[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16042-16047]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 16042]]

                   EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE

  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I join the distinguished chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee in saying the fight always goes on for American 
farmers. In the Agriculture Committee we have that commitment. And it 
is one we take with a great deal of pride and, likewise, with a high 
energy level. But today, Madam President, let me just say American 
farmers rejoice because a remarkable thing has occurred in this Senate 
Chamber this morning. We have come together with our colleagues in the 
House to pass a bill, which now, through some effort, will go to the 
House, to the President for signature, and to American farmers.
  Let me just say the benefits to American farmers are very 
substantial. We began this quest because American farmers, according to 
the best estimate of the USDA, would receive--without our action--$3 
billion less in aggregate cash income this year. We have, by our 
actions this morning, sent to American farmers $5.5 billion. We have, 
in fact, exceeded the gap and, as a matter of fact, made certain that 
agricultural income in America for this year will be $2.5 billion more 
than last year.
  That has not escaped the attention of a good number of agricultural 
organizations that have beneficiaries. The American Soybean 
Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National 
Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cotton Council, and the U.S. 
Rice Producers Group have all written this morning to the chairman, 
with a copy of their letter to me, simply urging the Senate ``to take 
the necessary action and pass H.R. 2213''--the House bill--``without 
amendment and send the bill to the President.''
  Each of these groups wrote to the chairman: ``Without timely action, 
we face the prospect of missing the budget-imposed September 30 
deadline and forfeiting this crucial financial aid.'' I mention that 
because I appreciate their commendation of our work and their 
encouragement that we do precisely what we have done this morning.
  I want to mention that it is important that all Members understand 
what we have done; namely, that through the so-called AMTA payments, 
$4.622 billion in supplemental payments will be sent to producers in 
the next few days; $424 million in market loss payments to soybean 
producers and other oilseed producers, who received this assistance 
last year, will be distributed in the next few days; $159 million in 
assistance to producers of specialty crops, such as fruits and 
vegetables, will receive their money through our block grants to the 
States.
  I make that point because the only way in which money could 
conceivably have gotten to any specialty group would have been through 
these block grants to States and a distribution after finding the 
recipients in each of those States. I make that point because there 
always was an illusion that somehow money to specialty crops could come 
in some other way, but there are not good lists, the criteria, and the 
other aspects that have surrounded the so-called program crops. 
Therefore, this was an essential point, if the specialty crop 
recipients were to get their money before September 30. And $129 
million in market loss assistance will go to tobacco farmers, whose 
names and addresses are well known to USDA; $54 million, likewise, to 
peanut growers; $85 million for cotton seed; $17 million for wool and 
mohair producers; and $10 million of emergency food assistance support.
  I make these points because each one of us may have a wish list of 
those that we would like to receive money. The purpose of this action, 
the reason that both Houses have taken action--and we have done so 
unanimously this morning--is that we saw a gap for American agriculture 
in total. We have tried to fill the gap. In committing compromises and 
bicameral compromises, we have tried to make certain that assistance 
came to the normal program recipients since the time of the 1930s, the 
specialty crops, and to many others who were identified in previous 
