothblatt, the head 
of EPA's air and radiation division in Region 5. Region 5 covers part 
of the Midwest.
  The letter begins:

       Recent testing performed at several ethanol production 
     facilities indicates emissions of volatile organic compounds 
     and carbon monoxide many times greater than that stated by 
     the companies in the permitting process.

  This finding by EPA raises new questions about the harm ethanol can 
cause the environment. Previously, emissions from ethanol plants were 
thought to be relatively benign. Under current law, ethanol plants are 
not considered ``major sources'' of volatile organic compound, VOC, 
emissions and they face a less stringent permitting process.
  However, the recent findings alluded to by EPA in this letter 
indicate that ethanol plants may now be major sources of VOC emissions 
and therefore subject to a more stringent permitting process. VOC 
emissions are of great concern because they contribute to the formation 
of ozone, the main component of smog.
  And these new findings are not confined to one or two plants. The 
letter indicates that emissions of carbon monoxide, methanol, 
formaldehyde, acetic acid, and other carcinogens at levels many times 
greater than the plant permits allow ``are not unique to the tested 
facilities, but rather common to most, if not all, ethanol 
facilities.''
  In response to this letter from EPA, I wrote Administrator Whitman 
and I would like to include the two letters I sent yesterday in the 
Record.
  I have asked the Administrator why the agency's findings did not 
surface until this week, and I asked EPA to report on the increase in 
emissions we can expect from ethanol plants if we triple the amount of 
ethanol that needs to be produced, as the Senate Energy Bill would 
require.
  I am also particularly concerned about a part in the letter that 
mentions EPA's desire to ``quickly address both State and Federal 
concerns and resolve them on terms most favorable to the industry.'' 
Why would EPA want to resolve this on terms most favorable to the 
industry when it is children, the elderly, and people with respiratory 
problems who will suffer most from these harmful emissions?
  It appears EPA is attempting to placate the ethanol industry because 
instead of enforcing the Clean Air Act by citing the ethanol plants for 
violations, EPA is trying to meet with ethanol industry representatives 
to resolve the matter quietly.
  I am concerned that the EPA will not crackdown on ethanol plants 
forcefully because, according to this letter, the agency's primary goal 
is to satisfy the industry and not the public interest.
  I hope the EPA will be able to complete a full scientific and health 
study on the impact of these ethanol plant emissions on the air we 
breathe. And I hope the agency will be forthcoming with the scientific 
results that led to this April 24th letter.
  I believe the testing conducted by the Region 5 office raises 
important questions on the health and environmental consequences of 
more ethanol production and use.
  It is clear to me that there is a lot about ethanol we do not know 
yet. I am very concerned about the mandate we passed in the energy 
bill.
  I am also concerned about this egregious provision in the farm bill 
that pays ethanol producers like ADM to buy more corn. This provision 
is unacceptable and I would hope that in the future when we authorize 
new ethanol programs, they are the subject of extensive hearings and 
debate, not just slipped into the conference report without notice.
  Having said all this, I would just like to take a few moments to 
highlight the provisions in the farm bill that will benefit California 
and explain why I support this legislation.
  First, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the 
Agriculture Committee who have spend a tremendous amount of time on 
this bill. And I want to thank all the members of the Conference 
Committee who spent the last three months hashing out the differences 
between the House and Senate bill.
  Mr. President, this farm bill will help provide economic stability 
for producers, make farmers and ranchers more competitive in world 
markets, and give needed assistance to rural areas.
  For California commodity crops like rice, cotton, and wheat, the farm 
bill provides loan rates and fixed direct payments to provide an 
effective safety net for our producers. Growers, lenders, and rural 
areas of California have anxiously been waiting for the farm bill to be 
signed into law. This bill will alleviate a great deal of uncertainty 
for commodity producers.
  I am also pleased that this farm bill will increase conservation 
funding by $17.1 billion over the next decade. California will make 
great use of the programs authorized in this farm bill to enhance wild 
habitat, create new wetlands, clean up farm runoff, and curb suburban 
sprawl.

[[Page S4027]]

  For growers of California's fruits, vegetables, and nuts there are 
funding increases for the purchase of speciality crops, including $94 
million for apples, and more funding for the Market Access Program.
  MAP funds are sought by many California growers to develop markets 
for their products overseas.
  I am happy to report that funding for the Market Access Program, MAP, 
will be authorized well above the current level of $90 million 
annually. MAP funding will be ramped up to $200 million by 2006. Dollar 
for dollar MAP funding is one of the best uses of money in this farm 
bill.
  For California dairy farmers, the bill extends the milk price support 
program through 2006 at $9.90 per hundredweight.
  One of the most controversial parts of the farm bill throughout this 
debate has been the dairy section. The original Senate bill agreed to 
in the Agriculture Committee was drafted to benefit Northeastern dairy 
farmers at the expense of California and other States. This so-called 
``national pooling'' proposal would have cost California dairy farmers 
$1.5 billion over 9 years and driven up prices for consumers by $1.5 
billion over 9 years.
  After a great deal of negotiation in the Senate and again in 
conference, I believe we have achieved something California dairy 
farmers can live with. We could not get everything we wanted, but dairy 
groups in California are supportive of the provisions in the bill.
  For example, Michael Marsh, CEO of Western United Dairymen writes, 
``This bill has received more than a year of debate. The conferees 
worked hard to balance the needs of diverse agricultural interests and 
produce a consensus bill. We believe the bill is equitable and 
balanced.''
  The farm bill funds research at $1.3 billion over the next 10 years 
to combat pest and disease threats and to stimulate scientific advances 
in agriculture. California is at the forefront of advances in 
agricultural research and the State will benefit greatly from the 
research funding in this bill.
  For example, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems 
program is authorized at an average of $200 million annually.
  This program awards research grants to California universities such 
as UC Davis on a competitive basis and usually a large percentage of 
the funding goes to California research labs and projects.
  The farm bill provides $6.4 billion for nutrition. For California, 
nutrition groups estimate this legislation will deliver more than $1.7 
billion to food stamp recipients in the State.
  The farm bill also simplifies the food stamp program and restores 
benefits to legal immigrants. By making all legal immigrant children 
eligible for food stamps and making adult legal immigrants eligible for 
food stamps after they have resided in the United States for 5 years, 
California will be relieved of some of the costs shifted to the State 
after the 1996 welfare reform bill.
  The following groups are among those who have written to me to ask 
that I support this farm bill: the California Farm Bureau; National 
Conference of State Legislatures; California Citrus Mutual; Western 
United Dairymen; the Alliance of Western Milk Producers; California 
Food Policy Advocates; the California Grape & Tree Fruit League; United 
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association; the California Strawberry 
Commission; Calcot--the major cooperative representing California and 
Arizona cotton growers; the California Rice Commission; the Sacramento 
Central Labor Council AFL-CIO; the Milk Producers Council; the Nature 
Conservancy; National Farmers Union; the Children's Defense Fund; and 
many of the major food banks in California.
  I believe this broad support demonstrates that the farm bill 
conferees were able to reach adequate compromises on most issues.
  I would also like to highlight a few special provisions for 
California that the conferees agreed to:
  No. 1. The farm bill includes provision to strengthen produce 
smuggling penalties.
  The conference report included language from a bill I introduced last 
year to strengthen penalties for criminal violations of plant smuggling 
laws. This provision in the farm bill conference report will protect 
agriculture from the invasion of foreign species by strengthening 
criminal penalties for organized smuggling of fruits, plants, and 
vegetables into the United States. Under current law, violators are 
charged low fines for violating plant smuggling laws--simply a minor 
cost of doing business, not an effective deterrent.
  No. 2. The farm bill includes provision to give the Secretary of 
Agriculture the authority to reallocate sugar export quota shortfalls.
  The conference report includes a compromise worked out with Senator 
Harkin, Senator Lugar, and Senator Breaux that would give the Secretary 
of Agriculture the option to reallocate any shortfall in exported sugar 
from supplying countries to other nations that would export more sugar 
cane to the United States.
  This may help C&H Sugar, a struggling refinery in Crockett, CA, 
obtain more sugar cane from abroad to refine. In the past, C&H has had 
to temporarily shutdown and lay off some of its workers because they do 
not have enough sugar cane to refine. This is a small step, but it may 
help some.
  No. 3. The farm bill includes provision extending a crop insurance 
pilot program to California.
  The farm bill conference report includes a provision to allow 
California growers to qualify for Adjusted Gross Revenue Crop 
Insurance--a unique risk management tool provided by USDA to give 
producers a ``self-help'' option of insuring a potion of their farm 
income. Adjusted Gross Revenue Crop Insurance provides protection 
against low revenue due to unavoidable catastrophes.
  The program was first made available on a pilot basis in 1999. This 
year is the fourth year the program has been available and now 
California will join 17 other States where the program is currently 
offered. This program will benefit California specialty crop producers.
  No. 4. The farm bill includes provision to allow California to grow, 
refine, and market sugar cane.
  The conference report includes a provision that will allow California 
to join Hawaii, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida as a State with a 
sugarcane allocation. Growers in the Imperial Valley in California have 
been growing sugar cane for about 4 years now with the hopes they would 
be able to revive the area's stagnant industry. California farmers will 
now be able to grow, refine, and market sugarcane--adding to the 
State's great and diverse agricultural production.
  Although this farm bill is far from a perfect bill, I am supporting 
it because I believe sending it back to conference would be 
counterproductive. Our farmers need a farm bill now and I believe this 
legislation will be well received in agricultural areas across this 
nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned letters be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 2002.
     Hon. Christine Todd Whitman,
     Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
         1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.
       Dear Administrator Whitman: I was surprised to read that 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) called for a 
     meeting this week with ethanol industry officials to discuss 
     findings by the agency that factories that convert corn into 
     the ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol, 
     formaldehyde, acetic acid, and carcinogens at levels many 
     times greater than previously thought.
       It is interesting to me that EPA's study into these harmful 
     ethanol emissions was disclosed in an April 24 letter to the 
     industry's trade group, yet the correspondence was not made 
     public until this week. Why the delay? I am also concerned 
     that the EPA might use the unusual forum of an industry 
     meeting to cut a special deal for the ethanol industry 
     outside the regular EPA process of plant investigations for 
     emissions violations.
       I believe that the science is pretty clear that the 
     environmental record on ethanol is mixed and smog increases 
     as a product of more ethanol use.
       Therefore, based on the new information from EPA that 
     ``most, if not all, ethanol facilities'' and releasing carbon 
     monoxide, methanol, formaldehyde, acetic acid, and 
     carcinogens, I would like to ask how much these toxins will 
     be increased across the United States if we triple the amount 
     of ethanol currently produced--the scenario mandated by 
     recent passage of the Senate Energy Bill. Since this energy 
     legislation is

[[Page S4028]]

     now being considered in a conference committee, I am asking 
     for an expedited response from your agency.
       Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Dianne Feinstein.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 2002.
     Hon. Christine Todd Whitman,
     Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
         1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
       Dear Administrator Whitman: To follow up on my earlier 
     letter today, I am writing to request that the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) provide my office with the scientific 
     data from the recent tests performed on several ethanol 
     facilities by your Region 5 office.
       I would like to know more specifically what EPA has 
     discovered about carbon monoxide, methanol, formaldehyde, 
     acetic acid, and other carcinogenic emissions from ethanol 
     plants.
       I am also particularly concerned that your agency has 
     chosen to remedy these harmful ethanol emissions by meeting 
     only with industry representatives. The April 24th letter 
     from EPA to the Renewable Fuels Association invites ethanol 
     industry representatives to meet and says, ``this approach 
     can give certainty to the industry by quickly addressing both 
     state and federal concerns and resolving them on terms most 
     favorable to the industry.'' Why would EPA want to address 
     this on terms most favorable to the industry when it is 
     children, the elderly, and people with respiratory problems 
     who will suffer most from these harmful emissions?
       Please send me the ``stack tests'' that led to the April 
     24th letter as soon as possible. Thank you for your immediate 
     attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Dianne Feinstein.
                                  ____

                                     U.S. Environmental Protection


                                             Agency, Region 5,

                                      Chicago, IL, April 24, 2002.
     Bob Dinneen,
     President, Renewable Fuels Association, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Dinneen: Recent testing performed at several 
     ethanol production facilities indicates emissions of volatile 
     organic compounds and carbon monoxide many times greater than 
     that stated by the companies in the permitting process. As a 
     result, we believe that these facilities were not properly 
     permitted and controlled with respect to a number of 
     pollutants as they were initially constructed or modified. We 
     expect that this circumstance is not unique to the tested 
     facilities, but rather is common to most, if not all, ethanol 
     facilities.
       Normally, U.S. EPA would remedy the violations at each of 
     these facilities, individually, through a lengthy period of 
     information-gathering followed by the traditional enforcement 
     process. By this letter, we would like to invite 
     representatives of the Renewable Fuels Association and Region 
     5 ethanol production facilities to attend a brief meeting on 
     May 6, 2002 from 1:00-3:00 pm at our Chicago office on the 
     3rd floor in Room 328 for the purpose of gauging your 
     interest in exploring an expedited resolution to these 
     issues. We feel that this approach can give certainty to the 
     industry by quickly addressing both state and federal 
     concerns and resolving them on terms most favorable to the 
     industry.
       We expect that this initial meeting will last no more than 
     two (2) hours and will consist of a presentation, by the 
     regulatory agencies, which describes the issues and our 
     proposed path toward resolution. If you have any questions, 
     Ms. Cynthia King, of our Office of Regional Counsel, can be 
     reached at (312) 886-6831.
           Very Truly Yours,
                                                Stephen Rothblatt.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2646, the 
Farm Security Act of 2002.
  This is the first time in my congressional career that I have been 
unable to support a farm bill. I voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 
1996. And I supported the farm bill before that--the Food, Agriculture, 
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. Many of my good friends support 
this bill, people I admire and trust. This is not an easy decision for 
me, but I sincerely believe it is the right decision.
  There are a number of problems with this conference report. First, it 
reflects a fundamental shift in federal agriculture policy, such a 
dramatic shift that I believe will only confuse our farmers and 
eventually lead to more problems for rural America.
  For years, federal agriculture policy has called for farmers to look 
more to the free market and away from government dependence. Going back 
to the Freedom to Farm Act, we have attempted to direct agriculture 
toward a market-oriented footing by reducing subsidies, cutting 
regulations and giving farmers more incentives and flexibility to plant 
crops that would allow them to make a decent living.
  I'll be honest in admitting that the Federal Government has not done 
enough to keep up its end of the bargain--so far. We haven't cut the 
regulatory burden quickly enough, and we need to do better when it 
comes to passing improvements to the trade laws that open new foreign 
markets to our farmers. But that is no reason now to begin moving 
backwards, to turn the tractor 180 degrees in the opposite direction. 
We are on the verge of passing fast track legislation in Congress, and 
the new administration is clearly more disposed toward easing the 
regulatory burden our farmers bear. Things are now moving in the right 
direction.
  However, the conference report before us completely undermines 
current agriculture policy by drastically increasing subsidies and 
turning back the clock toward the days when farmers were more dependent 
on the federal government than their own ingenuity.
  I believe this will prove to be confusing to our farmers, and the 
lack of coherent federal farm policy will in the long run only lead to 
more uncertainty and problems for our agricultural communities. Because 
we know that American farmers produce the best crops in the world, we 
have for years preached the need to move away from subsidies and 
regulations and toward the hope and opportunity of the free market. If 
we pass this conference report today, the signal we send to rural 
America will be mixed and counterproductive, and only lead it to wonder 
what sort of helter-skelter policy flip-flops Congress will make next.
  In hard times, farmers need help. We all know that. But instead of 
simply getting out the Federal Government's checkbook, the better 
solution is to empower farmers and rural communities, not to encourage 
them to become more dependent on a Federal Government that can't seem 
to decide from one day to the next what it's agriculture policy is 
going to be.
  I also worry that this bill will contribute to the decline of the 
family farm. Instead of focusing on the small farmer who needs our help 
the most, this legislation contains too many favors for the big 
producers at the expense of the little guys. For instance, when the 
Senate passed its initial version of this legislation, it capped at 
$275,000 the amount of government support that any producer could 
receive. Now the conference report not only increases that amount to 
$360,000, it contains so many loopholes that the actual ceiling is 
closer to $2.5 million.
  That's outrageous. By one estimate I have seen, 10 percent of the 
growers will be eligible to receive over \2/3\ of the support generated 
by this legislation. Considering that in Kentucky the average size of 
our farm is 150 acres and most produce less than $10,000 in income, 
this bill does not do my State that much good. The big guys and the 
corporate farms don't need our help; they're doing just fine. Now when 
we have the opportunity to help our family farms, this bill falls 
short.
  I am also very concerned about the spiraling costs of this bill. 
Plain and simple, it's a budget-buster. According to the Congressional 
Budget Office, this bill represents a 70 percent increase over current 
projections for agriculture spending over the next ten years--74 
billion in all. Many of the subsidy rates in the bill are pegged at 10 
percent annual increases. These price hikes are simply not sustainable 
or wise at a time when we are unfortunately facing in the 2002 fiscal 
year a budget deficit of $100 billion.
  If we are going to balance the budget and restore fiscal discipline 
to the federal budget, all of us have to bear part of the load. 
Obviously, we cannot make up the entire budget deficit on the backs of 
farmers and our rural communities. But at the same time it would be 
unfair not to ask for at least a modicum of fiscal responsibility in 
this bill.
  Additionally, there are problems with the fantastic complexity in 
this bill. As my colleague, Senator Lugar, pointed out yesterday, the 
loan and payment formulae in this legislation are mind-numbingly 
complex, so complicated that the legislators who wrote the final 
version of the bill often cannot agree on exactly how they work. If the 
bean counters in Washington are having a hard time figuring them out, I 
know there are going to be serious problems when we try to implement 
this legislation in the real world.
  I know that the Farm Service Agencies in Kentucky and throughout the

[[Page S4029]]

land are filled with fine folks who do a good job. But the payment 
schemes in this farm bill are so intricate that I am not sure anyone 
will be able to make them work, let alone the staff at the FSA who are 
already overworked and understaffed. In recent years, we have seen the 
closing of many FSA offices around the country, especially in Kentucky. 
And we know that the USDA is looking to close more. To now turn around 
and ask these officials to do even more with less is unfair to them, 
unfair to our farmers and likely to lead to more consternation and 
worse farm policy. If our farmers do not already have agribusiness 
advisors, they are going to hire them just to sort through what 
payments they are and are not eligible to receive under this 
legislation.