supplemental bills of the last 2 years.
  I regret there is difficulty with regard to the stance of the 
President. I simply want to support the President very strongly in the 
action he took.
  First of all, he supported the $5.5 billion of payments. He pointed 
out, as I have this morning, that if these are to make a difference for 
farmers, they need to be received now. They need to make their 
appointments with the country bankers as required and make certain that 
they stay in business. It is easy enough for us to speculate that if we 
did not take action now or if we took action in the by and by, somehow 
more might be obtained.
  The fact is, more was not going to be obtained for farmers now. The 
only way in which money could be obtained was, first of all, following 
the budget resolution so a point of order was not entered; secondly, 
recognizing that the money destined for next year in the Senate 
Agriculture Committee's original bill was very likely to be taken off 
the table before it was distributed.
  I want to make the point again that we suggested earlier in the 
debate: While we are in recess, OMB and CBO are going to come forward 
with estimates of our national budget picture. Almost every prediction 
is that these estimates will downsize the amount of money that is 
anticipated to be coming into the Federal Government, the amount of the 
surplus, the amount of money, in fact, for the appropriations bills, 
eight of which are still to be considered by the Senate.
  Already the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, the distinguished ranking member, Senators Byrd and Stevens, 
are cautioning the subcommittees in appropriations not to exceed the 
allocations of money they have received. They are cautioning them 
because they are pointing out the money simply may not be there.
  We were in a position that if we did not take action now, it is very 
conceivable that the money that was destined for American farmers might 
not have been there either. The number of claimants, whether in 
defense, in health, in education, in all the various aspects of 
American life, are very considerable. We have pinned down for American 
farmers today money that we want to go to American farmers. We have 
done so in a responsible way. We have done so with the support of the 
President of the United States and both Houses of the Congress. That is 
no minor achievement in an agricultural piece of legislation.
  Let me point out one further thing about the President of the United 
States; that is, he is determined, as I hope most of us are, to be 
responsible with regard to money. We have had years in this body in 
which Members were more or less responsible--sometimes less. As a 
consequence, large deficits were the result.
  In a bipartisan way, we have determined those days ought to be over. 
It does require that, finally, we do our very best to conform to the 
budget, that we respect the rights at least of all the other claimants 
to Federal funds, including taxpayers. The President is simply saying: 
I am going to do my duty. If I see things exceeding the budget, I am 
going to veto those bills.
  He has said that with regard to our Agriculture Committee bill. If it 
exceeds $5.5 billion, I am going to veto it. The President said that to 
me personally at 3:40 yesterday afternoon, face to face. So there was 
no doubt. He did not hide behind a letter from OMB, did not suggest 
that unnamed advisers necessarily were speaking for him. He came to the 
Capitol twice during this week and talked about the trust he has in 
behalf of the American people, all of the American people, for the 
integrity of our financial system and the integrity of Social Security 
and Medicare and all of the educational plans he has worked with the 
Congress to forward and all the plans for health care for the elderly 
that he is working with the Congress to forward.
  All of these are also our objectives. They fit together only if there 
is a certain degree of discipline and order.
  The President has said: I am going to provide that. You can count on 
me.
  His credibility is at stake when he says that. Sometimes Presidents 
say, perhaps if this doesn't work out, this and that will occur. This 
President

[[Page 16043]]

said: If this exceeds $5.5 billion, I am going to veto it.
  I believed that. This morning, the Senate has believed that. The 
House believed that. We have a result in conformity with the budget. 
That is a victory for the American people likewise, as well as for 
agricultural America.
  Now it has, in fact, more money than the year before but some 
assurance that we are not going to have fiscal irresponsibility again, 
rampant inflation, the difficulties that come when there is not solid 
leadership at the top and in this body.
  Finally, let me say that it has been a pleasure for me to work on 
this bill with members of the Agriculture Committee, our chairman, 
Senator Harkin, with the present occupant of the chair, Ms. Stabenow, 
with many Members who had diverse views.
  One of the aspects of our committee I have found--my service is now 
in its 25th year--is that we do have diverse views because we come from 
constituents who believe very strongly about these issues and who want 
our advocacy and our support. We try to do that. I think we listen to 
each other, and we understand that there is not simply one crop in 
America that is dominant, that we are a very diverse group in terms of 
our interests. It is amazing how we are able to come together for good 
results.
  I believe we have come together for a good result on this day. I 
appreciate, even as I say that--I see the faces and hear the words of 
the Members--that not every aspect of this result is in conformity with 
what we might have wished would have occurred. I made the admission, as 
I was offering an amendment the other day--which failed narrowly by 52-
48--that this is not exactly the amendment I would have started with or 
the one maybe I would have finished with. Nevertheless, it was an 
amendment that reflected the views of Members of the House and many 
members of our committee and, in my judgment, was in the realm of the 
possible. That is the final criteria for agricultural bills. It takes 
very little skill to paint a picture of all of the money that might go 
to various States or people or crops or groups in America. Simply to 
add them up and say, here is the total, believe me, all of these are 
good folks and all need the money. That is true. They are all good, and 
they all need the money. Agriculture does not pay well.
  The facts of life are that money that goes into agriculture is very 
important, not only for the recipients but for our country, for the 
continuity of all of our States and small towns in the rural areas that 
we try to support.
  At the same time, most farmers I know understand that funds are not 
available for everything. They want people of common sense to make 
certain that there is something at the end of the rainbow as opposed to 
blue-sky thinking and more grandiose schemes.
  In due course, we are going to have an opportunity, under the 
leadership of our chairman, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, to 
consider a farm bill this year or next, or whatever the context may be 
in the scheduling of the distinguished chairman. I will join him 
enthusiastically, as I suspect the occupant of the chair will, as we 
take a look at conservation programs that are very important for 
America, for rural development programs that are important, not just 
for farmers but often for the second income for farmers and their 
families and those who are important to agricultural production in 
America.
  We are going to take a look, I hope, at nutrition programs that make 
a very sizable difference for many Americans beyond production in 
agriculture. This scope of our committee's activities is broad, as 
broad as food, nutrition, and forestry might imply, and that is 
exciting.
  I think we are going to have a superb farm bill, and I hope we will 
be able to work closely with our friends in the House, with the White 
House, with everybody, so we move along together without 
misunderstandings and have the best sort of result at the end of the 
road with the greatest amount of agreement.
  I trust in the course of brokering all of these different ideas there 
will be some disagreement, and ultimately we will have to make hard 
choices. I am prepared to work on that project with that thought firmly 
in mind, and I look forward to it. For the moment, I believe we have 
great news this morning for farmers in America but likewise for the 
citizens of our country because we have acted in a responsible way. We 
will have even better news as we proceed into a new farm bill and take 
a comprehensive look at all the ways we might affect the lives of 
Americans in a very constructive way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I know the Senator from New York is next 
up to speak, and I ask unanimous consent that I speak for about 3 
minutes without jeopardizing her right to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, be added to the list of speakers and be 
allowed to speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I take this time to express my deep 
gratitude to my ranking member, my good friend, the distinguished 
Senator from Indiana, to thank him for the graciousness he has given to 
me, first when he was chairman and I was ranking member and now when I 
am chairman and he is ranking member. I could not ask for a better 
partner on the Senate Agriculture Committee than Senator Lugar. We have 
worked very closely together.
  This legislative disagreement we had here this week again reminds me 
of why this is called the crucible of democracy. We grind these issues 
out in time and we move ahead, which is what I have always loved about 
the legislative process. Friends can differ. We can fight these things 
out and work them out, and we move ahead.
  I am quite taken by what the distinguished ranking member said about 
looking ahead on the farm bill. We have discussed this personally, in 
private, many times.
  Everything the distinguished ranking member just mentioned is 
something I feel strongly about and feel deeply about. I believe we are 
going to have many, many opportunities to work together this fall to 
fashion a new farm bill, as the distinguished ranking member said, that 
looks at the broad spectrum of agriculture beyond just production but 
all of the aspects of agriculture.
  I am quite heartened by his words and, again, I want the Senator from 
Indiana to know how much I really appreciate the many kindnesses he and 
his staff have shown to me and my staff through all of the processes of 
the changes that have come about this summer, and working on this bill, 
and I really look forward to working with him on the development of the 
new farm bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I also thank the chairman and ranking 
member for not only the work they have done on this bill but the work 
they will do on the farm bill this fall. I know this is a difficult 
matter.
  Both the chairman and the ranking member have outlined the challenges 
ahead of us, but I know everyone in this Chamber is ready and willing 
to work together to get a result that will be not only fair to our 
farmers but will recognize the full extent of both agricultural and 
conservation needs that go hand in hand with agriculture throughout our 
country.
  I rise today to say a few words about agriculture in New York because 
I have noticed many of my colleagues are surprised there is agriculture 
in New York. Many people, perhaps some in the gallery today, think of 
New York and think of New York City. They may fly into LaGuardia or out 
of JFK. They do not get a chance to travel throughout the State to see 
the beauty of the scenery and to know how important agriculture is to 
the livelihood, the economy, and the future of New York.