  On a personal note, I am also bitterly disappointed that this 
legislation does not include specific help for the Kentucky 
thoroughbred industry. Over the past several years, our breeders have 
grappled with devastation caused by Mare Reproductive Loss Syndrome 
(MRLS). In Kentucky, we have many, many small thoroughbred operations, 
who are all hoping to catch lightning in a bottle and to win the Derby. 
But, sadly, many of these farms have suffered severe setbacks because 
of MRLS. The House proposal provided loans for small producers affected 
by MRLS. The final bill does not. That is a bitter pill that I cannot 
swallow.
  I am afraid that this bill plays a cruel joke on our farmers. On the 
one hand, it raises price supports quickly and holds out the 
possibility of putting a few more dollars in their pocket in short run. 
But, on the other hand, I believe all of these extra production 
incentives will lead to so much overproduction of crops that it will 
eventually drive commodity prices through the floor and cause an income 
disaster in the long run. The legislation tells our farmers that they 
can have their cake and eat it too, and I just can't in my heart go 
along with this deception.
  I do not cast this vote enthusiastically. I want a farm bill I can 
support. I want to agree with many of my friends in the agriculture 
community who support this conference report. But I cannot, in good 
conscience, support a bill that helps corporate farms at the expense of 
family farms. I am also very much afraid that this bill will turn out 
to be a nightmare for farmers. I hope I am wrong; I certainly do not 
wish any more trouble for my farmers in Kentucky. I am just afraid that 
this bill makes too many false promises that it cannot keep, and I 
cannot support legislation that I believe misleads Kentucky farmers.
  Over time, I think my friends in agriculture will realize this bill 
is a mistake and that they have been sold a bill of goods.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have been privileged over the past 18 
years to serve what I believe to be the greatest men and women on the 
face of the earth, that is the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 
Serving the people of Kentucky means, among other things, looking out 
for the best interests of farm families and farming communities.
  When I came to Washington, my first priority was to become a member 
of the Senate Agriculture Committee. A few years later, I was able to 
secure a spot on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. Over 
these past two decades, I have had the good fortune to develop strong 
and close relationships with the men and women in Kentucky who work the 
land and who put food on our tables. We have worked together through 
good times and through lean times. Let me say that we have had some 
memorable moments and historic victories. In fact, some of those 
victories have been called ``miracles'' by the farmers I proudly serve.
  We will have more victories in the future, but this year's farm bill 
is not one of them.
  Every farm bill, because of the nature of regional interests and 
political compromise, has winners and losers. However, I am 
particularly struck by the amount of money and the way it will be spent 
in this farm bill. Not because I do not believe the Federal Government 
has a financial role in assisting our farmers and rural communities, I 
do. But because I believe the Government's financial role should be 
fair and equitable and based on good farm policy. Far, far too many of 
the Federal tax dollars spent in this bill, will go to far, far too few 
farmers. I don't believe that is good for agriculture and I don't 
believe it is fair for Kentucky. Here's the central weakness of this 
bill, big farm operators will be made stronger and the small family 
farmer will be made weaker. For this reason, I cannot vote ``yea.''
  The winners in this farm bill include: Large farm conglomerates who, 
because of the three entity rule and commodity certificates, will be 
able to receive almost unlimited Federal payments. Big landlords are 
almost certain to receive far higher cash rents for their land. State 
and local governments will recoup higher property taxes as a result of 
escalating farmland prices. Argentina and Brazil will be winners 
because they are likely to face less competition from the United States 
in soybeans. Trade lawyers will be retained to defend the United States 
from numerous complaints in the WTO. And, tax specialists will be hired 
to help millionaires defer or shelter incomes so as to keep their 
adjusted gross income below $2.5 million per year so they can continue 
to receive farm subsidies.
  It is a fact that in the United States only 40 percent of farmers 
receive Federal payments under the farm bill. And from 1996 to 2001, 
the top 10 percent of that 40 percent received 69 percent of all USDA 
payments and the top 20 percent of recipients received 85 percent of 
all payments. The remaining 80 percent of recipients received only 15 
percent of all payments.
  In Kentucky, only 25 percent of our 90,000 farms receive Federal 
payments under the farm bill. From 1996 to 2001, the top 10 percent of 
that 25 percent received 78 percent of all payments. This left 90 
percent of Kentucky's farmers who are recipients receiving only 22 
percent of the payments. In short, 3 out of 4 Kentucky farms will 
receive almost no direct Federal benefit from this bill.
  Surprisingly this is all in a bill written by proponents proclaiming 
that their goal in writing it was to provide a safety net for the small 
family farm. Yet in this farm bill, Federal subsidies to the largest 
and richest farmers are the hallmark of their work. These same 
proponents, who oppose ending the death tax, which would do more for 
the family farm than any amount of subsidies, write a bill that 
concentrates federal farm subsidy payments even more in the hands of 
very few large crop farmers.
  In fact, the commodity title essentially tells the farmer that the 
market doesn't matter anymore. The target prices now become the 
producer's price guarantee. This policy will encourage over-production 
which, in turn, will lead to lower prices. This, of course, favors 
larger farms, because the more you produce the more Federal payments 
you receive. The more money you have will also enable you to purchase 
more land to produce even more. This will put pressure on the smaller 
family farms to keep up. That will be difficult and I fear more and 
more family farms in Kentucky and across America will eventually 
disappear.
  Now let us look at some of the losers. The U.S. taxpayer will be 
paying a lot more and receiving very little in return. American 
families ultimately will have to pay more for produce, peanuts, fish 
and meat. Market-driven farm policy is taking a step backwards. Young 
and aspiring farmers will find it even harder to buy farmland. Cash 
renters of farmland will be faced with higher cash rents.
  I do commend a number of the bill's provisions such as the 
conservation and rural development programs. The cattlemen in Kentucky 
will be able to apply for EQIP funds to make environmental improvements 
on their ranches. Dairy farmers, particularly those in Kentucky, will 
benefit under a new national program. The hardwood tree farmers in my 
State also gain under the Conservation Reserve Program, but some of the 
most important provisions regarding hardwoods were deleted from the 
conference report at the last minute, which disappoints me. And the 
Nutrition Title makes improvements in our food assistance programs that 
help the neediest of our citizens. But these bright spots are not 
enough for me to vote for an agriculture commodity policy that 
overwhelmingly benefits the larger farm operators at the expense of the 
small family farm.

  I find myself in agreement with some of my colleagues on the House 
side.

[[Page S4030]]

Congressmen John Boehner (R-OH) and Cal Dooley (D-CA), both members of 
the Agriculture Committee and the Farm Bill Conference who voted 
against the conference report, stated that ``On the whole, this bill 
ignores the lessons of the past and the truth of the free market. It 
represents the most sweeping non-military expansion of the Federal 
Government since the Great Society and will create more problems than 
it will solve.''
  I also agree with editorials in some of the newspapers across the 
country and in my State which have roundly criticized this farm bill. 
The Bowling Green Daily News editorial had this headline: ``It's Good 
Ole Politics Down On The Farm,'' observing it's just election year 
politics deciding how our tax dollars are being spent. And the Kentucky 
Post/Cincinnati Post called the bill ``Congressional Hogwash.'' The New 
York Times, with whom I don't usually agree, stated that ``The farm 
bill agreed to by a House-Senate Conference Committee last week is a 
regrettable reversion to some of the worst policies of the past.'' Even 
the Wall Street Journal called it ``one of the porkiest farm bills in 
history . . .''.
  Other opponents of this bill include: Senators Pat Roberts, Richard 
Lugar, Charles Grassley, and Chuck Hagel, all strong supporters of 
American agriculture; the Center for Rural Affairs; the Organization 
for a Competitive Marketplace; the Sierra Club; the Environmental 
Working Group; Environmental Defense; the Humane Society; and the 
editorial board of the Washington Post.
  During an election year it's not uncommon for politicians to hold 
their noses and vote for expediency. I could just vote yes and try not 
to upset anyone, because there will be many in Kentucky who will 
disagree with my vote. I cannot in good conscience say to my farmers, 
the overwhelming number of whom operate small family farms, that I 
believe this farm bill would be good for them in the long run. I don't.
  I am therefore going to oppose this farm bill because it spends too 
much on too few, sets U.S. agriculture policy back 10 years by taking 
the forces of the market-place out of agriculture, probably violates 
our trade agreements, and most importantly I believe it hurts the small 
family farm, and therefore rural Kentucky.
  To understand my decision on this farm bill, you have to understand 
the nature of the Kentucky farmer. We are proud to have more than 
90,000 farms in our State. These farms, however, are not large farms. 
They are not the large, plantation-style farms managed and controlled 
by corporate boards. The average farm in Kentucky is 151 acres and is 
dwarfed by the size of the average 434 acre farm in the United States. 
These are the family farmers that I look out for and fight for every 
day.
  It is these small family farms, that I believe are ultimately 
shortchanged by this bill, a bill that will put the government in 
charge of America's farms, cost roughly $180 billion over 10 years 
during a time of war and growing budget deficits, increase subsidies by 
70 percent, including America's first national dairy subsidy, and 
funnel the bulk of those subsidies to a handful of large corporate 
farms.
  This farm bill may be good politics, but it's terrible policy. It 
will serve some farmers in Kentucky, but not enough. For those reasons, 
I have no choice but to vote no.


                           HARDWOOD FORESTRY

  Mr. President, hardwood forests and related industries comprise one 
of the lead agricultural commodities in my State of Kentucky. I was 
pleased that versions of the farm bill considered by the Senate 
Agriculture Committee included incentives for expansion of hardwood 
acreage in Kentucky and throughout the United States. Particularly, I 
was pleased to have helped develop provisions in the Conservation 
Reserve Program recognizing hardwood forests for their unparalleled 
conservation value. Hardwood forests are one of our Nation's greatest 
naturally renewable resources providing a diverse landscape for 
wildlife, soil conservation, and improvements in water and air quality. 
And the aesthetic value of trees with seasonal changes in foliage 
cannot be disputed among tourists and our constituents enjoying their 
surrounding landscapes.
  Unfortunately, in the final hours of the House-Senate Conference the 
incentives for hardwood forestry were scaled back with no opportunity 
for re-consideration, and in my opinion, no justification. In reviewing 
the final conference report, I was particularly concerned to see that 
an uncontentious provision with no financial impact was removed. This 
provision would have instructed the Secretary of Agriculture to ``take 
such steps as may be necessary to ensure that all hardwood sites 
annually enrolled in the conservation reserve program are reforested 
with hardwood species appropriate for the site being planted, and that 
the highest possible enrollment priority and conservation value is 
assigned to hardwood sites being offered for planting with hardwood 
species''.
  I state my strong support for this hardwood target within the 
Conservation Reserve Program.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as one of seven conferees representing the 
Senate, I rise today to speak in support of the conference report and 
urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill. This farm bill will 
assist America's family farmers, expand economic opportunity in rural 
communities, strengthen programs to protect the environment and improve 
the nutritional safety net for low-income Americans. But one aspect of 
this new bill that makes it historic is the fact that, for the first 
time in a long, long, time, dairy farmers across our nation will have 
an adequate safety net that they can count to provide income support 
should prices remain low.
  The national dairy program in this bill represents a carefully 
crafted compromise between many competing interests. First, it is a 
compromise among those regions of the country who support dairy 
compacts and those that don't. It's no secret that I would have 
preferred an extension of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. It 
cost taxpayers nothing. After Members of Congress from other regions 
and the opposition of President Bush and Vice President Cheney blocked 
these efforts, the Vermont Congressional Delegation--against great 
odds, but joined by allies from across the nation--urged creation of a 
national dairy program as a compromise. What we came up with is a new 
national dairy program that will provide cash assistance to dairy 
farmers comparable to what dairy farmers from Vermont and other New 
England States received under the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.
  There should be no doubt that what the conferees intended was for 
USDA to implement this program in a manner as similar to the compact as 
possible. Indeed, the formula for determining the monthly payments is 
nearly identical to the formula used under the Compact--it even is 
based on the price of Class I fluid milk in Boston.
  The Statement of Managers summarizes the provision by noting that 
``Under this program, participating dairy producers will receive 
monthly payments equal to 45 percent of the difference between $16.94 
and the price per hundredweight of Class I fluid milk in Boston under 
the applicable federal milk marketing order. No payments will be made 
for months during which the fluid milk price in Boston is $16.94 or 
higher.'' Obviously, no negative assistance or negative ``payments'' 
can be paid to producers because that would not represent assistance or 
payments.
  It is a very straightforward program. My staff met with several key 
USDA officials with significant responsibilities regarding the dairy 
programs, and with Keith Collins the USDA Chief Economist, to ensure 
that the language and time frames would work. I appreciate that the 
Office of Congressional Relations, USDA, helped set up that meeting.
  We also requested more than one analysis from FAPRI showing how this 
new program would pay out to farmers, and to understand its possible 
impacts on production of milk by dairy farmers.
  Some of my colleagues have asked how this formula was developed. 
After Congress consented to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact in 
1996, the Northeast Interstate Compact Commission decided to support 
the price of Class I fluid milk sold into the six New England states 
covered by the Compact (Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
Connecticut, New Hampshire) at a level that at times would be

[[Page S4031]]

above minimum established under the prevailing federal milk marketing 
order in the Northeast.
  The Compact Commission took testimony and held hearings and decided 
to establish a floor of $16.94 per hundred weight under the Class I 
price. The floor was based on the price in Boston, so the floor for 
milk marketed outside of Boston but within the Compact region would 
vary, based on the local differential. The Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact only regulated sales of Class I fluid milk--which represents 
only about 45 percent of the total milk produced in New England. The 
percentage varies on a monthly basis. The rest of New England's milk is 
used to make other fine dairy products, such as Ben and Jerry's Ice 
Cream, or Cabot cheese. In other words, under the Compact, producers 
received payments on only about 45 percent of their total milk 
production.
  The conferees tried to emulate this formula as closely as possible, 
while making sure it would work on a national basis. Like the compact, 
whenever the federal minimum price for fluid milk in Boston falls below 
$16.94 per hundred weight, participating dairy farmers will receive a 
payment. Like the Compact, payments will be made on only 45 percent of 
the milk marketed by a producer--a rough approximation of the Class I 
utilization rate in the Northeast that is fixed, rather than varying on 
a monthly basis.
  The conferees didn't just try to emulate the payment formula 
established under the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, they also 
emulated other elements of the Compact. For instance, the conference 
report requires the Secretary to make payments on a monthly basis not 
later than 60 days after the end of each month for which a payment is 
made. Timing of these payments is critical the Conferees wanted these 
counter-cyclical payments to be made when they're needed the most which 
is when the milk is marketed.
  Under the time line set forth in the conference report, producers 
should begin receiving payments under this new national dairy program 
early this fall. USDA is required to begin signing up farmers to 
participate in the program not later than 60 days after the new farm 
bill is signed into law. As under the compact, all producers will 
receive payments on a monthly basis: USDA is required to pay producers 
not later than 60 days after the end of each month for which a payment 
is made.
  In addition to representing a compromise among those supporting dairy 
compacts and those opposed to compacts, the national dairy program 
represents a compromise among those who wanted a counter-cyclical 
income support program for dairy farmers and those who wanted no such 
program. Much to my chagrin, the program is authorized only through 
September 30, 2005, and payments under the program are capped.
  Now, I know others also lament the fact that there is a cap on 
eligible production. While some of us believe the cap is too low, 
others complain that the cap is too high. But this is a compromise that 
will ensure that producers across the country benefit. Some of my 
colleagues have suggested that payments from this program will 
stimulate additional production and drive down prices. I don't believe 
this will be the case. Here's why:

  First, this program is not permanent, it is temporary--it ends in 
2005. Producers are not likely to make long-term investments to expand 
production based on a program that ends before they have had a chance 
to recoup their fixed costs.
  Second, in the short term, there are practical limits to how quickly 
dairy farmers can expand production. Currently, there is a shortage of 
animals that would limit any production increases.
  Third, our experience with the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has 
shown--as the General Accounting Office Reports have documented--that 
payments comparable to these--at least in the Northeast--have not 
stimulated massive expansions. In fact, last year, producers in the 
Northeast expanded at a rate below the national average.
  But nevertheless, the Conferees agreed to cap the quantity of milk on 
which a producer can receive payments each fiscal year. While it is 
clear from the text of the law, and it was clearly the intent of the 
drafters, I want to point out that any milk production marketed in 
months when no payment is made to farmers is not to be counted toward 
the 2.4 million pound cap.
  In other words, the cap only applies to the volume of milk produced 
in months which generated payments by USDA under section 1502, not on 
all the milk produced during the year. This is set forth in subsection 
(d) where it states that amounts to be counted toward the 2.4 million 
pound limit are counted ``during the months of the applicable fiscal 
year for which the producers receive payments . . .''
  Related to this point is another issue concerning the cap. Note that 
if all pounds are counted when a USDA payment is made, larger family 
farms could hit their cap in the first few months of any year when 
payment rates per hundredweight might be lower. But it would not make 
good policy sense to see a large family farm get a very small payment, 
for example, $.10 per cwt. in the fall and then exceed the cap and get 
no payment when payments could reach $1.00 per cwt. in the spring.
  Since this national program was intended to be counter cyclical, 
farmers should be allowed to pick which months they want to submit for 
payments, for months when a payment is due.
  The easiest way to implement this intent, would be that a farmer must 
not only market the milk but the farmer or agent must also report it to 
USDA. If a farmer chooses not to report his or her production in a 
month, the farmer gets no payment that month but also his or her 
production does not count against his or her cap. This maximizes the 
opportunity this program offers for a strong counter cyclical 
protection.
  Under this approach, USDA would then keep track of the first 
``countable'' 2.4 million pounds of production each year, and then 
reduce the last check or eliminate checks for the remainder of the 
year. This would represent a very simple way for USDA to implement this 
provision and meet the 60-day deadline for ``monthly'' prospective 
payments set forth in subsection (e).
  This approach will allow a larger farm operation to use the program 
when it is most needed. However, keep in mind that regardless which 
months are selected for payment, the cap of 2.4 million pounds per 
fiscal year still applies. This is the fairest way to be responsive to 
larger family farms under a tight cap in a program which was designed 
to be counter cyclical.
  This would not be unprecedented: Grain and oilseed producers have 
this sort of flexibility--they are able to lock in loan deficiency 
payments and marketing loan gains at time of their choosing--at any 
point before they lose beneficial interest in their crops. Some 
producers even travel to neighboring counties to lock in higher LDPs. 
Most are successful in locking in LDPs during harvest-time lows, even 
though the season average price at which they market their crop 
generally is significantly higher. USDA should provide similar 
flexibility to dairy producers, allowing them to elect when to receive 
payments.
  I am concerned about language which the other body insisted upon 
toward then end of the process. I am concerned about larger family 
operations where several family members have joined together for 
efficiency but the farm is still supporting more than one family. USDA 
should be open to viewing those farms as true multiple operations under 
this program. For other programs, and in other areas such as the South, 
USDA permits these multiple operations.
  USDA should look at the totality of the circumstances in determining 
whether producers should be treated as having single or multiple 
operations. Farmers should not be penalized for working together to 
enhance efficiency. That was the whole point behind the definition of 
producer found in 1502(a)(5). That definition would have automatically 
included husbands and wives, fathers or mothers and adult children, 
adult siblings, and the like, working on the same farm. In most cases, 
each of the above would have each been entitled to application of a 
separate 2.4 million pound cap because they would naturally share in 
the risk of producing milk and would likely make significant 
contributions to the

[[Page S4032]]

dairy farming operation, as required by section 1502(a)(5).
  For example, for a spouse living on the farm it would be hard to 
imagine a situation where the spouse would not ``share in the risk'' 
since part of the household income would come from milk sales. Also, in 
most situations a spouse would be making contributions of labor or 
management or some other valuable contribution. There is nothing in 
USDA Notice LD-505, dated March 14, 2001, regarding the definition of 
dairy operation which would preclude the family members mentioned above 
from being in, or setting up, separate operations. Since the intent of 
section 1502(a)(5) was to make the farm bill friendly to family 
operations the implementation of the ``diary operation'' definition 
should not undercut that pro-family approach.
  On page 4 of that Notice, ``dairy operation'' is defined as ``any 
person or group of persons who as a single unit produce and market milk 
commercially produced from cows and whose production and facilities are 
located in the United States.'' There is no reason to suspect that USDA 
intended that this should be interpreted as inherently anti-family. 
Many statements about this farm bill talk about its focus on the family 
farm.

  In this regard, I would encourage the Farm Services Agency, USDA, to 
work with other USDA agencies and milk handlers and cooperatives to 
lessen the administrative burden on farmers. The intent is to provide a 
countercyclical safety net when needed most--and USDA should be aware 
of that goal when they are writing regulations to the extent 
regulations are needed.
  While the text makes this very clear, it should be noted that this 
program is not a straight subsidy. It is a targeted safety net program 
to take the bottom out of crushingly low prices for small and medium 
farms that also provide so many benefits to rural communities and the 
environment even beyond the milk they produce.
  Note that fresh drinking milk (Class I) prices fell $.33 per gallon 
throughout the Federal Order system--which governs sales of 70 percent 
of all U.S. milk--on December 1, 2001 because of fewer consumers going 
out to eat after September 11, and other factors.
  Of course, the focus of this national program and the focus of the 
formula which is used to compute the benefits is on ``Class I milk.'' 
Payments are based on $16.94 minus ``the Class I milk price per 
hundredweight in Boston.'' This is based, of course, on the formula 
used in calculating benefits under the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact Commission.
  A significant feature of the new national dairy program is that it 
will be retroactive, covering market losses due to low prices since 
Dec. 1, 2001. On that date, there was a devastating drop in the price 
for Class I fluid milk. Producers should receive these retroactive 
payments at the same time they receive their first payments early this 
fall.
  This ``transition rule'' found in subsection (h), provides that those 
payments are ``[i]n addition to any payment that is otherwise available 
under this section . . .''
  As I pointed out more than once during discussions, the goal of this 
subsection is to address the steep drop in dairy prices to farmers 
starting in December, 2001. The benefits of the Northeast Interstate 
Dairy Compact ended on October 1, 2001. The adverse impact of that 
termination started hurting New England farmers during that crash in 
milk prices in December.
  The goal of subsection (h) for those farmers was to hold them 
harmless regarding the loss of the Congressional consent to the 
Compact. A second goal, since this now is a national program, is to 
compensate all dairy farmers for their market losses--not just New 
England farmers--since December 1, 2001.
  Of course, that is a different goal than the prospective ``monthly'' 
program which provides monthly payments, for future months when they 
are due, and operates until September 30, 2005. That prospective 
program has a 2.4 million pound cap as set forth in (d). Indeed, (d)(2) 
``Limitation,'' states that, ``The payment quantity for all producers 
on a single dairy operation during the months of the applicable fiscal 
year for which the producers receive payments under subsection (b) 
shall not exceed 2,400,000 pounds.''
  In addition, (d)(2) sets forth a limitation regarding each dairy 
operation and (d)(3) gives the Secretary authority to issue rules to 
ensure that producers do not reconstitute dairy operations for the sole 
purpose of receiving additional payments under this section.
  This ``limitations'' language was inserted out of a concern that an 
uncapped program would lead to significant increases in production of 
milk. Also, there was a concern that farmers would reorganize in the 
future just to get higher payments under the national program.
  These concerns do not apply to the benefits paid out under subsection 
(h) because farmers would need time machines to go back in the past and 
increase their production or to change their legal structure 
retrospectively. Indeed, the amount of production covered by (h) is the 
amount of ``eligible production'' as defined in section 1502(a)(2).
  This approach to those dairy market losses in a sense makes up for 
the fact that programs for others farmers, non-dairy farmers, continued 
to exist after September 30, 2001, and were to be continued until the 
1996 farm bill was to end on September 30, 2002. Thus, non-dairy 
farmers continued to receive some types of countercyclical, or other 
benefits, from the existing provisions of the 1996 farm bill. Dairy 
farmers did not enjoy those protections except for the price support 
program scheduled to end soon.
  Thus, subsection (h) gives dairy farmers some relief from the huge 
drop in milk prices which they have suffered since December 1, 2001. In 
order to allow these farmers to pay off their debts, pay their bills, 
and keep in the dairy farming business, it is hoped that USDA will 
quickly compute the ``transition'' payment to be made on the ``quantity 
of eligible production of the producer marketed during the period 
beginning on December 1, 2001, and ending on the last day of the month 
preceding the month the producers on the dairy farm entered into the 
contract [with USDA].'' These payments should be made with the first 
``monthly'' prospective checks to be issued under subsection (b).
  Although I am pleased with the dairy provisions, I want to express my 
disappointment in the outcome of the downed animal provision in this 
bill. The intent of the Senate Agriculture Committee was to end the 
unnecessary suffering of downed livestock, animals that are not even 
healthy for us to eat, by calling for their humane euthanasia when they 
are brought to intermediate markets. The provision was included in both 
the House and Senate versions of the bill, but was changed 
substantially in conference.
  I want to make it clear that I am unhappy with the changes made and 
that I am committed to passing the provision, as it was originally 
written, either through this committee or on another vehicle. I 
understand that Chairman Harkin is interested in revisiting this issue 
as well and I hope that he will join me in completing the work that 
needs to be done for downed animals.
  I request that the Secretary of Agriculture complete the study 
required in this bill within 6 months and I ask that she include, 
within the conclusions of the study, exactly how she plans to make 
every step from the farm through the slaughterhouse a humane trip for 
nonambulatory animals. I hope she will find, as 165 of my colleagues in 
the House and Senate have, that the only humane action to take is 
euthanasia at the intermediate market.
  I also want to make a few comments about the conservation programs in 
the new farm bill. Although I am disappointed we were unable to sustain 
the level of funding for conservation that was included in the Senate-
passed bill, I am pleased we were able to increase the level of 
conservation funding by roughly 80 percent.
  The conference report includes a provision to increase funding for 
the successful Agriculture Management Assistance program created in the 
Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2001. This program targets 15 states 
that have been traditionally underserved by crop insurance programs, 
including Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, 
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

[[Page S4033]]

  This program was also expanded in the final House-Senate bill to 
include aid for all organic agriculture activities and to help 
producers develop new marketing opportunities, including opportunities 
for value-added processing. I expect this program to be administered in 
a very similar manner to the successful way in which it has been run 
over the past two years, with minor changes to accommodate the 
expansion of eligible activities. The program has been highly 
successful for the eligible states and I expect that it will continue 
to address the conservation and other critical needs of those states.
  Also, during debate over the Senate version of the farm bill, Senator 
Harkin included in the bill, at my request, a provision establishing a 
$12 million minimum ``floor'' on conservation payments per State to 
address concerns I and many of my colleagues raised about previous farm 
bills, which tended to allocate the bulk of their funds to a minority 
of producers in single regions of the country.
  With this language, I felt the Congress could truly show its concern 
that all states, in all regions of the country, receive a minimum level 
of much-needed conservation assistance to protect farms, community 
watersheds, open space, and wildlife habitat. The language was clear in 
its intent to ensure each state received at least $12 million in 
conservation assistance by April 1 of each fiscal year if it had 
qualified applications for that amount of funds. The language also 
ensured that funds unused by a state would be returned to USDA and 
reallocated to other States, not the General Treasury.
  This ``regional equity'' language was altered slightly in the final 
bill to minimize paperwork at USDA and maximize the ability of the 
Secretary of Agriculture while continuing to ensure at least $12 
million be made available to all states with eligible applications. The 
Secretary may do this however it is most effective: for example, with a 
reserve fund set aside to ensure all states receive needed funds.
  As written in the conference report, the $12 million includes 
applications for all programs under Subtitle D of Title XII of the Food 
Security Act of 1985, 16 U.S.C. 3830 et seq., excluding the 
Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, Wetlands Reserve Program, WRP, and 
Conservation Security Program, CSP. Before April 1 of each fiscal year, 
applications from producers in States that has not yet received at 
least $12 million in conservation funding would have priority for 
funding for all conservation programs except CRP, WRP, and CSP. With 
respect to CRP, WRP, and CSP, producers in these under-served states 
would compete for funds without specific priority--on an equal footing 
with all other national applications. Because the Agriculture 
Management Assistance conservation program is not under Subtitle D, for 
eligible states, this program also effectively would not count toward 
the $12 million total, and would continue to be administered as it has 
been, successfully, since its creation in the Agriculture Risk 
Protection Act of 2001.
  There are a number of other conservation programs that also are very 
important to Vermont and other New England States. I especially am 
pleased that funding for the farmland protection program--which began 
as a pilot program in Vermont--was increased to nearly $1 billion. 
Never before has FPP received such levels of mandatory funding.
  In addition, the conference report authorizes a new ``farm 
viability'' program. It was the conferees intent that this program be 
modeled after the very successful Massachusetts Farm Viability Program 
for purposes of farmland protection. The farm viability program will 
allow USDA to make grants--through eligible States or private land 
trust--to producers to help them assess the long-term viability of 
their farming operation. Using these funds, producers can hire experts 
to help them develop and implement a plan to improve their long-term 
business prospects. This might entail shifting to a different mix of 
crops or livestock, engaging in direct marketing through farmers 
markets or setting up a road-side stand, or even taking advantage of 
opportunities to profit from agri-tourism.
  This program will help the limited funding for farmland protection go 
further. Many farm families enroll land in the farmland protection 
program in order to be able to pass along the family farm to their 
children. They want to know, before enrolling in the program, whether 
their children will be able to make a living on the farm. The farm 
viability program will help them determine this, and will help others 
who already have enrolled their land in FPP to continue to use their 
land as working lands.
  Of course, the farm bill isn't just about farmers. I particularly am 
proud of the nutrition title of this year's farm bill. It will 
significantly strengthen nutrition assistance in this country. Food 
stamp benefits have been improved and simplified, funding for emergency 
food providers has been increased and numerous other advancements--
notably funding for seniors' farmer's markets are included in this 
title.
  I am proud that the nutrition title of this farm bill contains so 
many important simplifications in the program. All of the conferees, 
from both sides of the aisle and both chambers, were united in our 
desire to do what is right for working poor families and others 
that need help assuring that their families receive a nutritionally 
adequate diet.

  I also am grateful for all of USDA's help and support throughout the 
conference. Time and again, Undersecretary Bost and his staff gave us 
invaluable perspective. They helped us understand where we needed to 
act and where we could count on them to fix a problem. In this context, 
I would like to highlight a few of the most important of the provisions 
we adopted.
  One of the provisions that excited all of us the most was 
transitional food stamps for families leaving cash assistance. Although 
we gave states broad discretion in this area, we hope they will apply 
this option to the maximum number of households.
  Only those that have been found guilty of wilful misconduct of one 
kind or another are ineligible for transitional food stamps. The many 
households leaving TANF for procedural reasons, such as failure to keep 
an appointment, would remain eligible. Many families that decide to go 
it alone without further cash assistance simply stop communicating with 
the welfare office. The family may be unable to get through to an 
eligibility worker to inform her or him of its decision to withdraw 
from cash assistance or may not see the reason. Some of these families 
may have low-wage jobs. Others may be hoping to piece together various 
means of support to get by until they find work. Either way, these 
families need the help that transitional food stamps can offer. We urge 
states to provide it.
  Once a family begins to receive transitional food stamps, we intend 
for those food stamps to continue for the full five-month transitional 
period. Even if the state takes the option to act on changes it learns 
about through other programs, it should not take any adverse action 
against the household's food stamps unless the state has definite 
information that the household is ineligible. Requiring households to 
contact the food stamp office or provide verification during the 
transitional benefit period would defeat the entire purpose of granting 
households a period of repose.
  The other side of this, of course, is that since states would not be 
expected or allowed to take the usual measures to review the accuracy 
of the household's benefit level during the period, the state would not 
be held accountable through the quality control system for any errors 
in that household's benefits. As long as the state correctly adjusted 
the household's benefits from the last month it was receiving cash 
assistance, the state would not be subject to a finding of error during 
any of the months of the transitional benefit period even if the 
benefit amount in that prior month turned out to be in error. The error 
in the prior month could result in an error only if the household's 
case was sampled in that prior month.
  In this connection, a state should be free to designate certain types 
of changes, such as cost of living increases in Social Security 
benefits or the addition of new members to a household, that it would 
act upon if it received word from another program and other kinds of 
changes it would disregard. As usual, the QC system

[[Page S4034]]

would only measure how well the state carried out the tasks it had 
elected in its plan to perform. Thus, a state that had elected to act 
only on new members added to a family might be liable for failing to 
provide food stamps to a new infant that was being added to the 
family's Medicaid coverage but would not be liable for processing 
changes in wages. In no event, however, should the household be 
required to provide information or verification or threatened with 
termination of its benefits.
  The simplified definitions of income and resources also should 
simplify the program in important ways. We repeatedly added items to 
the list of things that states could not exclude at USDA's suggestion 
so that the Department would not have to add to that list by 
regulation. We were pleased that the final provisions met with the 
Department's satisfaction and that states can move forward in reliance 
on the list in the statute. Only under extraordinary circumstances do 
we expect USDA would need to add to either list.
  Although cash in bank accounts that was readily accessible to the 
household would still count as a resource, a state could exclude the 
interest on those bank accounts from income calculations. This 
relatively tiny source of income is easy to forget and difficult to 
track. Excluding it is exactly the kind of simplification state 
agencies and households need as we move the food stamp program away 
from its old focus on serving welfare recipients to its new emphasis on 
the working poor and other diverse low-income populations.
  States could, however, exclude accounts that households could not 
readily access, such as funds that states' TANF programs designate only 
to be spent for education, home or car purchases, or other specific 
purposes. States also could exclude any designated retirement savings, 
including individual retirement accounts, to the extent current 
regulations do not already exclude those items.
  Jointly-held property also could be excluded if the household could 
incur legal liability by withdrawing the funds. Eligibility workers 
have neither the time nor the expertise to sort out potentially 
complicated ownership interests.
  One of the simplifications that we expect will help states and 
households the most is the change to the standard utility allowance or 
SUA. In a cold state such as mine, heating and other utility bills 
inevitably affect low-income families' ability to purchase a 
nutritionally adequate diet. We believe we have crafted a provision 
that simplifies the treatment of utility expenses without reducing 
benefits for any significant number of households. The substantial cost 
estimate for this provision reflects that assumption.
  Achieving our goals obviously depends on states having and 
maintaining adequate SUAs. Although the shift to a mandatory SUA should 
not increase federal costs except in the two respects addressed in this 
amendment, neither should it save money at low-income households' 
expense. States that shift from an optional SUA to a mandatory one 
should be able to increase it somewhat in the transition without 
increasing federal costs.
  Perhaps even more importantly, states need to faithfully observe 
USDA's regulation requiring annual reviews of the SUA's adequacy. In 
the past, some states let their SUAs stagnate for many years at a time. 
We were pleased to hear that USDA has been moving recently to achieve 
greater compliance with the updating requirement and that it intends to 
continue to do so. We know that many states lack the technical capacity 
to conduct detailed economic surveys to determine just what the optimal 
SUA might be. USDA, however, has allowed a state simply to compute the 
increase in utility costs from the time the state last changed its SUA 
and apply that percentage to increase the SUA. We trust that this 
sensible approach will continue and will be made available to all 
states.

  At the same time we simplified in many respects, we did not intend to 
create new complexities. A question has arisen about the standard 
deduction provision of our bill. Obviously, 8.31 percent of the net 
income limit will not be an even dollar number since the net income 
limit figure is expressed in an even number of dollars. We do not 
intend to require state agencies to process standard deductions 
expressed in pennies. USDA could not give households a standard 
deduction that is less than 8.31 percent of the net income eligibility 
limit, but it clearly has authority to round that number up to the next 
largest whole dollar. This has not presented a problem in the past and 
see no reason why it would now.
  We set up a new system of bonuses for high-performing states. We in 
no way intend to pre-judge what system USDA will select to give out 
those funds. USDA could rely on statistical measurements, as it does 
now, but it also could allow states to apply for bonuses in particular 
categories. Allowing states to compete for recognition and bonus awards 
for the most innovative means of correcting problems in program 
administration could provide useful lessons that could benefit other 
states.
  A couple of ideas were advanced that we did not adopt. We rejected an 
Administration proposal to cut back on categorical eligibility for food 
stamps. Current regulations give states broad flexibility to determine 
what items receiving TANF or MOE funding should be considered benefits 
that trigger categorical eligibility. USDA approval is required only in 
limited, clearly delineated circumstances.
  The Department argued that this policy is too broad, but we were not 
persuaded. The Department is free, of course, to renew its proposal 
with us if it feels strongly about this issue. It should not, however, 
act unilaterally to restrict flexibility states have under current law 
and regulations.
  Also, we made no change in the procedures for approving state plans 
to certify elderly and disabled households for food stamps based on 
information in the Social Security Administration's files. These would 
still go through the research waiver process, although as states and 
the Department gain more experience with these projects, we anticipate 
approval should become much easier. The waiver process is important, 
however, to ensure that we are not shortchanging households with high 
housing or medical costs. Also, the Department needs to make sure that 
eligible people are not losing out on food stamps during the period 
their applications for disability benefits are pending with SSA.
  All in all, I believe that this package of simplifications and 
benefit expansions represent a significant step forward on the path the 
program has been traveling over the last several years. This package 
should strengthen the food stamp program's role as a work support and 
as a nutrition safety net for those going through difficult times. It 
deserves our full and enthusiastic support.
  I would like to take this opportunity to comment more extensively on 
one of the most important aspects of the nutrition title, the 
restoration of benefits to legal immigrants. As my colleagues know, I 
remain deeply opposed to the benefit cuts to legal immigrants enacted 
as a part of the 1996 welfare law. I have worked ever since the passage 
of that law to ease the eligibility restrictions on legal immigrants in 
a wide array of programs. Immigrants are admitted into this country as 
legal permanent residents with the assumption that they will be a part 
of our communities, work and pay taxes, and serve at our nation's 
defense. It is unjust to exclude these hardworking individuals from 
access to critical work support programs and the safety net if they 
fall on hard times.
  The legal immigrant restrictions in the food stamp program were the 
harshest of all of major federal benefit programs, causing more than 
one million legal immigrants to lose eligibility. Unfortunately, 
immigrants have not been the only group affected by the food stamp 
restrictions. Over 85 percent of immigrant families are households that 
include at least one citizen child. From 1994 to 1998, 1.2 million 
immigrants left the program, mostly due to the eligibility 
restrictions. Over the same period, 1 million citizen children of 
immigrant parents also left the program, representing a 74 percent 
decline for this group.
  Immigrant advocates and emergency food providers believe that these 
legal immigrant parents are confused about their children's eligibility 
and that the parents believe if their children receive food stamps that 
it could have a negative impact on immigrant family members' 
immigration status.

[[Page S4035]]

  Children of immigrants now make up a significant share of the 
childhood poverty population. Nationally, one in four children in 
poverty have immigrant parents. In order to continue to make meaningful 
inroads in reducing child poverty, it is key to find new ways to serve 
more effectively the children of immigrants.
  Of course, the best way to resolve this problem would be to restore 
eligibility to all legal immigrants. Unfortunately, we did not have the 
resources in this farm bill to provide for such a restoration. 
Nonetheless, we have taken major strides to significantly ameliorate 
the restrictive rules. The final bill is based largely upon the 
immigrant restorations in the Senate-passed farm bill, which were 
expanded upon with overwhelming bipartisan support on the Senate floor.
  We decided that if the eligibility for legal immigrant children is 
restored the food stamp eligibility rules for children will become less 
complex and easier to explain. This should encourage immigrant parents 
to apply for benefits on behalf of their children. If states, the anti-
hunger community and the immigrant community can inform families that 
all poor children are eligible for food stamps, there will be a much 
greater chance of reaching those families confused about the current 
rules.
  Another significant component of the immigrant provision is that it 
restores benefits to qualified legal immigrant adults who have lived in 
the U.S. for 5 or more years with that status. Of course, there are 
many types of qualified immigrant statuses. It will not matter if the 
immigrant held one qualified status such as asylee and then changed 
their status to something else such as a legal permanent resident. The 
five year clock begins from the time the immigrant first held a 
qualified status.

  The adult restoration provides basic conformity in food stamp 
eligibility rules to those already in place in Medicaid, SCHIP and 
TANF. It is our hope that these new food stamp rules will make it 
easier for states to administer and for immigrants to understand. 
Finally, the legislation would allow legal immigrants receiving 
benefits under specified disability-based programs to qualify for food 
stamps.
  Children will no longer be subject to sponsor deeming rules, although 
sponsor immigrant adults will continue to be subject to these rules. As 
a part of our deliberations, we reviewed USDA's recent regulations on 
sponsor deeming and found them to be an appropriate policy consistent 
with our understanding of how deeming should operate in the food stamp 
program--a balance of ensuring that needy immigrants are able to access 
food assistance while not providing assistance to immigrants who are 
being supported by their sponsors. We also appreciate that USDA was 
sensitive to not restricting food assistance to immigrants whose 
sponsors refuse to cooperate by providing requested paperwork. We do 
not expect USDA to make any changes in this area.
  When we were evaluating how to design these provisions, we placed 
great weight on the cost estimates that CBO provided for this package, 
as well as the price tag the Administration gave its own proposals in 
its FY2003 budget. Neither estimate assumed that any sponsors had to 
repay the federal government as a result of immigrants receiving food 
stamps. Under the new affidavits of support now in place, most sponsors 
are likely to be a very close family member of the immigrant's. This 
means that they are likely to live together and be a part of the same 
family unit or food stamp household.
  In all the years that I have worked on the food stamp program, 
Congress has never required food stamp households to repay benefits for 
which they were eligible. Sponsor liability should not and does not 
circumvent that principle. We do not intend for a low-income sponsor to 
incur a debt for food stamps that he or she receives along with the 
sponsored immigrants.
  Of course, we have no intention of allowing affluent sponsors to 
abdicate their responsibilities. But low-income sponsors who are a part 
of the food stamp household or family unit should not be billed for 
signing up other family members for food stamps. Consider a step-father 
who sponsored his new wife and step-child into the country some years 
ago. If he loses his job and he and his new family become eligible for 
food stamps, we want them to avail themselves of this critical 
temporary assistance. There should be no penalties for being eligible 
for and participating in the food stamp program.
  With these restorations, we will come closer to righting a great 
wrong. Immigrants and immigration are a part of the history and 
heritage of our country. I am pleased that hard working immigrants who 
fall on hard times will be able to gain access to this important food 
assistance program. No member of our society should go without enough 
to eat. This legislation moves us further toward fulfilling that goal.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is with heartfelt regret that I must 
vote against the 2002 farm bill conference report. It had been my 
sincere hope this farm bill would improve conditions for the nation's 
farmers. Unfortunately, it is a budget buster that stimulates 
overproduction, devastates the Virginia peanut industry, and does not 
adequately protect the Chesapeake Bay. While I recognize the hard work 
and good intentions that went into this bill, I cannot in good 
conscience vote for it. It is not good for Virginia and it is not good 
for the nation.
  Agriculture is a crucial industry in Virginia. Farming has been a way 
of life in Virginia since the first English settlers arrived at 
Jamestown in 1607. Virginia is a recognized leader in tobacco, peanuts, 
and poultry production while cotton, corn and soybeans are rapidly 
gaining in importance. Farming represents almost 10 percent of the jobs 
in Virginia.
  And there is no doubt farming is vital to the Nation as a whole. Our 
farmers produce the safest, most reliable, and most abundant food 
supply in the world. A stable supply of food and fiber is essential to 
our national economy and our national security. We do not want to 
depend on imported food the way we rely on foreign oil. Unfortunately, 
this conference report does little to ensure the long term health of 
domestic agricultural production.
  This conference report will increase farm spending by 70 percent or 
about $82.8 billion over ten years while the budget agreement only 
allows $73.5 billion in new farm spending. These farm subsidies will 
cost $200 billion over ten years or $20 billion annually. While all 
this is done in the name of preserving the family farm, government 
subsidies since the 1930s have not prevented their disappearance.
  Recently, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the Federal 
budget will operate at a deficit of $100 billion this year. We are 
fighting an expensive war on terrorism. Now is not the time to increase 
spending on farm programs that may hurt the American farmer more than 
they help. Every dollar of deficit spending now puts the solvency of 
social security in jeopardy for future generations.
  But while the conference report is bad for the country, it is 
particularly bad for Virginia. When the Senate passed the 2002 farm 
bill, I supported it because of some key improvements over the House 
farm bill for the peanut program and the Chesapeake Bay nutrient 
reduction pilot program. Now that the bill has emerged from conference, 
these important gains have been stripped out.
  After the House of Representatives passed its version of the farm 
bill, Senator Allen and I worked to improve the bill and were able to 
achieve significant improvements in the peanut program. First, the 
target price in the Senate bill was $520 per ton while it was $480 in 
the House bill. Second, the loan rate in the Senate bill was $400, 
while it was $350 in the House Bill. Finally, the Senate version 
contained an 11-cent per pound quota buyout for 5 years, and the House 
version provided only 10 cents.
  Make no mistake, the Senate target price was not as high as I 
believed it should be, but under the circumstances, it was a 
significant improvement over the House-passed bill. In years past, the 
peanut-producing States have stuck together during debate on the farm 
bill. Unfortunately, this year, Virginia was left with few allies on 
peanuts. We simply did not have the votes to make the improvements to 
the peanut program we wanted. In both the Cochran-Roberts and the 
Hutchinson substitute amendments, we had

[[Page S4036]]

negotiated to include a $550-per-ton target price. Unfortunately, both 
amendments failed.
  So while the Senate farm bill was far from perfect, I voted for it to 
support the Senate's position in conference. Now that the House-Senate 
conference on the farm bill is complete, I am extremely disappointed 
with the results. The target price has been reduced to $495 per ton, a 
level far below the break even point for most Virginia peanut farmers.
  And the conference report makes this new peanut program effective for 
fiscal year 2002. Peanuts have already been planted in Virginia. In the 
interest of basic equity, this new program should begin in fiscal year 
2003. Farmers planting under one farm bill and harvesting under another 
illustrates that Congress is out of touch with rural America.
  While the old peanut program was supposed to be a ``no-net cost 
program'', the new peanut program will cost the taxpayer upwards of $4 
billion. This is a bad deal for the taxpayer and a disaster for 
southeast Virginia.
  Finally, the conference committee stripped out the $70 million 
Chesapeake Bay nutrient reduction pilot program. The bay is a national 
treasure and vital to the economy of Virginia. This pilot program would 
have encouraged farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to use less 
fertilizer and compensated them if this resulted in lower yields, 
creating a win-win situation for farmers and environmentalists. 
Unfortunately, the House did not agree to this provision.
  This conference report hurts the very farmers it is meant to help. 
This farm bill is not good for Virginia and not good for America. It 
hurts Virginia peanut farmers. It endangers the Chesapeake Bay. It 
costs the taxpayers too much. And, it raids the Social Security trust 
fund. Accordingly, I must vote no on the 2002 farm bill conference 
report.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the House-Senate 
conference report on the farm bill.
  I do so, with deep regret. While I now live in a suburban New Jersey 
community and have for 25 years, I was raised on a 120-acre family 
grain farm in central Illinois. I know from experience the rewards of 
working the soil and tending the fields. And I know, too, the very real 
experience of living life on the economic edge, as so many of our 
Nation's farmers do.
  But this legislation is not the way to help our farmers.
  I opposed the Senate version of this legislation when it passed the 
Senate in February because I believed it was fiscally imprudent, hurt 
consumers as well as many of the farmers it was intended to help, 
subsidized one sector of the American economy to the exclusion of 
others, and because it provided relatively little assistance to New 
Jersey's farmers. Unfortunately, the bill that has come out of 
conference committee is worse on all these counts. For that reason, I 
must vote no again.
  As I stated when I opposed the Senate version of this bill, the 
current system of subsidies is the wrong way to support America's 
farmers. These subsidies naturally lead to overproduction which 
distorts the market, unfairly benefit a limited number of the largest 
producers and impose excessive costs on all consumers and taxpayers. 
Furthermore, the system distributes these subsidies in a manner that 
leaves farmers in many States, including the Garden State, with little 
assistance. In fact, the amount New Jersey receives is estimated at a 
fraction of 1 percent. Let me repeat, a fraction of 1 percent of the 
total.
  When the Senate first considered the farm bill, it took some steps to 
make an inequitable system somewhat more fair. It imposed a cap on 
payments so that no farmer would receive more than $275,000 of 
subsidies per year. And it took the savings and used them, in part, to 
increase funding for conservation programs to a record $21 billion, a 
good thing. These would have been good changes to a system that gives 
two-thirds of the commodity subsidies to 10 percent of our Nation's 
farms.
  Unfortunately even those small reforms were lost in conference. The 
cap on payments was raised to $360,000, but now includes several 
loopholes for agribusinesses to get around the limit. It is this 
provision that may wind up hurting many of those this legislation is 
intended to help, as family farms unable to compete with heavily 
subsidized agribusinesses are swallowed up by their very competition.
  Making matters worse, the conservation funding was cut by $4 billion 
to $17.1 billion over current spending and is largely deferred until 
later years, making it less likely that it will be available at all.
  I also am very concerned that the legislation's large increase in 
commodity subsidies would undermine U.S. trade policy and make it much 
harder to win concessions in international trade negotiations. That's 
because huge U.S. subsidies would drive down global crop prices, and 
adversely affect the economies of many other countries, especially 
developing nations. These nations then would be much less likely to 
open their markets to American companies. The end result would be that 
generous subsidies to a small handful of agribusinesses would end up 
undermining a much broader range of U.S. manufacturers and service 
providers, and would cost American jobs.
  Another major concern of mine is that this legislation is 
fundamentally unfair to my State of New Jersey. The bill would 
perpetuate a system of agricultural subsidies that provides assistance 
to only 7 percent of New Jersey's farmers. This compares, for example, 
to other States in which as many as 60-75 percent of farmers receive 
assistance.
  The reason why some States do so much better than New Jersey is that 
producers of row crops, like corn, wheat, grain and rice get the bulk 
of the support. These commodities, by and large, are not produced in 
the Garden State to a significant degree. In New Jersey, our farmers 
grow large amounts of specialty crops, such as blueberries, eggplant 
and asparagus. In fact, New Jersey ranks second in the Nation for 
blueberry production, and fourth in the Nation for eggplant and 
asparagus production. Yet, though New Jersey's farmers meet much of the 
Nation's needs for these crops, none of our blueberry, eggplant or 
asparagus farmers receive support under the existing commodity 
programs. That is one reason that New Jersey got less than one-tenth of 
1 percent of the total commodity assistance provided by the Federal 
Government in fiscal year 2001. Less than one-tenth of 1 percent.
  The farm bill that the Senate considered in February made a few 
improvements to the existing system. And I voted in favor of those 
improvements, as well as improvements to the Food Stamp Program that 
are badly needed. However, as I have said, many of those improvements 
were lost in conference with the House of Representatives. As a result, 
we have a bill that tells New Jersey farmers that they are not equal to 
the corn, wheat, rice and grain growers in the South and Midwest. That 
their efforts do not deserve much federal support. I cannot support 
such a measure.
  New Jersey ranks 49th in our return on tax dollars paid to the 
Federal Government. We don't receive enough for our mass transit needs. 
We don't receive enough for our housing needs. We don't receive enough 
to clean up our environment, even though we have more Superfund sites 
than any other state. New Jersey's situation merely highlights the 
imbalance in support for our nation's competing needs. I cannot support 
legislation that continues this inequitable distribution of Federal 
funds.
  In fact, I wish I could support the excellent nutrition title 
contained in this conference report. It is outrageous that we subsidize 
farmers for disposing of surplus food and yet we prohibit low-income 
working immigrants who live in this country legally from receiving 
nutrition benefits. This bill would restore benefits for about 380,000 
legal immigrants, which while a good first step, is still too little. 
The food stamp application simplifications and extension of 
transitional food stamps for families moving from welfare to work are 
measures that will ensure more children and families receive adequate 
nutrition and I strongly support these provisions. While there is a 
significant increase for nutrition programs, this conference report 
invests only $6.4 billion in nutrition programs, which again is a 
fraction of one percent of the total cost of this bill.
  In conclusion, this conference report is flawed in many ways. It 
perpetuates the existing inefficient and unfair system of farm 
subsidies and significantly

[[Page S4037]]

increases subsidies for favored crops. That means we will continue to 
subsidize a limited number of producers. We will continue to distort 
the market. We will continue to impose higher costs on consumers and 
taxpayers. And we will continue to treat my state of New Jersey 
unfairly.
  For these reasons, I cannot in good conscience support this 
conference report.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the chairman 
of the Senate Agriculture Committee, the ranking member, conferees and 
staff members who worked so hard to bring the new farm bill to the 
floor of the Senate for final passage.
  I especially want to applaud them for the inclusion of a strong 
provision to encourage the deployment of broadband technology to rural 
America. Ensuring that all Americans have the technological capability 
is essential in this digital age. It is not only an issue of fairness, 
but it is also an issue of economic survival. But, as the demand for 
high speed Internet access grows urban America is quickly gaining high 
speed access, while rural America is, too often, being left behind.
  Historically, our economy has been defined by geography, and we in 
Congress were powerless to do anything about it. Where there were 
ports, towns and businesses got their start. Where there were railroad 
tracks, towns and businesses grew up around them. The highway system 
brought the same evolution.
  But the Internet is changing all of that. No longer must economic 
growth be defined by geographic fiat. Telecommunications industries and 
policymakers are proclaiming, ``distance is dead!'' But, that's not 
quite right: distance will be dead, only as long as we ensure that 
broadband services are available to all parts of America, urban and 
rural, and the bill we pass today is an important step toward improving 
Internet access in rural America.
  To remedy the gap between urban and rural America, several years ago 
I introduced legislation to establish a new broadband loan program 
within the Rural Utilities Service. I am very pleased to have worked 
with the chairman and others to craft a broadband provision modeled 
after that bill that will give the rural broadband program an 
authorization and funding. This funding will create hundreds of 
millions of dollars of broadband loans each year.
  This issue is not a new one. When we were faced with electrifying all 
of the country, we enacted the Rural Electrification Act. When 
telephone service was only being provided to well-populated 
communities, we expanded the Rural Electrification Act and created the 
Rural Utilities Service to oversee rural telephone deployment. In place 
for over 50 years the RUS telecommunications loan program has been an 
unprecedented success. In 1949, about 40 percent of American farmers 
had phone service. Not only has that changed dramatically, with almost 
everyone having access to basic telephone service, but it is important 
to note that in over 50 years there has not been a single loan loss in 
the telecommunications program.
  Today's legislation seeks to build on that success to make new 
investment in the next generation of telecommunications technology, 
known as broadband, to ensure that all Americans have access to the 
Internet. This will give RUS new authority to make hundreds of millions 
of dollars in low interest loans each year to companies that are 
deploying broadband technology to rural America. Loans will be made on 
a company neutral and a technology neutral basis so that companies that 
want to serve these areas can do so by employing technology that is 
best suited to a particular area.
  Again, I commend the chairman and ranking member, and the staff of 
the Senate Agriculture Committee for their work on this provision. This 
program and the loans that will flow from it will be the biggest 
broadband investment program ever enacted in the United States and will 
go a long way toward ensuring that rural Americans have access to the 
next generation of technology.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about 
the farm bill conference report on which the Senate will soon be 
voting.
  Let me say at the outset that there is a lot of good in this bill. I 
wish I could vote for it. However, I will not vote in favor of this 
bill today, and I will explain why shortly.
  Senator Harkin and his staff have worked very hard to craft this farm 
bill in the face of very strong and competing State and regional 
interests. I know their task was not an easy one and it is not always 
possible to please everyone. Clearly, there are some provisions in this 
bill that will benefit New Mexico.
  In particular, I would like to cite Chairman Harkin's steadfast 
commitment to strengthening the agriculture conservation programs that 
help protect the environment.
  I do believe the conservation programs should be the real centerpiece 
of this legislation. Unfortunately, funding for these vital programs 
was cut $4 billion below the level in the Senate-passed bill. I am 
disappointed the Senate did not prevail in the conference with the 
House. Nevertheless, existing conservation programs, such as CRP and 
EQIP, as well as the new Conservation Security Program, will help 
protect New Mexico's farm and ranchland for future generations, though 
not as much as they would have under the Senate bill. There is a new 
Water Conservation Program that will help slow the depletion of the 
Southern Ogallala Aquifer in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
  This bill has funding for a new Grassland Reserve Program and a Water 
Conservation Program that will be helpful to farmers and ranchers in my 
State, especially with New Mexico now in the throes of an extended 
drought.
  There is also mandatory funding in this farm bill for the Small 
Watershed Rehabilitation Program, which I cosponsored in the last 
Congress. This program supports reconstruction of the 100 small 
watershed dams in my State, many of which are 30 to 50 years old and 
reaching the end of their expected life.
  Funding for the Market Access Program has been increased, which will 
help all farmers increase exports of their products.
  I am pleased the conferees adopted my language that will allow New 
Mexico's Valencia peanut pool to continue to operate as an effective 
marketing association.
  Within this farm bill's nutrition programs, I am pleased that 
Congress is finally restoring benefits for adult legal immigrants who 
have lived here for at least 5 years and all children of legal 
immigrants. I also support increased funding for the WIC and senior 
farmers' market nutrition programs.
  This bill continues important rural development programs that have 
been critical to helping New Mexico's smaller communities improve 
infrastructure and promote economic development. There are new programs 
to train rural firefighters and to extend broadband service to rural 
areas. The additional funding for water and wastewater projects will be 
especially important to rural communities in my state facing major 
construction costs to meet EPA's new standard for arsenic in drinking 
water.
  Finally, I cosponsored Senator Johnson's bill that requires country 
of origin labeling of meat, fruits and vegetables, fish and peanuts. 
The farm bill includes these new labeling provisions. I do believe 
consumers deserve to know the source of their commercial food products.
  That is some of the good in this farm bill. However, as I said, I 
will not be voting in favor of the bill, and I would like to take a few 
minutes to explain why.
  This farm bill does nothing to stem the staggering cost to the 
taxpayers of subsidies for agricultural commodities. In fact, this 
legislation will increase Federal subsidies by nearly $50 billion over 
the next decade; this is on top of the baseline funding of $77 billion. 
The Federal Government's role in agriculture will grow dramatically 
under this legislation. By some estimates, forty percent of net farm 
income now comes from the Federal Government.
  Nearly three-quarters of all of the new money in this bill goes to 
crop subsidy programs. As we all now know from the analysis does by the 
Environmental Working Group, the vast majority of these federal 
subsidies go to growers in 10 central and southern States for only a 
few specific crops. Such massive subsidies drive up land

[[Page S4038]]

prices and do nothing to stem over production, especially when 
commodity prices are low.
  Even more troubling to me is the new national dairy subsidy program 
in this farm bill, which will cost taxpayers at least $1.3 billion over 
the next 3 to 4 years. At the same time it will actually lower the 
average revenue for milk producers in New Mexico by an estimated 17 
cents per hundredweight.
  That is correct, you heard it right. This program costs taxpayers 
$1.3 billion and will actually hurt dairy producers in my State. 
Moreover, we estimate that every producer with more than about 800 cows 
in all 50 States will lose revenue under this program. Because the 
average size of New Mexico's dairies is about 1,580 cows, nearly every 
producer in my State will be hurt by this legislation.
  In the past decade, New Mexico has quietly come to the forefront of 
the nation's dairy industry. Milk production in my State has more than 
tripled since 1990. New Mexico is now seventh in the nation in total 
milk production and fifth in average milk production per cow. In the 
first 3 months of this year, production has grown 17 percent over the 
2001 level. In Roosevelt and Curry Counties, production is up a 
whopping 32 percent.
  There is no secret for my State's booming dairy industry. New Mexico 
is an ideal location for dairies because of our mild climate, which 
boosts milk production and does not require sheltering the animals from 
the weather. In addition, producers are moving to New Mexico because of 
the strong dairy infrastructure, moderate land prices, and well-
integrated alfalfa industry. Currently, there are plans for 35 new 
dairies in new Mexico, most of which will have between 1,500 and 3,000 
cows. These are not some kind of mega-industrial operations, but 
family-run farms just like dairies all over America.
  The growth in dairy production in New Mexico is coupled with rapid 
growth in milk processing, including production of powder, cheese, and 
ultra-filtered milk. Soon, the Nation's first commercial plant 
producing milk protein concentrate will open in Portales, New Mexico. 
The economic impact of the dairy industry on New Mexico is now 
estimated at $1.8 billion per year.
  Because New Mexico has mostly large, efficient, family-owned dairies, 
my State is the big loser under this new daily subsidy program. 
Independent analyses show the $1.3 billion Federal subsidy will 
encourage overproduction and depress market prices nationwide. 
According to FAPRI's preliminary analysis of this legislation, the 
excess production will drive down national class III and IV milk prices 
by 17 and 28 cents/cwt, respectively. This means every dairy producer 
in America will get a lower price for all of his or her milk.
  Meanwhile, under existing law, the Federal Government must step in 
and purchase the surplus. The government already owns nearly a billion 
pounds of surplus nonfat dry milk, equal to an 18-month supply In just 
the last month alone, the government has had to purchase 80-million 
pounds of nonfat dry milk at a cost of about $70 million. This 
legislation will add still more to the government's already bulging 
powder inventory. The taxpayers, of course, will be asked to bear the 
cost of purchasing all of this excess production on top of the new $1.3 
billion subsidy. Sadly, this ill-conceived program will continue to 
erode the dairy industry for years to come.
  Finally, we do not really know how much this program will cost 
because it depends on milk prices in the future and the number of 
participants in the program. The lower the price of milk, the higher 
the cost to the taxpayer. As I indicated, CBO scored the program at 
$1.3 billion. However, the Food and Agricultural Policy Research 
Institute has performed an independent analysis and estimates the total 
cost to the taxpayers at $3.6 billion--nearly three times more than 
CBO's estimate. Unfortunately, only time will tell how big the final 
bill will be for this program.
  In short, the new dairy program is a real lose-lose proposal for the 
American people. There simply is no need for Congress to ask taxpayers 
to subsidize the dairy industry to the tune of billions of dollars.
  From the outset, I said I could not support a farm bill that 
contained any massive new national dairy subsidy program. This bill 
suffers the added defect that it actually harms the dairy industry in 
my State. In fact, New Mexico's producers are hurt more than producers 
in any other state.
  I would like to read part of a letter addressed to me from the Dairy 
Producers of New Mexico:

       The Farm Security Act of 2002 is not good for New Mexico. 
     It introduces a new, expensive, and counter productive direct 
     payment provision to dairy producers on some of their milk.

  The letter goes on:

       This is not good policy for dairy farmers--it turns them 
     from business people in the market to people on the 
     government dole. It is not good for taxpayers because it 
     misspends their money. It is not good for our Nation because 
     it interferes with international trade.

  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See 
Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I would have liked to be able to vote for this farm 
bill, but regrettably, I cannot.
  I will vote no on this conference report.

                               Exhibit 1


                                Dairy Producers of New Mexico,

                                         Roswell, NM, May 1, 2002.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of Dairy Producers of New 
     Mexico and its membership, I want to thank you and your 
     entire staff, particularly Dr. Dan Alpert, for representing 
     our New Mexico dairy producers. We recognize that national 
     dairy policy is very complex and regionalized, and often 
     contentious. It is indeed very comforting to us to know that 
     our U.S. delegation takes a stand to protect New Mexicans in 
     the face of national politics.
       The Farm Security Act of 2002 is not good for New Mexico. 
     It introduces a new, expensive, and counter productive direct 
     payment provision to dairy producers on some of their milk. 
     The over one billion dollars thrown into the dairy economy 
     will result in reduced milk prices on all milk regardless of 
     the size of farm that produces it. The family run dairy farms 
     in New Mexico will be especially hard hit.
       According to FAPRI, the average payment will be about 85 
     cents a hundredweight but that will only be on the first 2.4 
     million pounds produced or a maximum payment of about 
     $20,400. This payment will be more than offset by the average 
     milk price on all milk of 14 cents a hundredweight. For the 
     average dairy farmer in New Mexico that is about $52,500 per 
     year.
       This is a real loss of income. It is not a loss just to the 
     dairy farmers, but to their families, their employees, and 
     their vendors. The economics of the rural New Mexico 
     communities will suffer this loss as well.
       The Farm Security Act brings us anxiety--anxiety as to when 
     and how the government will again adversely impact our 
     industry.
       This is not good policy for dairy farmers--it turns them 
     from business people in the market to people on the 
     government dole. It is not good for the taxpayers because it 
     misspends their money. It is not good for our Nation because 
     it interferes with international trade.
       History will show that your amendment offered last December 
     was wise and those who voted for it and stuck by their votes 
     had a better vision for dairy than the Farm bill now before 
     the Senate. It's a battle that we appreciate you taking on 
     and fighting on our behalf.
       Yes, there are some provisions that we like. These include 
     dairy price support program extension of $9.90/cwt for six 
     years; authorization of a new national Johne's disease 
     control program; the extension of the Dairy Export Incentive 
     Program (DEIP); fixing the statutory mandatory inventory and 
     price reporting language to prevent further costly reporting 
     errors by the USDA; and funds for dairy and other livestock 
     producers through the Environmental Quality Incentives 
     Program (EQIP). Those were by and large non controversial and 
     they do not need to come at the great cost imposed by the 
     dairy market loss program.
       Again, Senator, we appreciate all of your hard work for the 
     dairy industry in New Mexico. We sincerely appreciate your 
     efforts on behalf of arc family farmers.
           Sincerely,
                                               Sharon L. Lombardi,
                                               Executive Director.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today is a sad, sad day in 
America. It is a said day for the U.S. taxpayer and a sad day for the 
family farmers of our country. I believe the Wall Street Journal said 
it best when they editorialized, ``that great rooting,

[[Page S4039]]

snooting noise you hear in the distance, is the sound of election-year, 
farm-state politics rolling out of the U.S. Congress.''
  My colleagues know I stand for fiscal conservatism, so I don't 
imagine that many are surprised by my opposition to the farm bill 2002 
conference report. But a ``no'' vote does not adequately describe my 
disappointment, my disgust, or my dismay at this, the largest non-
military expansion of the Federal Government since the Great Society.
  House and Senate conferees approved a farm bill that expands payments 
to farmers by nearly $50 billion over the next decade. More than 90 
percent of this increase will go to farmers producing just five crops: 
wheat, corn, rice, cotton and soybean. Two-thirds of this money will 
benefit a mere 10 percent of farmers. If the goal of the so-called 
Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 was to wean farmers off the trough of 
government assistance, this bill represents a bloating of agriculture's 
dependency on the taxpayer's dime.
  In these times of war and deficit spending, should we really be 
directing precious taxpayer dollars in such an irresponsible manner? I 
read an estimate that this legislation will cost the average American 
household $4,377 over the next 10 years, $1,805 in taxes and $2,572 in 
inflated food prices because of price supports. And for what, I ask? To 
prop up wealthy corporate farmers? To encourage farmers to continue 
overproducing unprofitable crops for which there is more supply than 
demand? To reinstate subsidies for honey, wool, and mohair?
  Even the one provision in the Senate-passed version of the bill that 
made it somewhat palatable, payment limitations, was gutted to the 
extent that it is no longer meaningful: the cap was raised and 
loopholes, the prized toy of our top legislators, included to make the 
one attempt at payment control utterly ineffective. What good is a 
payment limitation that can be completely circumvented?
  In response to some of the criticism that has been ladled on this 
pork-barrel monstrosity, Senators Harkin and Daschle point to the $17.1 
billion included for conservation programs. I find it ironic that they 
continue to do so when environmentalists are critical and have pledged 
opposition to the bill. As the ranking Republican member of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee, I have to say, at what price 
conservation? It is worth the total price tag? I think not. What the 
conservation title represents is a transparent attempt to buy votes 
from those States that do not benefit from the commodities title. I am 
supportive of the conservation programs this bill funds. My State of 
New Hampshire relies on these programs. But I will not fall for it. Why 
should New Hampshire taxpayers, or any taxpayers, be asked to foot the 
bill for encouraging farmers to get on the Federal dole when our goal 
should be to do just the opposite?
  This bill is a step backwards, as far as I am concerned, in 
agricultural policy. Our Chamber's two working farmers, Senators Lugar 
and Grassley, oppose its passage. I only hope that fiscal sanity will 
take hold of my colleagues and prevent this fat-laden conference report 
from ever reaching the President's desk.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to commend Chairman 
Harkin and all of the farm bill conferees on their work related to H.R. 
2646, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Senate 
passed its version of this legislation on February 13, 2002 and I am 
pleased that the conferees were able to finish their work so we can 
send this legislation to the President for his signature and quick 
enactment. I am confident that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will 
work expeditiously to implement the new programs created in this 
legislation in time for the 2002 crop year. Rural America needs the 
assistance provided through this ``rural'' economic stimulus bill, and 
I am pleased that today we will respond to their needs.
  I am especially pleased that this legislation includes the creation 
of a new, national dairy program that supports all dairy farmers 
regardless of location and regardless of the end use of their milk. I 
am also pleased with the increased investment in nutrition funding for 
programs like food stamps, the WIC and Seniors Farmers Market program. 
Finally, I am supportive of the enhanced commitment to conservation 
spending on programs like the Farmland Protection Program, the 
Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentive 
Program and the new Conservation Security Program.
  Of particular interest to my State of Wisconsin is the creation of a 
new, national dairy program that will, for the first time, create a 
more meaningful and credible safety net for all of our Nation's dairy 
farmers. This new program, while not perfect for any one region, moves 
us beyond the regional and divisive debate over dairy compacts. I am 
pleased that gone are the days of regional trade barriers and milk 
price fixing cartels that artificially support the price of milk in one 
region at the expense of farmers in others.
  In addition to extending the very important dairy price support 
program at $9.90 per hundredweight, this farm bill creates a new 
counter-cyclical program that will provide assistance to farmers when 
the price of milk falls below $16.94 per hundredweight. A payment rate 
will be calculated by taking 45 percent of the difference between 
$16.94 and the class I, fluid, price in Boston. That payment rate will 
be made on the first 2.4 million pounds of a producer's production, or 
approximately 133 cows. The payment rate per hundredweight will be the 
same for all dairy farmers regardless of location and regardless of 
what their milk is used for. We in the Upper Midwest have argued over 
the years that all dairy farmers should be treated the same regardless 
of the end use of their milk and I am pleased that this conference 
report supports that position.
  In addition to increased support for our dairy farmers, the Farm Bill 
Conference Report also provides nearly $6.4 billion in funding for 
nutrition programs. These nutrition programs include food stamps, the 
WIC and Seniors Farmers Market Nutrition Programs and the emergency 
food assistance program. This legislation also provides food stamp 
benefits to legal immigrants. The nutrition title of the bill is very 
important to our producers who provide the commodities for the 
programs, as well as low-income and less fortunate individuals who need 
help in getting access to a more nutritious and well-balanced diet.
  Beyond the much needed increase in nutrition funding, the Farm Bill 
Conference Report also provides a much needed increase in conservation 
spending. The Farm Bill Conference Report reflects a total increase of 
80 percent for conservation programs. Specifically, this legislation 
provides a new 20-fold increase for the Farmland Protection Program, a 
10-fold increase for the Wildlife Incentives Program and phases up to 
achieve a $1.1 billion annual funding level for the Environmental 
Quality Incentive Program, EQIP. I am also pleased that there is an 
additional enrollment of 1.2 million acres for the Wetlands Reserve 
Program which works extremely well in Wisconsin.
  Despite the many positive provisions in this farm bill, I am 
disappointed that the House Conferees refused to adopt two very 
important Senate provisions. I am disappointed that the House Conferees 
refused to adopt the Senate language regarding the ban on packer 
ownership of livestock, which the majority of the Senate supported in 
two separate votes. I am also disappointed that the House Conferees did 
not accept a meaningful limitation on farm payments.
  First, this conference report does not include the so-called 
``Johnson Amendment,'' which would ban packer ownership of livestock. 
On December 11, 2001, with my support, the Senate adopted this 
amendment in order to provide ranchers who raise livestock with more 
marketing opportunities and hopefully a higher price for their product. 
However, the House Conferees, under pressure from the meat industry 
including large packers, refused to accept this provision. Without a 
ban of packer ownership of livestock, independent producers will 
continue to be shut out of markets, face lower prices and less 
competition while packers continue to give preference to their own 
supplies of livestock. I support Senator Johnson's call for hearings on 
this important issue in the Senate Agriculture Committee, and to 
investigate abusive market practices in the livestock sector.

[[Page S4040]]

  Second, I am disappointed that the conference report does not include 
a meaningful limit on the level of farm subsidies going to large 
farmers located predominantly in the south. This conference report, 
while reducing the overall payment limit to $180,000 annually is 
meaningless as the ``triple-entity'' rule remains in place. The final 
bill retains loopholes that not only permit a recipient to double the 
$180,000 level to $360,000 through the ``triple-entity'' rule but also 
makes it effectively limitless for the purpose of marketing loan gains 
and loan deficiency payments. The conference report also allows for the 
continued use of the generic certificate program. This program allows 
the largest of producers to enjoy the benefits of the marketing loan 
program without repayment while allowing the producer to hold onto 
their commodity for future sale on the open market. The loopholes that 
remain make the payment limitation provisions in the conference report 
meaningless and I am disappointed that the conferees could not agree on 
a way to prevent large payments from going to those producers who need 
the assistance the least.
  I realize this bill is not perfect. There are provisions and changes 
that I wish could have been included in the final conference report. 
But this bill restores a much needed economic safety-net to an industry 
that experiences wide fluctuations in prices. The combination of a new 
counter-cyclical dairy program, increased nutrition spending and an 
increase in funding for conservation programs makes this new farm bill 
one that I can support and one that I think will help our farmers and 
ranchers across the country. We have a commitment to rural America to 
ensure farming remains a viable industry in our Nation and I commend 
Senator Harkin for his leadership on this very important legislation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments on my 
opposition to the farm bill conference report. While I strongly support 
the dairy provision that Senator Kohl and I helped secure for 
Wisconsin's dairy farmers, I am deeply concerned that the conference 
report eliminated a number of important Senate-passed provisions that 
targeted assistance to small and medium-sized family farmers.
  Specifically, I am concerned that the conference committee weakened 
the Senate-passed payment limitation amendment and reduced the 
conservation funding. It then used these funds for the misguided 
purpose of increasing payments to corporate owned farms and 
agribusinesses. I am also deeply disappointed that a number of Senate-
approved amendments aimed at providing competition in rural America 
were completely eliminated in the conference committee.
  I am disturbed that the conferees stripped the payment limitations 
provision that both the House and Senate supported. As my colleagues 
will recall, the Senate voted 66-31 to target Federal assistance to 
small and medium-sized family farmers by imposing a $275,000 payment 
limitation on overall payments.
  I support the Senate-passed provision of a $275,000 payment 
limitation, but this conference report permits up to $360,000 and 
includes significant loopholes. I am not sure who this increase is 
meant to benefit. I know it isn't benefitting many people in Wisconsin, 
where only 14 out of our 60,000 farms receive over $275,000 in 
government payments.
  At the same time that the bill provides increased funds to the 
largest producers and agribusinesses, it reduces funding for important 
conservation programs that benefit family farmers of non-traditional 
crops such as those produced in Wisconsin. Many Wisconsin commodities--
such as potatoes, sweet corn, green beans, cranberries, and cherries--
are simply not eligible for most commodity programs, but do receive 
benefits under a number of the conservation programs.
  Wisconsinites certainly support a strong safety net for America's 
farmers, but this bill is fiscally irresponsible. The Congressional 
Budget Office now estimates that the bill before us would cost $124.6 
billion through 2007, or almost $21 billion annually. That is about $2 
billion more a year than previously calculated. I cannot support a bill 
where payments are targeted to larger agribusinesses instead of family 
farmers. Moreover, these new numbers indicate that this bill would 
force Congress to retreat from other budget priorities, including 
shoring up Social Security and Medicare.
  This bill also does not contain important Senate-passed provisions 
that would have added much needed competition to rural America. It 
makes little sense that the conferees rejected the Senate-passed ban on 
packer ownership and my amendment giving farmers a choice of venue to 
resolve disputes associated with agricultural contracts.
  The Senate-passed packer ownership ban would have been an important 
first step to provide a competitive marketplace, and curtail the 
vertical integration by agribusinesses. My amendment reforming 
mandatory arbitration clauses would have ensured that the decision to 
arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights and remedies provided 
for by our judicial system are not waived under coercion. Again, more 
than 60 Senators supported my amendment, but it was dropped in 
conference.
  I do want to join Senator Kohl and my other colleagues to commend the 
dairy provision included in this farm bill. This provision finally 
begins to move our dairy policy in the right direction by treating all 
dairy farmers the same--regardless of where they live. I am proud to 
have worked with my senior Senator to have defeated efforts to extend 
and expand the northeast dairy compact and to have established a 
national safety net that provides equal support to producers regardless 
of where they live. I am also pleased that this program has a sensible 
limitation in terms of its payment structure. By capping these payments 
at the first 2.4 million pounds of production, we will help to ensure 
that large factory farms out west do not flood the market with milk and 
depress the price for those in the upper Midwest.
  So it is with regret that I must oppose this legislation, because I 
am proud of what Senator Kohl and I were able to secure through the 
dairy safety net. But Wisconsin taxpayer dollars should not be used to 
support agribusinesses and others who put our farmers on an un-level 
playing field in the marketplace.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the farm bill has been the subject of a 
lengthy debate among many diverse interests. This bill is the product 
of compromise and like any compromise, it is an effort to satisfy a 
wide range of viewpoints.
  California agriculture is itself very diverse, and I have heard from 
many groups in the State on this Farm bill. What I have heard from 
California constituents overall is that on balance, this farm bill is a 
net positive for the State.
  I have a stack of letters from Californians on this bill--and I have 
listened carefully to what they have had to say. I have been asked to 
support the bill by a long list of California groups, including: the 
California Farm Bureau; Western United Dairymen; the Alliance of 
Western Milk Producers; California Citrus Mutual; California Apple 
Commission; California Walnut Commission; Diamond of California; 
California Dried Plum Board; California Strawberry Commission; Sunsweet 
Growers, Inc.; California Rice Commission; Farmer's Rice Cooperative; 
Sacramento Central Labor Council/AFL-CIO; International Longshore and 
Warehouse Union, Local 17; Calcot, Ltd. representing 1700 grower 
members; Dunavant of California--California Cotton Farmers; Anderson 
Clayton Corp.--Serving the California Cotton industry; California Food 
Policy Advocates--representing food banks throughout the State; Los 
Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness; Health Access; 
National Council of La Raza; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of 
Los Angeles; National Immigration Forum; Jack Fleming Ranches; Big 
Valley Packers; and Meyers Farming.
  These groups represent many different interests--from California 
dairy to specialty crops, cotton and rice farmers, labor unions, 
advocates for food banks, advocates for humane treatment of legal 
immigrants on food stamp policy, just to name a few.
  These groups have one thing in common. Each has asked for my support 
on final passage of the Farm Bill Conference Report.

[[Page S4041]]

  Some wish California could do better in the farm bill. I do not 
disagree.
  I am particularly disappointed that the farm bill conference report 
includes $4.2 billion less for agriculture conservation programs than 
the Senate passed bill. The Senate version of the bill set aside a 
record $21.3 billion for conservation. Unfortunately, the House did not 
maintain this level of support. However, the conference report contains 
an 80 percent increase in conservation funding over previous farm 
bills. This represents an important step in the right direction.
  The conferees also decided to drop a provision that I authored to 
deal with Sudden Oak Death Syndrome. This syndrome has already killed 
many of California's beloved oak trees and has hurt our wood product 
and nursery industries.
  It is my understanding that the Sudden Oak Death language was the 
victim of a broader controversy over other provisions of the forestry 
title. I hope I can count on my colleagues to move this desperately 
needed and non-controversial legislation as a stand-alone bill.
  I also remain concerned about the equity in the distribution of 
resources in this bill. California specialty crops, in particular, 
should get a greater share of Federal resources. There are improvements 
in several programs available to specialty crop growers, but the bill 
does not go nearly as far as it should to ensure an equitable 
distribution of Federal dollars to California.
  At the same time, there are many good things about the bill for 
California, and on the whole, I believe the strengths of the conference 
report outweigh the weaknesses. Let me take a few minutes to explain 
why.
  The California dairy industry benefits from a price support program 
that assures an important safety net in difficult times. California 
dairy farms will also benefit from a new formula that will provide 
additional access to environmental improvements funding through the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
  Specialty Crop producers in California--such as walnuts, dried plums, 
and pears also benefit from a number of programs in this bill, 
including a minimum of $200 million per year authorized for purchases 
of surplus commodities for school lunch and other programs.
  The Market Access Program has been substantially increased in the 
conference report from the current $90 million per year increasing to 
$200 million over 6 years. This program helps California agriculture 
market its products abroad, including our dairy, specialty crops and 
our wine industry. I have worked for years to save this program and 
increase its funding. The substantial increase authorized in this bill 
is a real victory for California farmers.
  Rice and cotton farmers and the communities they live and work in 
have suffered difficult economic times. The commodity payments in this 
bill give these farmers a light at the end of the tunnel. An important 
reform included in the bill are new limitations on payments to multi-
millionaire farmers. This is a reform I strongly supported and I am 
pleased that it is included in the final conference report.
  I am also particularly grateful that the House and Senate conferees 
set aside $50 million to be used specifically for water conservation 
efforts in the Klamath region. I would have preferred the $175 million 
in the Senate bill, but the $50 million provided will make a 
significant contribution to the needs of the people and the wildlife in 
the Klamath basin.
  The Nutrition title of the farm bill will also provide substantial 
benefits to my State. In California, the nutrition title has the 
potential to deliver more than $1.7 billion in new assistance to more 
than 3.5 million people. According to the California Food Policy 
Advocates, an organization that works with food banks throughout the 
State, ``this is one of the most important pieces of Food Stamp 
legislation since the landmark 1977 Act.''
  The conference report also restores eligibility for participation in 
the Federal food stamp program for many legal immigrants who lost those 
privileges in 1996 as a result of welfare reform.
  Legal immigrants pay taxes, are eligible for the draft, and many 
proudly serve in the Armed Forces. Yet, 1 in 10 immigrant families with 
a citizen child report not eating for at least one day during the past 
6 months. One in four is forced to cut the size of their children's 
meals due to lack of resources. This bill will provide critical 
assistance to the neediest members of our immigrant communities.
  Along with Senator Graham, I also sponsored an amendment that is in 
the final bill authorizing $10 million over 10 years for farm worker 
training.
  Training farm workers to upgrade and expand their skills leads to 
added value for agricultural crops and increased worker productivity. 
It also improves worker pay, thereby helping to alleviate poverty in 
farm communities.
  On balance, this farm bill includes key provisions that are important 
to the agriculture economy in California. After carefully considering 
the pros and cons on this important legislation, I have decided to 
support final passage of the Farm Bill Conference Report.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the farm bill conference report. It has taken us months to get to this 
point, but we now have a comprehensive farm bill that addresses the 
needs of our farmers, as well as our consumers. I thank the members of 
the conference committee for their hard work and dedication, and I urge 
my colleagues to recognize their good work by voting in favor of final 
passage.
  The 2002 farm bill represents a step forward on many issues. This is 
evident in several of the provisions in the bill, especially those 
relating to dairy, conservation, nutrition and preservation. In these 
areas, the new farm bill goes well beyond current policy, building on 
the successes of yesterday, to help meet the demands of today.
  I am particularly encouraged by the program this farm bill puts in 
place to protect our Nation's dairy farmers. House and Senate conferees 
have achieved consensus on legislation that provides direct, counter-
cyclical payments when the Boston Class I price falls below a target 
price of $16.94 per hundredweight. When the price of fluid milk drops 
below this level, farmers will receive a payment on 45 percent of the 
difference between $16.94 and the market price. These payments, capped 
at 2.4 million pounds of milk per year, will be paid to all producers 
across the Nation. To ensure the counter-cyclical nature of these 
payments, the 2.4 million pound cap is intended to apply only to milk 
production marketed during months when payments are made to producers.
  These counter-cyclical payments are especially important in my home 
State of Vermont, and throughout New England, where the expiration of 
the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has left producers vulnerable to 
volatile dairy markets. Since July of 1997 until September of last 
year, the Northeast Dairy Compact made payments to producers during 
months when Class I prices fell below the compact over-order price of 
$16.94. If the compact had been in place, producers would have 
collected payments each of the last 5 months due to the steep decline 
in prices last December. Since then, dairy markets have remained 
depressed, with no recovery forecasted in the near future.
  Recognizing that the loss of the compact has significantly impacted 
dairy farms in New England, this legislation makes payments under this 
program retroactive to December 1, 2001. Retroactive payments will not 
only help our farmers in New England, but they will make up for the 
losses that all producers have endured since last December. These 
losses have been incurred on all milk, and it is my expectation that 
retroactive payments will be made to cover each gallon produced during 
that period.
  The dairy program included in the 2002 farm bill will continue to 
deliver payments almost identical to those producers received under the 
compact. And, although my farmers would rather see these payments taken 
out of the marketplace than out of the treasury, I know for many of my 
producers, these payments will mean the difference between staying in 
business, rather than calling the auctioneer.
  While the dairy program is by far the most important provision in the 
farm bill for my farmers, I am pleased that this legislation includes 
an 80 percent boost in funding for conservation programs. This money 
will increase the

[[Page S4042]]

funding levels of programs that have proven successful, as well as 
establish a new program to provide incentives to producers for 
continuing and adopting conservation practices on working lands.
  Although some of us would have preferred that additional funding be 
provided for conservation programs focused on improving water quality 
and protecting wildlife habitat, this legislation offers important 
resources that will help agricultural producers improve their 
stewardship of the land. The Conferees have included a provision in the 
bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into 
stewardship agreements with State and local agencies, Indian tribes, 
and nongovernmental organizations and to designate special projects to 
enhance technical and financial assistance provided to agricultural 
producers. This provision will help agricultural producers meet the 
requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and 
other environmental requirements.
  The Senate passed farm bill had included a number of provisions that 
would have encouraged the development of pilot programs and new efforts 
to promote this kind of cooperation and partnership. Although these 
provisions were not included in the final bill, the Conferees have made 
clear in the Statement of Managers that they intend for the Secretary 
to use her authority to establish such partnerships. I believe such 
partnerships could be a valuable tool in addressing water quality 
issues, particularly nonpoint source pollution. There couldn't be a 
better time to encourage water utilities, landowners and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to work together to utilize the conservation 
programs to protect drinking water source areas.
  Farmers are great caretakers of our land. I am encouraged that we 
have given them greater resources with which to preserve our open 
space, protect our rivers and streams, and sustain the vitality of our 
rural communities and economies. I support the Senate's emphasis on 
conservation in this farm bill and believe that it will provide an 
important foundation for promoting sound environmental practices in 
agriculture.
  I am also delighted that this farm bill authorizes such sums as 
necessary for the Office of Rural Development of USDA to establish a 
national historic barn preservation program. This provision allows 
farmers to receive funds administered through States and non-profit 
organizations to bring older barns into productive use, or make 
necessary investments in functioning facilities to prevent them from 
falling beyond repair. I strongly urge my colleagues to appropriate the 
Senate authorization level of $25 million that was included in the 
Senate farm bill.
  In my home State of Vermont, the State Historic Preservation Office 
currently administers a small-grant program for barn preservation that 
has been funded by the Vermont Legislature since 1993. While this 
program has been very successful, applications continue to 
significantly outnumber the grants made through this program. Federal 
funding through the new national historic barn preservation program 
will help address the growing backlog of requests for barn preservation 
grants in Vermont and across the country.
  Historic barns are some of America's greatest national treasures, 
symbolizing the agricultural foundations upon which our Nation was 
built. Preserving these barns will not only ensure their survival for 
generations to come, but will also provide practical benefits to 
farmers, and the communities and economies that surround them.
  Finally, I would like to commend the Senate Conferees for their 
efforts on the nutrition title of the farm bill. Although the 
conference report includes less funding than was originally included in 
the Senate bill, conferees fought to include $6.4 billion over 10 years 
for nutrition programs. This title includes several provisions that 
will improve and enhance the food stamp program. Although there was 
resistance in the House, I am pleased that the restoration of food 
stamp benefits to legal immigrants was included in the final bill. The 
benefits that were taken away from immigrants in the 1996 Welfare bill 
have finally been returned to immigrants that have been in the United 
States for 5 years.
  Other important modifications to the food stamp program serve to 
extend transitional benefits to those leaving welfare and allow States 
to better align food stamp regulations with other public programs such 
as TANF and Medicaid. These provisions strengthen the existing food 
stamp program and extend eligibility to those in need of assistance.
  In closing, I would like to praise the Conferees for their vision in 
crafting this Conference Report. I believe this legislation takes a 
step in the right direction in improving the regional equity of 
America's farm policy. It is only fair that we work to help all of our 
farmers receive a fair price for their product regardless of size, 
region or commodity. I know that my farmers in Vermont work as hard as 
any in the Nation, and because of that they deserve the same protection 
against the volatile markets that others share. I'm pleased that this 
bill provides them with this protection.
  Finally, I would like to commend Majority Leader Daschle and 
Assistant Majority Leader Reid for their leadership in getting a 
contentious bill through the Senate, and for seeing the farm bill 
through to final passage. Majority Leader Daschle was instrumental in 
this effort, and I am personally most grateful.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 6 years ago, Congress passed a farm bill 
that simply did not work for farmers in Washington State.
  It destroyed the safety net for Washington State wheat growers and 
did little for other farmers and ranchers in my State. Congress was 
forced to respond with four consecutive years of emergency payments.
  The farm bill before us is not intended to guarantee any Washington 
farmer a profit. It simply guarantees what it should guarantee: A 
safety net for our commodity producers when prices are low. That is a 
fair approach and one I believe the nation can and must support to 
ensure our long-term food security.
  I support this bill because it is a victory for our farmers and 
ranchers, the working poor and seniors, rural communities, and the 
environment.
  However, this new farm bill is not a perfect one for Washington 
State. The final bill strikes some provisions that I believe in very 
strongly, and it makes new policy choices that do not work for my 
State's producers.
  The Senate farm bill would have expanded Washington State exports by 
lifting the restriction that prohibits private financing of sales of 
food and medicine to Cuba. Unfortunately, the House leadership remains 
committed to an irrational, lose-lose policy toward Cuba. As a result, 
the Senate amendment died in conference.
  The House leadership was also responsible for defeating an amendment 
by Senator Baucus to provide emergency assistance to farmers and 
ranchers hurt by drought and other natural disasters. Farmers and 
ranchers throughout the West deserved better on this issue.
  I want to say how disappointed I am with the direction this bill 
takes on dairy policy. On many fronts, from exports to conservation, 
the bill will help all dairy producers. Unfortunately, the new dairy 
market loss payments strongly discriminate against West Coast dairy 
farmers. We had an opportunity to craft a dairy policy that worked for 
all producers nationwide. Instead, Congress again chose to create 
regional winners and losers.
  The Senate farm bill included my amendment to promote better 
cooperation between Native American tribes and the U.S. Forest Service. 
It also included an amendment sponsored by Senator Cantwell that would 
require the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
investigate any future deaths of forest firefighters in the line of 
duty. The House refused to adopt these common-sense amendments.
  Finally, the Senate farm bill included my amendment that would allow 
communities to develop plans to bring high-speed access to rural areas. 
Unfortunately, the House conferees refused to accept it, and it is not 
included in the final bill.
  I look forward to working to pass my legislation to promote rural 
broadband development and to promote a stronger relationship between 
tribes and the Forest Service. I also look forward to

[[Page S4043]]

revisting the other issues I mentioned above in future legislation.
  While I am disappointed with a number of decisions made by the 
conference committee, this new farm bill includes many of the 
priorities I identified prior to the debate.
  I am very pleased the farm bill restores food stamps for legal 
immigrants who have been in the United States for five years, and it 
restores food stamps for all children and disabled individuals 
regardless of how long they have been in the United States. The legal 
immigrant provision is the centerpiece of a new $6.4 billion investment 
in better nutrition policy. The bill will also streamline the Food 
Stamp Program and rationalize the quality control system.
  The conference bill helps Washington state recover salmon and improve 
conservation practices. The $17.1 billion in new conservation spending 
over the next ten years will promote water conservation, help dairy 
producers, ranchers, and farmers protect water quality and save 
farmland and open space from development through an expanded Farmland 
Protection Program.
  The bill enhances economic development in rural communities by 
providing $100 million in loans and loan guarantees to establish high-
speed, high-quality broadband service. The bill also makes an important 
attempt to reduce the backlog of water and wastewater projects in rural 
areas.
  This new farm bill strengthens our Nation's energy security by 
investing $405 million in renewable energy and biodiesel development. 
The Senate bill included the first energy title ever included in a farm 
bill. Given the uncertain future of the energy bill passed by the 
Senate, I am pleased this section survived the conference negotiations.
  With respect to an issue I have worked for three years on, the farm 
bill sustains struggling apple growers through $94 million in direct 
assistance. With Senator Cantwell, I fought hard to include this 
funding, and I want to thank Senators Daschle and Harkin for their work 
in protecting this vital assistance in conference.
  The conference bill establishes a new safety net program for many 
eastern Washington farmers by creating marketing loans and loan 
deficiency payments for producers of dry peas, lentils, and small 
chickpeas. I was an early cosponsor of similar Senate legislation. 
Peas, lentils, and chickpeas are important rotational crops for our 
wheat growers, and they help to break disease cycles.
  The bill increases the Market Access Program to $200 million by 2006. 
In 1999, and again in 2001, I introduce legislation to enhance our 
agricultural trade promotion programs. The final bill supports my 
efforts to open and expand overseas markets for U.S. farm products.
  The farm bill mandates country-of-origin labeling for meat and fish, 
and fruits and vegetables. I believe this is a great idea for farmers 
and ranchers, but also for consumers. However, it is my understanding 
the conference report would not allow fish caught by U.S. fishermen in 
international waters to be labeled as produced in the United States. 
That is a concern to fishermen in my state who fish in international 
waters.
  In another win-win situation for farmers and consumers, the final 
bill increases purchases of fruits and vegetables for federal feeding 
programs. That means better nutrition for our young people and a larger 
market for our fruit and vegetable growers.
  Finally, I want to mention an amendment I authored that was included 
in the Senate bill and the final bill. My amendment authorizes 
emergency assistance for farmworkers when natural disasters strike. 
While Congress has often been slow to provide natural disaster 
assistance to farmers and ranchers, it has rarely provided meaningful 
assistance to farmworkers. We should not ignore these workers when 
disaster strikes.
  Implementing this farm bill will not be easy and there will be 
challenges along the way. I look forward to working with my farmer, 
ranchers, and rural communities to ensure that we implement this bill 
quickly and fairly.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to support the 2002 farm bill 
conference report because it is good for Oregon producers at home and 
in the world market.
  Agriculture in Oregon is a $3.5 billion business. There are 40,000 
farms in Oregon, totaling over 17 million acres. The average farm size 
is 430 acres, with a stunning variety of crops, made up of 10,000 plus 
wheat farms in the eastern part of the State to 100 acre vineyards in 
the western part of the State.
  Overall, the Oregon Farm Bureau supports this farm bill. Oregon wheat 
and barley growers are anxious to see the workings of the new loan 
rates and market transition payments. They are also pleased to hear 
that all changes are in effect for the 2002 crop.
  Oregon dairy producers tell me the compromise that maintains a 
permanent $9.90 milk price support program will help them in the long 
term, whereas the establishment of a 3.5 year National Dairy Program to 
provide assistance to all U.S. dairy producers will help them in the 
short term.
  Oregon's wool producers are pleased that the conference report 
provides marketing loans or loan deficiency payments to them based on a 
loan rate of $1 per pound for graded wool and $.40 per pound for non-
graded wool.
  This conference report also provides $94 million, nationally, for 
apple producers who have suffered low market prices.
  But those are just specific examples of how this conference report 
will be good for Oregon producers. In a more general sense, this 
conference is good for Oregon's specialty crop producers in the 
following ways: specialty crop purchases for section 32 requiring not 
less than $200 million for fruits and vegetables. At least $50 million 
of that amount is for schools through the DoD Fresh Program; MAP 
funds--$650 million over the life of the bill, hitting the authorized 
ceiling of $200 million in the fifth year; Technical Assistance for 
Specialty Crops provides $19 million for exporter assistance to address 
barriers that restrict US specialty crop exports; $400 million for food 
assistance of which some is destined for specialty crop purchases; in 
addition, increased funds for school lunch programs, the WIC program, 
and the Seniors Farmers Market program, of which Oregon is one of the 
pilot States; and, Country of Origin Labeling for fresh meats, fruits, 
vegetables and fish will help Oregon's producers.
  In addition, while some environmental organizations are not pleased 
by the increases provided in the conservation title of this conference 
report, Oregon farmers will benefit overall from the 80 percent 
increase in conservation programs. Specifically, $50 million is 
provided for the Klamath Basin under a new Water Conservation Program 
that provides cost-share incentives and assistance for efforts to 
conserve ground and surface water.
  The nutrition title is supported by Oregonians who strongly 
supported, and were successful in maintaining, the provision that 
reinstates food stamp benefits for legal immigrants. Oregonians will 
benefit from simplifications to the TANF and food stamp programs.
  Oregonians will also benefit from the $1.03 billion Rural Development 
title that will, in addition to other new and improved rural 
development programs, make $100 million available nationally to allow 
rural consumers to receive high-speed, high-quality broadband service. 
It also provides $50 million for the Rural Firefighters and Emergency 
Personnel Grant Program which will help as rural Oregon communities 
face increasing fire danger from public lands.
  For years I have supported increased funding for agricultural 
research. Research dollars have been important to Oregon agriculture 
because they enable Oregon agriculture to be competitive in the world 
markets. This title increases funding from $120 million/year to $200 
million/year in fiscal year 2006.
  This conference report contains a new $100 million cost share program 
to assist private non-industrial forest land owners in adopting 
sustainable forest management practices. It also authorizes research 
pilot programs in carbon sequestration for agriculture producers and 
forest land owners. Both of these programs will be available to 
Oregonians, regarded as leaders in these areas.
  There are additional programs in this conference report that will 
benefit Oregonians that I have not specifically mentioned. However, the 
real work will begin when the President signs this conference report 
into law, as he has

[[Page S4044]]

indicated he will do. We will start the arduous process of 
implementation. I will be there, with my Senate and House colleagues, 
as that process moves forward to make sure the intent and spirit of 
this law is adhered to: to encourage environmentally sound, 
economically stable agriculture.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the farm security and rural development 
act of 2002 contains two important provisions for the protection and 
revitalization of Alaska's wild salmon industry. One is country of 
origin labeling and whether the fish is farm raised or wild caught and 
the other, a report on efforts to promote and use pouched and canned 
salmon within the food and nutrition programs of the Agriculture 
Department.
  Last year, Chilean pen-raised, farm salmon was purposefully delivered 
the same time as Alaskan fishermen brought their salmon to market. It 
was and is the intent of Chile to devastate and erase the Alaskan wild-
salmon market. Canada, Norway and China are increasing their farmed 
salmon capabilities and are flooding the U.S. market with pen-raised, 
pellet-fed, and chemically-enhanced salmon. In fact, dye is injected 
into the flesh of pen-raised salmon in order to obtain the orange and 
reddish salmon color that occurs naturally in wild salmon, which are 
born in fresh water streams, then travel out to the deep ocean and back 
again to the same stream to spawn.
  The conference committee report includes a provision that will 
require any retail seafood product in the United States to be labeled 
at the time of sale with its country of origin and whether the fish is 
wild-caught or farm-raised. This will help consumers make informed 
decisions about the seafood they put on their dinner tables. Alaskans 
know that wild fish from our waters are healthier and better tasting 
then farmed fish from overseas. This provision will allow the rest of 
America to make a more informed choice between pen-raised and wild 
salmon and learn about all the benefits of Alaskan seafood.
  The conference committee also retained an amendment which calls on 
the Secretary of Agriculture to report to Congress on efforts to expand 
the promotion, marketing, and purchase of U.S. pouched and canned 
salmon within the food and nutrition programs of the Agriculture 
Department. It is imperative to the short term success of Alaska's 
salmon industry to move existing inventories of pouched and canned 
salmon. The farm bill does a great deal to insure the commodities 
markets for southern and midwestern farmers, and these provisions will 
begin to provide some assistance and much needed protections for 
America's fishermen, the farmers of the sea.
  An amendment that did not remain in the conference committee report, 
but is absolutely necessary considering how pen-raised salmon are 
altered and chemically developed, is the eligibility of wild seafood 
for an organic product promotion effort. This amendment by my good 
friend and colleague Frank Murkowski, would have directed the Secretary 
of Agriculture to incorporate wild seafood into the organic labeling 
program. Wild salmon that go out into the oceans and feed in their 
natural habitat are by definition organic and completely natural, void 
of hormones or other chemicals and are undeniably deserving of the 
``organic'' label.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Senator Harkin 
for his hard work in bringing this farm bill together. As Chairman 
Harkin said yesterday, this conference report is not anyone's idea of 
perfection. It's not the bill Senator Harkin passed in the Senate, nor 
is it, I think it's fair to say, the bill that Senator Harkin or any of 
us might have written were legislation written to match an ideal 
standard. But the legislation before us today is a product of hard work 
and tough negotiating, and U.S. Senators are only afforded the 
opportunity to vote on what's before us, to make a judgment about 
whether we're going to provide relief and support to farmers in 
Massachusetts and nationwide in need of relief today, or whether we're 
going to vote it down and hope for an ideal farm bill the legislative 
process itself has proven will not be forthcoming.
  Given that choice, I will support this farm bill--I will support it 
because it will meet needs in Massachusetts and all around the country 
that are absolutely critical and which we cannot afford to leave unmet.
  This legislation includes record amounts of funding for land and 
water conservation programs, nutrition spending and reestablishing a 
dairy program that keeps small dairy farmers in business. This bill 
increases spending for land and water conservation programs by $17 
billion an 80 percent increase. This funding allows producers to 
qualify for assistance if they voluntarily incorporate conservation 
practices on their lands. In addition the bill provides $1 billion for 
the Farmland Protection Program, which provides for protection around 
urban areas and prevents sprawl. Massachusetts has a model program for 
protecting farmland and this funding will only allow us to preserve and 
protect more farmland in the Commonwealth.
  Nutrition and food programs under this bill total $6.4 billion. Like 
most of us I would have preferred the Senate number, however as we all 
know compromises have to be made in large bills such as this. We all 
should be proud of the fact that this bill restores benefits to legal 
immigrant adults who have lived in the United States for at least 5 
years. This bill also restores benefits to children and the disabled 
without a 5-year waiting period. The bill will also provide benefits 
for working families moving from welfare to work.
  The dairy provision in the bill is very important to Massachusetts as 
well. I wish to thank Senator Leahy for all of his work in this area. 
He has crafted a compromise that allows small dairy farmers in the 
Northeast to compete with larger producers in the Midwest. I am 
especially grateful that the dairy provisions are retroactive to 
December 1, 2001 so that these small diary farmers who have been 
severely impacted by the expiration of the old Northeast Dairy Compact, 
in October of last year, can now look forward to much needed help as 
they struggle to survive. This is yet another way that we can protect 
open space and prevent urban sprawl by giving these small dairy farmers 
a helping hand.
  This bill contains an authorization for a $10 million buyback of 
groundfish permits in New England. I strongly believe that we need to 
help family fishermen just like we lend a hand to farmers. The 
fishermen in New England are reeling from a recent court decision that 
has reduced their ability to fish by a minimum of 20 percent and in 
some cases by 75 percent. These fishermen are going to need some help 
and I intend to work with my colleagues to get these fishermen some 
assistance so that they can retire with dignity and seek opportunities 
elsewhere.
  As I stated earlier, this is not a perfect piece of legislation. I am 
disappointed that the bill does not contain the strong payment 
limitations that were contained in the Senate bill nor does this 
conference report prohibit meat packers from owning livestock. I 
supported both of these amendments when we debated this bill in the 
Senate and I believe that both of these provisions would go along way 
to protecting rural America and small family owned farms. I wish to go 
on record as saying that I will work with my colleagues Senators 
Johnson and Wellstone to have these measures enacted in the future.
  I remain very concerned about a flaw of this legislation, one which I 
know many Democrats worked very hard to avoid but which remains a 
serious problem in this bill. Without meaningful payment limitations we 
run the risk that large, powerful, corporate farms will continue to 
gobble up America's small, family-owned, environmentally responsible 
farmers. We cannot allow this to happen. This bill should protect rural 
America rather than subsidize another round of corporate giveaways that 
put at risk our environment, endanger the livelihood of family farmers, 
and lavish hard earned taxpayer money on corporations that need it the 
least. By that measure, this farm bill is a far cry from what our 
family farms need the most, and I would respectfully suggest that in 
the future we consider a whole host of efforts that do better than this 
bill does today.
  We all should remain concerned about the cost of this legislation as 
well. The bill will increase the cost of Federal agricultural programs 
by $45 billion over the next 6 years and $73.5 billion over the next 10 
years. With our

[[Page S4045]]

country at war against terrorism and our economy still not recovered we 
should all be concerned about the deficits that this country could 
potentially face.
  Lastly, the conference report contains a number of animal protection 
provisions that I do not support. Particularly troubling were the 
provisions on animal fighting and downed animal protection that were 
nearly identical in both bills and yet the conference report contains a 
weakened provision. I strongly believe we should revisit these issues 
at the earliest possible time.
  In summary, this bill is not perfect, but it is the choice before us, 
and in the Senate this year I see no better choices being offered. And 
while I think it's critical that we do better in the future, that we 
strike a better balance, I do not believe it would be in the best 
interests of our nation to deny family farmers and America's small 
farms the lifeline they so desperately need today.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the conference 
report for H.R. 2646, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002, FSRIA Act. This is the eleventh farm bill since the Congress 
enacted the Agricultural Act of 1949, the last permanent farm 
legislation, and the first farm bill of the 21st century.
  The previous farm bill, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996, the FAIR Act, contained at least three favorable 
objectives--to instill market discipline upon U.S. agriculture, to 
foster agriculture exports, and to eliminate Government-mandated 
planting requirements. That legislation represented the most radical 
change in farm policy since the inception of Federal farm programs in 
the 1930s, and in my view was a step in the right direction.
  I would have preferred a farm bill which would assist family farmers 
in becoming more efficient and more productive, thereby becoming more 
competitive. Instead of strengthening market oriented agricultural 
sector, I am concerned this bill will make farmers more dependent upon 
government subsidies.
  Our farm policy should promote the strength and ability of American 
agriculture to produce more and safer food and fiber with fewer 
chemical inputs. The United States has a competitive advantage in the 
production of many crops and most kinds of livestock. However, American 
farmers and ranchers are plagued by low prices. While this bill 
attempts to deal with low farm gate prices, it does not address the 
fact that U.S. agricultural producers sell in a world market where low 
prices are the norm. A U.S. agricultural policy that results in 
American food and fiber products being produced at higher than world 
prices does no good for American farm families.
  I am very concerned about the regional bias in this bill. Southern 
cotton, rice, and peanut farmers, particularly large family farms State 
will be adversely affected by the payment limitations. These large 
farms are some how construed to be corporate farms when, in fact, most 
are family farms. Also, I am not satisfied that our peanut farmers are 
being treated fairly. This bill ends the peanut quota program, the last 
of the old style farm quota programs, and enacts a peanut marketing 
loan program, affecting both farmers and rural communities. We should 
have a farm bill that treats all farmers equally, that allows them to 
be competitive, and that continues to provide the American consumer 
with wholesome, good quality food and fiber.
  I note that this bill authorizes considerable spending for 
conservation. There is nothing more important to agriculture than 
conservation. In South Carolina, it is said that if you do not take 
care of your land it will not take care of you. It is encouraging that 
successful programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program 
are strengthened in this bill. However, I question the addition of 
programs, which in my State could lead to land being taken out of 
agricultural production. Once taken out of agriculture, the land rarely 
returns to the farm and that increases the demand for land thereby 
raising the price of land or the land rental.
  I am disappointed the FSRIA Act does not do enough to strengthen our 
agricultural research assets including our land-grant university system 
and the Agricultural Research Service. The research done by these 
institutions and agency have materially added to the competitiveness 
and productivity of American agriculture. They should be cultivated and 
given the funding they need to continue their outstanding research. 
Emphasis should be directed at ensuring these results are translated 
into practical measures that can be used by the food and fiber sector 
of our economy. More could also have been done to help beginning 
farmers. However, no piece of legislation is perfect.
  I thank the conferees for retaining my amendment regarding farm 
reconstitutions in the conference report. As I said in prior statements 
I made earlier this year, the Department of Agriculture could have 
handled the problem itself without legislation. Flue-cured tobacco 
producers and quota owners in the Carolinas and Virginia will be better 
off with this amendment. This amendment will allow flue-cured tobacco 
allotments and quotas to continue to be transferred through the process 
of farm reconstitutions.
  Despite my concerns regarding the shortcomings of this bill, I will 
vote in favor of the conference report. Throughout my long career in 
public service, I have fought for the farmers of my State. This bill 
will provide farmers with financial resources to improve their 
efficiency and productivity.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, since Congress passed the 1996 farm bill, 
farmers throughout America have been pointing out the holes in the farm 
safety net that was intended to help family farmers and prevent the 
demise of America's agriculture industry. The new farm bill, The Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, authorizes a wide variety of 
U.S. Department of Agriculture programs and strengthens the safety net 
for America's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.
  This farm bill, not unlike other authorizing bills that have moved 
through the Congress in recent years, approves, in one broad stroke, 
huge amounts of spending on the mandatory side of the budget. Without 
adequate controls and without the political will to make tough 
decisions, mandatory spending has been annually eating up greater 
portions of the nation's budgetary resources.
  That is not to say that there are not a number of worthwhile, and 
necessary, provisions in this bill. Certainly we do not wish to see our 
agricultural industry go the way of others that have drifted overseas, 
where costs are lower and health and safety precautions are weak or 
nonexistent. Moreover, at a time when we are becoming more attuned to 
the real threats of bioterrorism and agroterrorism, our farming 
industry and the need to preserve it can be seen in a new and different 
light. But Senators need to be more aware of the fact that voting for 
authorizing legislation is not just supporting policy. It is advocating 
spending, often uncontrolled mandatory spending, that has a real effect 
on our national budget. It also meets expectations for additional 
discretionary spending by authorizing new and expanded discretionary 
programs. I hope that Senators will remember that later this year when 
we debate the overall discretionary spending levels.
  I am disappointed about a few items that are not included in this 
farm bill. For example, I had hoped that this bill would include 
funding for livestock producers who are suffering from drought 
conditions that we know are going to worsen. Previous farm bills had 
provided this sort of assistance, and I wish that this one had. On the 
positive side, this bill provides funding for a number of programs 
important to America's family farmers and rural communities. It, as 
well, makes important repairs to the farm safety net. But, 
unfortunately, the conference report also allows significant holes to 
remain when it comes to the humane treatment of animals.
  Procedurally, it is discouraging that certain provisions to protect 
animals included in both the House-and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 
2646 were eliminated or weakened during conference committee action. 
For example, both the House and the Senate versions included an 
identical provision to prohibit the interstate transport of animals for 
the purpose of fighting, but this language was weakened during 
conference. At the same time, a provision included only in the Senate

[[Page S4046]]

version of the bill that would permanently limit the scope of Animal 
Welfare Act protections--the so-called birds, rats, and mice 
prohibitions--was retained during conference.
  The conference report, however, also eliminates the Senate-passed 
provisions that would have improved the standards of care and treatment 
for certain puppies intended for sale as pets. It is unfortunate and 
disappointing that the conference committee made these decision. 
Clearly, there is still so much more to do to promote the humane 
treatment of animals. Animals cannot vote, and cannot write or call to 
voice their concerns, but they do have many advocates, and I count 
myself as one of them.
  While the farm bill conference report is deficient in its protections 
for animals, the bill includes provisions that will greatly help family 
farmers and rural communities in West Virginia, and throughout the 
nation.
  By providing $17.1 billion for conservation activities, for example, 
the bill will help farmers in their efforts to be good stewards of 
their land, even while they continue to cultivate crops. Farmers from 
many states, including West Virginia, will also benefit from the 
expansion of assistance for producers who grow non-commodity crops--
crops like apples, peaches, and many types of vegetables. In addition, 
dairy farmers can look forward to counter-cyclical payments that will 
provide more assistance when prices are low.
  The new farm bill will also make a significant investment in rural 
communities. The Rural Development programs authorized in this bill 
will help rural communities invest in the kind of basic infrastructure 
necessary for economic development. Most notable is the $360 million 
provided to fund the backlog of applications for water and wastewater 
development projects.
  Although I am disappointed with the limited protections for animals 
included in the new farm bill, overall, The Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002 conference report is a compromise I shall 
support.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, many Senators have not had the time to 
digest the many pages of the conference report and final legislative 
language of the nutrition title. I would like to take this opportunity 
to provide some detail on the provisions so that Senators will have a 
full understanding of what we have achieved in their conference report.
  When we set out to re-authorize the food stamp program our goals were 
to improve benefits for the neediest families and to simplify the food 
stamp program, making it easier for States to administer and to remove 
obstacles for working poor families. We wanted to strengthen the 
program and ensure that eligible needy families can participate in this 
critical nutrition and work support program.
  We have taken significant steps to improve benefits for households 
with children by improving and reforming the standard deduction. 
Currently, all households, regardless of their size, receive the same 
$134 standard deduction from their income before food stamp benefits 
are calculated. This approach effectively limits benefits for larger 
households, which typically include children. The legislation solves 
this problem by making the deduction more responsive to household size. 
Now, all households will receive a standard deduction set at 8.31 
percent of that year's poverty line. Another aspect of this change is 
that the standard deduction will be indexed for inflation each year. 
Indexing the standard deduction will help maintain the food purchasing 
power of food stamp benefits over time. This provision will take effect 
with all of the other annual adjustments in the food stamp program's 
benefit structure. Some States apparently are concerned that this will 
be a difficult deadline to meet. USDA should take a pragmatic approach 
toward those States that are working in good faith to implement the 
provision in a timely manner, but who may miss the deadline.
  One of the most significant benefit improvements included in the 
nutrition title is restoring food stamp eligibility to legal 
immigrants. The Senate passed food stamp restorations for legal 
immigrants with overwhelming support. It is gratifying to see the 
majority of the Senate proposal in the final package. The bill restores 
eligibility to three groups of legal immigrants. First, it restores 
eligibility to qualified low-income legal immigrant children regardless 
of their entry date into the United States. Second, it makes qualified 
legal immigrant adults who have lived in the United States for 5 or 
more years with that status eligible. Finally, the legislation allows 
legal immigrants receiving benefits under specified disability-based 
programs to qualify for food stamps.
  Children who are made eligible under this provision are exempt from 
sponsor deeming, although adult sponsored immigrants are still subject 
to sponsor deeming rules. The policy USDA implemented last year on 
deeming represents a reasonable and balanced approach to providing food 
stamps to low-income families in need, while still ensuring that 
sponsors remain responsible for immigrants that they bring into this 
country. USDA should maintain this policy.
  Immigrants frequently live with their sponsors. Over the years, 
Congress has consistently rejected proposals to require food stamp 
recipients to repay properly issued food stamp benefits. That principle 
is not incompatible with sponsor liability. Low income immigrants may 
be deterred from participation if they believe that their family 
members may be sent a bill if they participate in the food stamp 
program. We do not intend for low-income sponsors who are a part of the 
food stamp household or family unit to incur a liability as a result of 
their family's or household member's participation in the food stamp 
program.
  The broad restoration for adults will bring food stamp rules into 
conformity with Medicaid and TANF immigrant eligibility rules for 
recent immigrants. Now, under all three programs, an adult becomes 
eligible for benefits 5 years after obtaining a qualified status. The 5 
year waiting period begins when the immigrant gains qualified status 
regardless of what type of immigrant status he or she had prior to that 
point. This alignment should make it much easier for immigrants to 
understand the immigrant eligibility rules in the three programs and 
for States to administer them.
  Since 1996, the proportion of food stamp recipients who work has 
increased dramatically and the proportion who receive welfare has 
plummeted. Food stamps is no longer a mere adjunct to cash welfare 
programs. It is a work support program and a nutritional safety net for 
a wide spectrum of low-income people. Paperwork and administrative 
requirements that might have been appropriate when food stamps were a 
supplement to welfare have become unnecessary barriers to meeting the 
nutritional needs of more diverse eligible low-income households.
  Although some States have shortened their applications, current rules 
require information on too many obscure types of income and resources, 
even though few households have these items. This approach is the 
result of a policy that seeks to cast a very wide net in collecting 
information about households' incomes and resources. A solution to this 
problem is to narrow the applications' scope to those relatively few 
types of income and resources that would make a significant difference 
in the food purchasing power of applicants.
  Sections 4102 and 4107 of the bill allow states to conform their 
definition of income and resources in the food stamp program to 
definition in their TANF and Medicaid programs. Each section lists 
major items that fairness requires to be counted. USDA will have the 
authority to add to the list of items states cannot exclude. Since we 
worked closely with USDA in crafting the statutory list, the Department 
should not have reason to exercise that authority in the absence of 
unforeseen circumstances. In addition, the legislation does not require 
states to wait for new regulations before simplifying their programs.
  States now have the option of semi-annual reporting in the 
Department's current regulations. This bill allows States to extend 
semi-annual reporting to the vast majority of the food stamp caseload. 
States will be able to conform their food stamp reporting rules more 
closely to those of Medicaid and other work support programs.
  Separate rules and requirements for each program burden both families 
and

[[Page S4047]]

state administrators. Joint guidance or regulations from USDA and HHS 
can make a real difference. Families should be able to comply with both 
programs' requirements by completing a single report. An eligible 
family should not put its food stamps at risk by complying with 
Medicaid reporting requirements. The Department should ensure that this 
no longer happens.

  The same procedural protections the Department has long applied to 
monthly reporting are just as appropriate for any other system of 
periodic reporting. Just as a household that files a late or incomplete 
monthly report needs a second chance, so too does a family having 
trouble with a quarterly or monthly report. In addition, the Americans 
with Disabilities Act and rules for individuals with limited English 
proficiency would apply equally no matter what period is covered by the 
report.
  USDA should further reduce reporting burdens for the elderly and 
persons with disabilities using the broad regulatory authority it used 
in late 2000 to reduce burdens for many types of households.
  To reduce the number of reports required of households, the 
conference report provides states the option to freeze households' 
deductions between eligibility reviews with two limited exceptions. 
First, if the household reports that it has moved, the food stamp 
office will have to provide the household a shelter deduction based on 
its new circumstances. Second, whenever the Department's regulations 
require the food stamp office to act on a change in earned income, it 
will have to apply the 20 percent earned income deduction to the new 
amount. Any household that believes this freeze is causing it a 
hardship may reapply and have its benefits recalculated without waiting 
for the next scheduled review of its eligibility. States may imple- 
ment this change as soon as it becomes effective. Significant new 
regulations from USDA in this area are not expected.
  The conference report does not include a Senate provision that would 
have replaced the current food stamp re-certification process with a 
re-determination process. In years past, the rigidity of certification 
periods was a serious problem, but USDA has taken steps in recent years 
to introduce flexibility and allow certification periods to be extended 
simply and easily. The allowance of transitional food stamp benefits, 
both as they exist today under USDA regulations and as expanded in this 
legislation, further reduces the need for fixed certification periods.
  Families leaving welfare can face particular difficulties with the 
food stamp program's current procedural requirements. Recent studies 
have shown that as many as 60 percent of families leaving cash 
assistance do not continue to receive food stamps even though almost 
all are still eligible.
  To ensure a much smoother transition from cash assistance to work, 
this legislation provides States with a new option to provide up to 5 
months of transitional food stamps to families leaving cash assistance. 
Since virtually all of these families are already eligible for food 
stamps, the goal of the program is to eliminate any unnecessary 
administrative hurdles that families or States might face. When a 
household leaves the State's cash assistance program, the state will 
simply subtract the cash benefit from the family's income and 
recalculate food stamp benefits. There will be no contact between the 
State and the household and no procedural requirement on the household. 
This transitional benefit amount will be the correct food stamp benefit 
for all purposes. The benefit will essentially be frozen for the next 5 
months, except that States will have to update the benefit to reflect 
any general changes in food stamp benefit amount such as an increase in 
the thrifty food plan.
  States may also elect to adjust the transitional benefit if they 
become aware of changes in the household's circumstances. For example, 
if a mother reports the birth of a child to the Medicaid program, the 
State can elect to increase the food stamp allotment to reflect the new 
child. In addition, the household retains the right to reapply to have 
its food stamps recalculated based on current circumstances. This is 
especially important in cases where the wage-earner in the family loses 
a job.
  Families that pay or receive child support can have special 
difficulty under current rules. These payments may fluctuate for any 
number of reasons. Keeping track of them can be difficult for both the 
food stamp office and the household. In addition to established 
regulations, USDA circulated some useful guidance on this subject last 
year and may want to do more.
  Many States do not have computers in their child support enforcement 
agencies that can communicate effectively with the systems that 
calculate food stamps. The bill requires USDA to establish simplified 
systems for using data from child support agencies even if it is a few 
months older than most information used to calculate food stamp 
benefits. Unless a household submits more current information, the 
State would use what it has. This legislation only addresses families 
that pay child support. A State should not rely upon State data about 
child support a family receives unless, under the income anticipation 
rules, it is reasonably certain that the family will continue to 
receive those amounts.
  Although the focus of the bill is on procedural simplifications, we 
did simplify the program's benefit calculation rules in some respects. 
Simplification is not intended to be applied in ways that would reduce 
benefits. New rules for estimating households' utility costs in this 
bill will allow States to elect to allow use of a flat, standardized 
amount used to calculate the shelter deduction for families with 
utility bills other than telephone. States do not have to inquire 
further into the family's living arrangements. This simplification as 
long as USDA and states ensure that these standardized estimates keep 
pace with increases in utility costs. States do not have to inquire 
further into the family's living arrangements. This simplification will 
not reduce benefits as long as USDA and states ensure that these 
standardized estimates keep pace with increases in utility costs.
  The Senate bill included a simplification in the procedures states 
use to convert weekly and biweekly earnings into monthly income. 
However, the Department's current regulations already allow states to 
do that if they follow these same conversion procedures in TANF. 
Accordingly, the legislative provision was not adopted, but USDA should 
encourage more states to take this regulatory option.
  The other simplification we made in the food stamp benefit structure 
involves people who live in institutions and are unable to manage their 
own food stamps. This will primarily involve people who are recovering 
from substance abuse problems and some people with severe disabilities. 
Although these procedures can apply to homeless people or to women 
living in shelters for victims of domestic violence, we expect many 
people in those facilities will choose to retain their own food stamp 
benefits because of their relatively brief stays or because they need 
to obtain some of their meals outside the shelter. Where, however, the 
recipient consents or is incapable of managing his or her own affairs, 
this provision will allow the benefit to be calculated under a 
standardized formula that will not require the institution to gather a 
great deal of detail about the circumstances of each resident. USDA's 
current rules that define an institution as a facility consistently 
providing more than half of a recipient's meals will continue to apply 
and limit this provision's scope. We also included safeguards to ensure 
that persons leaving centers in mid-month will receive their fair share 
of benefits for the remainder of the month and will get help from both 
the center and the food stamp office to re-enter the regular food stamp 
program.

  Many States have been operating EBT for some time now and have a 
great deal of experience. This legislation requires USDA to issue a 
report on the current status of EBT. It requires USDA to provide a wide 
array of information on how systems are operating, including issues 
with contract renewals and client access. The report will include 
valuable information about how states ensure that claimants have full 
access to their food stamps within EBT systems and on how they ensure 
that EBT complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 
Rehabilitation Act.

[[Page S4048]]

  The Senate bill included a provision to ensure that households that 
have accumulated benefits in an electronic system would not have their 
benefits made inaccessible for some time. Elderly and disabled 
households who often receive very small food stamp benefits and store 
them, might otherwise lose food stamp benefits. The Department is 
already planning to implement this policy via regulation, so the bill 
does not include the provision.
  Reforms to the food stamp quality control system in the bill are 
based to a great extent on the recommendations of the National Academy 
of Sciences. The current quality control system, for measuring program 
performance, only focuses on payment accuracy. Under the new system, 
payment accuracy will not override the program's basic goal of 
providing food assistance to eligible families.
  Under current law, States with payment error rates in excess of the 
national average face fiscal sanctions each year. Thus, close to one-
half of the States are in violation each year. The new system focuses 
on those states with persistent payment accuracy problems. Only those 
States which USDA is statistically certain have payment error rates 
above 105 percent of the national average will be targeted as problem 
States. When a State exceeds this threshold for 2 consecutive years, 
USDA will be required to take action and may use any combination of 
three specific options as its response.
  First, USDA may require the State to reinvest up to 50 percent of the 
sanction to improve administration of the program. The bill does not 
specify in what activities States should reinvest, although states may 
use reinvestment funds to improve program access. States have 
discretion to determine what type of reinvestment will most improve its 
program. Second, USDA can designate up to 50 percent of state's 
potential liability to be held at risk, but cannot collect sanctions 
during the year in which they are assessed. The State must pay at risk 
amounts from the previous year if the State's error rate is subject to 
sanction in the current year. If the State is not subject to sanction 
in the following year, the amount held at risk is auto- matically 
waived. Finally, USDA can waive any portion of the sanction amount. 
Sanctions that are not reinvested or held at risk must be waived.
  USDA should consider the causes of the State agency's problems, and 
whether the State's error rate is declining along with other relevant 
factors when determining how much of a State's sanction to waive. If a 
State is making progress on reducing its error rate, USDA should 
consider a waiver of its sanction. As under the current system, States 
may appeal these decisions. If a State loses an appeal, USDA may 
withhold funds that have not yet been reinvested pending appeal. The 
Department should not use this authority in a way that undermines 
reinvestment plans when a State raises an appeal in good faith.
  The Senate bill would have adjusted sanctions for States doing a 
particularly good job of serving low-wage working families or immigrant 
households. USDA assured the conferees that it would continue its 
current practice of adjusting sanctions to account for enrolling high 
or rising numbers of participants more likely to involve errors, such 
as working poor households. USDA should also continue to adjust for the 
impact of high numbers of legal immigrant households and, in the 
future, to adjust for other factors, as the need arises.
  The current system will remain in place for fiscal year 2002. USDA 
may use its authority to waive the fiscal year 2002 sanctions for those 
States that would not have faced sanctions under the new system. 
Similarly, it may waive sanction amounts in excess of the new sanction 
formula.
  The new system begins in fiscal year 2003. No State will be subject 
to paying a sanction until 2005. The administration requested this 
delayed implementation timetable. USDA must now ensure that this 
delayed effective date does not undermine the progress states are 
currently making toward lowering error rates.
  The legislation provides $48 million each year for new quality 
control performance bonuses to States. Bonuses will be provided to 
States with the best or most improved performance relating to 
correcting errors, reducing rates of error, and improving eligibility 
determinations and other indicators of effective administration 
determined by USDA in consultation with the States. Correcting errors 
is crucial. USDA should recognize and reward States that improve their 
staff training and establish systems that give State administrators 
early warning when eligibility workers encountering problems. USDA 
should also consult other program experts such as client advocates, 
research organizations and academics.
  The bonuses should be balanced and reflect many important aspects of 
State administration, in addition to payment accuracy and program 
integrity. Timeliness and denying benefits only to those applicant 
households that are truly ineligible, should be a significant portion 
of the bonus calculation.

  Regrettably, the conference agreement does not include the Senate 
provision to move toward the more reasonable version of the time limit 
for able-bodied adults without dependents that the Senate passed in 
1995 and again in 1996. Congress should revisit the issue in the near 
future, but in the meantime, the administration should continue to do 
everything possible to limit harsh and inequitable effects of this 
provision.
  In addition, the bill restructures the employment and training 
funding to eliminate the requirement that 80 percent of employment and 
training funds be set-aside for individuals subject to the time limit, 
although it does reserve a small mount of money specifically for that 
population. USDA should give this group of people and the States that 
elect to serve them special consideration when distributing employment 
and training funds. States that have agreed to ensure that no one who 
is willing to work is denied benefits under the time limit should 
receive the funds to do so.
  In this bill, States have a greater flexibility to provide employment 
and training services to people that are subject to the time limit yet 
do not meet the definition of a work activity. Such individuals can 
still benefit from, for example, job search activities and training 
programs that are less than 20 hours per week. USDA should respect the 
broad authority states already have to decide how to coordinate and 
apply these various employment-related requirements under the act.
  This bill also eliminates the current $25 cap on the amount States 
may reimburse E&T participants for expenses other than dependent care. 
This cap had not kept pace with inflation and limited States' ability 
to provide needed work support as part of their education and training 
programs. USDA should continue its longstanding policy of providing 
States with broad flexibility in providing these funds to employment 
and training participants.
  This nutrition title is among the strongest that the Congress has 
ever passed. It will improve benefits, support families' efforts to 
move from welfare to work, and simplify program rules. The bill will 
improve nutrition benefits for low-income Americans and reduce hunger 
and poverty in our country for a number of years into the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I have 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to close 
my part of the debate on this farm bill. We will be voting very soon. I 
want to say a few things.
  This is a comprehensive bill. This isn't a bill just for commodities 
for one part of the country or other. This is a comprehensive bill that 
takes into account a lot of different factors. This is a farm bill that 
has taken a long time and a lot of hard work, both in our committee and 
in the Senate, under the leadership of, first, Senator Lugar, and under 
my chairmanship beginning in the middle of last year; also, on the 
House side, under the chairmanship of Congressman Combest, and his 
ranking Member, Congressman Stenholm.
  We have had a lot of debate on this bill in the committee and on the 
floor, and, quite frankly, a lot in conference also.

[[Page S4049]]

  Out of this has come, I think, a good bill, a strong bill--a bill 
that is good for all of America.
  Is it a perfect bill? No, it is not perfect, at least not from my 
viewpoint. And I daresay, there isn't one Senator here who would think 
it would be perfect from his or her viewpoint. I am sure that everyone 
here can find one or two things they do not like in the bill. But keep 
in mind, it is a comprehensive bill for America and for our future.
  The bill comprises a number of different parts which I think enable 
us to turn the corner. If I were to say what was my view on this farm 
bill, it turns the corner from where we have been in the past.
  In commodities, we have strengthened income, we have provided 
stability and predictability. We have ended the Freedom to Farm. 
Freedom to Farm was built on a two-legged stool: low loan rates and 
AMTA payments--direct payments.
  Well, if you ever tried to sit on a two-legged stool, you know it is 
unstable, it is unpredictable, you never know which way you are going 
to fall.
  So this bill puts four legs under that stool for our farmers and our 
ranchers: higher loan rates, a target price, a direct payment, and 
conservation--four strong legs under that stool by which we support and 
enhance our farmers' livelihoods. So we have turned the corner.
  Large farms in the past got everything. Under Freedom to Farm, it was 
a dog-eat-dog world. And in a dog-eat-dog world, the biggest dog gets 
it all. We have turned that corner. Now, for example, people like 
Scottie Pippen and Ted Turner and Sam Donaldson will not be able to get 
a dime from this farm bill. I cannot tell you how many editorials I 
have seen lately saying the farm bill continues to give all this money 
to people like Ted Turner and Scottie Pippen, and people like that. 
Absolutely untrue. We have turned that corner. They now will not get 
one single dime.

  We have more help for our moderate and mid-sized farms, with the 
higher loan rates, with the conservation payments, with the target 
price. We have support in here for beginning farmers. We even have a 
specific provision in here for organic farmers, which we have never had 
before. We have a provision in this bill for specialty crops, a floor 
of $200 million a year for the purchasing of fruits and vegetables. 
That helps small orchards, small vegetable farmers, in every state, 
like in Washington, in Michigan, and in New England. This is good not 
only for them but for the health and welfare of America. So we have 
turned the corner in just focusing on the biggest farmers and in 
focusing only on a few crops.
  We now are saying to moderate and mid-sized farmers: You, too, will 
have support and help. We say to farmers who are growing specialty 
crops: You now have support and help. We say to organic farmers: You 
now have support and help. We say to farmers who want to practice 
conservation: You now have help. And especially to our smaller and mid-
sized farmers.
  So we have turned the corner. On conservation, we have an 80-percent 
increase in conservation, a huge increase over 1996 Farm Bill. We have 
turned the corner. The Conservation Reserve Program, nearly 3 million 
more acres will be added; the Wetlands Reserve Program, we have more 
than doubled it; the Wildlife Habitat Program, a fourteen-fold 
increase; the EQIP program, to help our livestock farmers clean up and 
stop runoff into places such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi 
River and the Missouri River and the Great Lakes and our crop producers 
to reduce their nutrient run-off, among many other important 
conservation activities, five and a half times more money. More money 
for EQIP than we have ever had before, going from $2 billion to $11 
billion.
  There is a new provision for ground water protection that we have 
never had before; $600 million to help conserve ground and surface 
water. There is a brand new conservation program called the 
Conservation Security Program that will help all farmers, especially 
our moderate and mid-sized and small farmers be good conservationists, 
like they want to be, like many of them are already. This will help 
support them and encourage them to be even better conservationists in 
the future. We have turned the corner on conservation. This is a 
program that many farmers are eagerly waiting for and I strongly 
encourage the Secretary to expedite implementation of CSP so we no 
longer leave producers out of conservation programs and so we no longer 
continue to ignore the stewards of our nation's natural resources.
  On nutrition, as I mentioned, the last farm bill did not even include 
a nutrition title. We included it in this farm bill at a level of $6.4 
billion, almost twice what the House level was. Yes, I say to my friend 
from Texas, you bet we restored food stamp benefits to legal immigrants 
who have lived in the United States for at least 5 years. The President 
himself wanted that. We also said that children and people with 
disabilities don't have to wait 1 day to get food stamps. Yes, we 
answered that need.
  We also did away with a lot of the red tape and the paperwork 
associated with the food stamp program. In addition, we provide 5 
months of food stamps for people who are making the transition from 
welfare to work.
  On the Emergency Food Assistance Program--the TEFAP program it is 
called--we provide more money for commodities that are distributed in 
food banks and food pantries.
  There are 33 million Americans--13 million of whom are children--who 
go to bed hungry every night. This farm bill speaks to them. That is 
why 51 organizations, including Second Harvest, Bread for the World, 
the Children's Defense Fund, the Food Research Action Center, and many 
others--51 food groups--in America support this bill and urge its 
passage. Our bill sticks up for needy people. We say, they, too, are 
part of our great country.
  Someone said we are buying votes in this bill for commodity programs. 
How about nutrition? How about all the money we put in for nutrition, 
for all the poorest people in America, for legal immigrants? Many of 
them cannot vote. We are not buying any votes there. But we are meeting 
a humanitarian need and we are meeting our obligations as a decent and 
caring society.
  Rural development: We provide the funds to clear up the backlog of 
water and wastewater. Broadband access: This is the first time we have 
money in there to bring broadband access to our small towns and 
communities. We have a Rural Equity Capital Fund we have never had 
before, a provision to provide for grants and loans for value-added 
businesses owned by farmers around small towns and communities. We have 
turned the corner on rural development.
  Energy: This is the first time ever we have had a title in the farm 
bill dealing with energy, to provide grants and loans to farmers and 
ranchers for renewable energy--wind, solar, biomass, that type of 
energy--to build biofuels processing plants for soy diesel, soy 
lubricants, ethanol. Yes, we are providing new markets for our farmers 
out there, and the new market is energy--energy for our country, to 
make us energy independent, to provide us the kind of independence that 
we need in energy, based on renewable resources on our farms and 
ranches. It is the first time ever. We have turned the corner.
  On trade, we provide more money for the Market Assistance Program, to 
make sure we are able to sell our value-added products overseas, and we 
have the Foreign Market Development Program to get our bulk commodities 
overseas. We have provided more money for that. So we have turned the 
corner there.
  We have heard a lot of talk about competition. I will say this, we 
have done more in this bill on fairness and transparency than any bill 
since the Packers and Stockyards Act was passed in 1921--more. Farmers 
and consumers scored a big win, and the big meat processors suffered 
their biggest loss in decades when we kept the country of origin 
provision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
4 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleagues for giving me this time.
  The big meat processors lost out. We got country-of-origin labeling, 
as well a crucial amendment to the Packers

[[Page S4050]]

and Stockyards Act that brought swine production contractors under the 
Packers and Stockyards Act. So now farmers who have swine production 
contracts have the same protections against unfair practices as poultry 
growers and livestock owners. This provision makes sure that the 
Packers and Stockyards Act evolves with the changing industry.
  We were also able to keep a provision to make it clear that farmers 
who have marketing and production contracts have the right to discuss 
those contracts with their close advisors and family, no matter what 
the contract or the meatpacker says.
  Let me say this about payment limits. Do I wish we could have done 
more? Yes. But I want to point this out: Right now the payment 
limitation is $460,000, the maximum that any one person can get or any 
one entity can get under the freedom to farm bill. The House came with 
$550,000. They raised it. We brought it down to $360,000. It is 
$460,000 now. We brought it down to $360,000. We were at $275,000 in 
the Senate. The House was at $550,000. So we actually came in closer to 
the Senate at $360,000. As I mentioned, we cut out the Scottie Pippens 
and the Ted Turners and all those people who were getting payments. 
That has ended.
  We set up a commission that will have members appointed from the 
Senate, from the House, and from the administration, to advise us on 
further processes that we should do to address the issue of payment 
limitations.
  And this is another thing we did: We provide for transparency. From 
now on, we will be able to track every payment made to every farmer, 
track it right from the beginning right down to who gets it. Right now, 
people hide behind entities, such as partnerships and co-ops and 
corporations. Now, with transparency, we will see who gets what, for 
the first time ever. So now we have transparency in all of our 
programs, transparency in the EQIP program, transparency in the 
commodity price support program.
  So, yes, we have turned the corner on competition. Maybe we did not 
get to the goal of where we want to be, but we have turned the 
corner. From now on we are going to have transparency. We are going to 
have a better handle on exactly who is getting what.

  I conclude my remarks by saying: You can vote no on this bill. I 
could pick out two or three things, if I wanted to, and vote no myself. 
But this bill moves us forward, to turn that corner, to turn away from 
the Freedom to Farm bill and what it stood for, and to chart a new 
course for the future. We can vote no on this bill. All that means is 
we go back to Freedom to Farm, with none of the provisions I just 
mentioned applicable. They would all be gone. Is that what we want to 
do? Step back in time? Step back to where we were? I don't think so.
  The bill is not perfect, but it is a good, strong, fair, and 
equitable bill for farmers and ranchers all over this country. It is 
fair and equitable to our consumers because they are still going to 
continue to get the most reliable, safest, cheapest food anywhere in 
the world. We meet our social obligations in ensuring that we provide 
food and food stamps to those most needy in our society. That is why I 
urge Senators to vote for this bill and move it ahead.
  I thank all of our staff members who have worked so hard on this 
bill. In particular, I thank Mark Halverson, my staff director. When 
this is all over, I will tell him he has to go to bed and get some 
sleep because I don't think he has slept in about a month or two or 
three. I thank Charlie Rawls, our general counsel; Bob Sturm, chief 
clerk, who made sure everything was set up for us in our meetings, took 
care of all the paperwork; Rich Bender; Karil Bialostosky; Seth 
Boffeli; Kevin Brown; Alison Fox; Amy Fredregill; Sara Hopper; Ellen 
Huntoon; Eric Juzenas; Susan Keith; Jay Klug; Stephanie Mercier; Frank 
Newkirk; Doug O'Brien; Vershawn Perkins; Erin Peterson; Lloyd Ritter; 
Terri Roney; John Moreland; Bob Soukup. I thank all of those.
  I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute to continue to thank my 
staff.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank particularly the family members of these 
individuals, the spouses, significant others, the children. I know they 
haven't seen spouses, loved ones, parents, father and mother, in this 
case, for some time because of the long hours we have worked. Sometimes 
when Members would go until 9 or 10 at night, we went home. Staff 
stayed until 1 or 2 in the morning to clean up the mess we made and do 
all the paperwork and get us ready for the next day. I particularly 
thank their families.
  I close by saying my special thanks to my ranking member and my good 
friend Senator Lugar from Indiana. I know we disagree on this bill, but 
there are a lot of things on which we do agree. There are a lot of 
things we worked very closely on when we developed the bill in 
committee. I look forward to working with him in the future.
  This is not the last farm bill. This is not the end of what we will 
do to address the needs of rural America and our people who live there. 
I look forward to working with Senator Lugar.
  As I said, we may have a disagreement, but I echo what someone said 
the other day: Senator Lugar has been from the beginning intellectually 
honest and forthright in his approach on this farm bill. No one can 
fault that. We just see it differently; that is all. But he has been a 
great friend. He has helped move the process forward. Even though he 
didn't agree with the bill, he wanted to make sure the process moved 
forward. I think that is the mark of a true Senator and a statesman--to 
make sure, even though you don't agree, that the process must continue 
forward.
  I thank my good friend and my ranking member Senator Lugar for his 
help and his support in getting us to this point where we now are 
approaching a final vote on the bill.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I thank my colleague, the distinguished 
chairman, for his generous remarks. I will simply say, as I did at the 
beginning of the debate, he came into the chairmanship of the committee 
at a difficult time. This is a long process. He and his staff have done 
a remarkable job, and our staff has worked with them. We look forward 
to continuing to do so.
  We are going to have much more of an agenda before the Agriculture 
Committee. The distinguished chair will be a part of that as well as 
the distinguished majority leader who is on the floor whose remarks we 
now await.
  I do have a disagreement with my chairman, but we have expressed our 
views at length and hopefully to the profit of all who have listened to 
this debate.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I wanted to thank the legislative 
counsel who worked so hard on this: Gary Endicott; Darcie Chan; Janine 
Johnson; Heather Flory; and Tim Trushel. They were indispensable in 
helping us work through this bill.
  I thank the Congressional Research Service: Geoff Becker; Joe 
Richardson; and Jeff Zinn. I thank the Congressional Budget Office 
analysts. When we always asked them, in the middle of the night, they 
would come through with the information we needed. They are David Hull, 
Jim Langley, Greg Hitz, Valeri Baxter-Wolmer, and Lanette Walker. And 
at the USDA Office of General Counsel, I thank Dave Grahn and Pia 
Ruttenburg.
  I will yield the floor, but someone asked me what was the best thing 
we had going for us when we went into conference with the House. I 
said: We had our secret weapon. We had the majority leader of the 
Senate.
  The majority leader is a valuable member of our Agriculture 
Committee. I can't think of anyone who has worked longer and harder for 
our farmers and ranchers in America than Tom Daschle. Since the day he 
first came to the House of Representatives, we have been close friends. 
We have worked together. He has been one of best leaders on agriculture 
in all these years. It is a source of pride to me to have him on the 
Agriculture Committee with us.
  I can tell you, it was a great source of pride in getting the job 
done and getting us to this point that Senator Daschle was there with 
us every step of the way, helping us out and bringing us to the point 
where we are.
  I publicly thank my good friend, my leader, Senator Daschle, for all 
of his help on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senate majority leader.

[[Page S4051]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use my leader time to finish 
comment on this bill before we go to a vote. I will try to be brief 
because I know Senators are hoping to have the opportunity to vote very 
shortly.
  Let me simply return the compliment of the distinguished Senator from 
Iowa, the chairman of the committee. He and I have spent more hours 
than either of us have been able to count over some long months with 
the hope and expectation that we would be coming to this point. His 
extraordinary tenacity, his leadership, his vision for agriculture, his 
ability to work with all sides, his ability to articulate positions of 
our caucus and of Senators with whom he both agreed and disagreed is 
remarkable.
  The people of Iowa have had many proud moments in their history. I 
cannot think of a prouder moment for the State of Iowa, this special 
time for us as we bring this very important issue to a close in the 
Senate.
  In the most heartfelt way, I offer my congratulations to Senator 
Harkin for his leadership.
  I must say, without being repetitive, his comments about the 
distinguished Senator from Indiana are so true. There isn't anybody in 
this Chamber I have greater respect for than Dick Lugar. I am reminded 
again why, as I watch how effectively he presented his arguments. The 
old adage about disagreeing without being disagreeable applies 
exponentially in so many ways to Dick Lugar. He is never disagreeable. 
He will disagree and he will make his voice known and heard, but he is 
a remarkable Member of this body. I am honored to serve with him and to 
work with him on all issues, especially this one.

  My colleagues have thanked their staffs. I could not go to the vote 
without thanking publicly Bart Chilton, Jonathon Lehman, and Mark 
Childress of my staff, especially. As Senator Harkin has noted, we 
would not have accomplished what we did were it not for their 
remarkable work, their tremendous effort, night and day, and well into 
the night, sometimes into the wee, early morning hours, in order to 
achieve what we were able to accomplish over these past several weeks 
and months. But those three individuals deserve special thanks.
  I must say, whatever I can accomplish as leader is only 
accomplishable because of the tremendous professionalism my staff 
demonstrates daily. Mark, Bart, and Jonathon certainly have done that 
in this case in ways for which I will never be able to thank them 
adequately.
  It is no secret that many of us have had difficulty supporting farm 
legislation in the past. So I can sympathize with Senator Lugar as he 
articulates his reasons for opposing this particular piece of 
legislation. He has been an advocate of prior farm bills because he 
believed in them. I am an advocate of this bill because I believe in 
it. I believe in it because I think it does so many things we have 
heard the chairman so eloquently articulate just now. I will not 
recount them; to do so would be redundant. But I really believe that, 
for the first time in a long time, we will be able to send a message of 
hope to farmers and ranchers all over the country; hope to farmers in 
South Dakota who may have lost some of the reason for hope in recent 
years; hope to young farmers who really want to become part of rural 
life and productive citizens, as the farmers and ranchers of the 
future; hope to those who believe we can do better in nutrition and 
find ways to do a better job with conservation; hope to those who 
believe we can figure out a way to balance the imbalance that exists 
now in the unfair trading practices used by some, and make sure 
consumers have the ability to know where their products are coming from 
now with country-of-origin labeling.
  So I must say, this is a great day for agriculture. This is a great 
day because we send a strong message to our farmers and ranchers of all 
generations, and to those who look to us for some expectation that they 
can survive and achieve great things, having chosen this wonderful 
profession. So I am very pleased with the result. I am hopeful that our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this result with a 
resounding vote this afternoon.
  I hope we can continue to build on what we have done. I have heard my 
colleagues come to the floor and suggest that now what we have to do is 
focus our attention on packer concentration. I heard Senator Harkin 
speak powerfully about his determination to continue that effort. So we 
know our work is not done, but we do know we have accomplished a good 
deal. We have created a foundation for the next 6 years upon which we 
can build even more--sending hope and creating even better and more 
promising days in the future for our farmers and ranchers, the likes of 
which I didn't think we would see this year.
  I thank the Chair and my colleagues, and I thank those on the 
committee. I thank the conferees, and I thank our staffs for a job well 
done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
for his very thoughtful and generous comments. It is my privilege now 
in the remainder of our time to thank people who have been very vital 
to this farm bill and with whom certainly I have had the pleasure of 
serving in this committee. They are our minority staff and detailees. I 
would like to name each one.
  Obviously, Keith Luse, my right-hand person, who is right by me now, 
our staff director throughout all of this; Dave Johnson, chief counsel; 
Carol Dubard; Andy Fisher; Michael Knipe; Walt Lukken; Andy Morton, our 
economist, who has been so helpful during this debate and for many 
years; Terri Nintemann; Carol Olander; Chris Salisbury; Erin Shaw; 
Daniel Spellacy; Pat Sweeney; Mark Tyndall; Dave White; and Benny 
Young. All of them are very able people, with great futures ahead of 
them. We look forward to continuing our work with the majority staff 
and with our distinguished chairman.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, on this vote, I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 2646. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 35, as follow:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--35

     Allen
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Carper
     Chafee
     Collins
     Corzine
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I voted today for the farm bill 
because

[[Page S4052]]

I believe that it provides some needed relief to our strapped farm 
industry as well as provides some new and much-appreciated assistance 
to the farmers of Connecticut. Our farm economy right now is in dire 
shape, and farmers from across the nation have pleaded with the 
Congress to give them the assurances that this bill possesses. I do not 
believe it is a time at which we can turn our back on the nation's 
farmers.
  The bill also provides some precedent-setting relief to the often 
ignored farm industry in my home state of Connecticut. In particular, 
the extension of the dairy program, the new assistance for the 
speciality crops that dominate our farmland, the increases in 
conservation funding over the status quo, and the various incentive 
programs for organic agriculture all will bring benefits to Connecticut 
farmers. Finally, the provision of $600 million annually in new 
nutrition programs, including the restoration of food stamps to many 
legal immigrants, will allow many Connecticut residents to provide 
essential supplies of food for their families.
  While this bill does provide support for who depend on the land for 
their living, like most legislation it is not perfect, and so I cast 
this vote with some reservations. I am concerned that several of the 
features that made the Senate-passed bill desirable have been weakened 
in conference. In particular, the conservation funding has been reduced 
and appears to be backloaded far into the future. The payment 
limitations that were adopted in order to ensure that funds were 
distributed more equitably, and not disproportionately to large 
corporate farms, also appear to have been weakened. While I cast my 
vote today for this bill, I hope that we can revisit these important 
issues in the near future.
  Mr. REID. 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. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the majority leader has asked me to 
announce there will be no further rollcall votes tonight.

                          ____________________