[[Page 16044]]

  In every section of New York, even surprisingly in some of the 
boroughs of New York City, there are still some agricultural interests. 
Much of the State, from St. Lawrence to Orleans, to the entire southern 
tier out into Long Island, agriculture remains a critical part of the 
fabric of life in New York and is a crucial livelihood for countless 
New Yorkers.
  In fact, agriculture still is the No. 1 economic sector in New York, 
which would come, I suppose, as a surprise to many people from the 
Midwest or the South. I have been fortunate, having grown up in the 
Midwest--actually in Illinois, right between the chairman and the 
ranking member of the Agriculture Committee--to know a little bit about 
Midwest agriculture. Then I have been honored to have lived in 
Arkansas, for which good friend Senator Lincoln, having come from a 
farming family, is a champion, so I know full well how critical 
agriculture is in the Midwest, in the South, in the West, but I do not 
want anyone in this Chamber or anyone in our country to overlook or 
forget how important agriculture is in the Northeast and particularly 
in the State of New York.
  I received a letter from a farmer in Kent, NY. What he has written 
could be written from the chairman's State or the ranking member's 
State. I want to read what he said:

       I am writing this letter with great concern on behalf of 
     our family farm. Our family farm was started in early 1900 by 
     my grandfather and grandmother when they came to America from 
     England. I started working on the farm as a young man at the 
     age of 7 by riding with my father and watching how to work 
     and how to make a living, by providing food for the world in 
     which we live. Now at age 46, I sit back and try to evaluate 
     what is wrong with our agriculture picture.
       Our cost of production has gone through the roof as fuel, 
     labor and growing mandates are taking our profit out of the 
     picture. Our fresh fruit apples, after being packed out of 
     storage, have a slim chance to exceed the cost of production.
       Our vegetable operation, along with our grain crops, are in 
     the same position, due to commodity prices that are lower 
     than 25 years ago, but yet fuel prices alone have more than 
     doubled in 15 months.

  He goes on to write:

       Usually, there is always one commodity that excels each 
     year to offset the poorer priced ones, but that has not 
     happened in the past year. Your first response is to get your 
     cost of production down and to establish a higher yield, but 
     we have exhausted all of these options. Every time we have a 
     potential for a commodity price increase, one of our 
     competitors ship across the borders, keep prices low and here 
     we sit in New York just trying to survive.
       I have a great deal of pride and want to do my part to keep 
     agriculture the number one industry in our County of Orleans, 
     State of New York. Let us get agriculture out of this 
     situation and back on track immediately.

  I could not agree with this gentleman more. What I hope we are going 
to be able to do, as the chairman, the ranking member, and the 
committee members craft their farming bill for this fall, is to make 
sure those of us who may not be on the committee but who represent 
farmers and a farming State, no matter how difficult that may be for 
some to believe, will also be at that table because we have to be heard 
on behalf of our farmers.
  I want to point to this chart. In 1964, there were 66,510 family 
farms. In 1997, we are down to 31,757. Certainly, some of those farms 
were lost because New York grew. The county I live in became pricey, 
choice real estate for people who wanted to live near New York City. We 
are fighting to preserve the farmland we still have left in Westchester 
County.
  We know there were inevitable changes. No one is arguing against the 
inevitability of change that is going to take farmland out of 
production, but in many parts of our State we lost population. There 
was not population pressure forcing people into the country, therefore 
doing away with available farmland. We lost farmland because our 
farmers were not given a fair shake, were not given the tools with 
which to compete.
  As we look at the farm bill, I hope we are going to also look at the 
important essential role farmers play in conservation, preserving our 
rural countryside, making it possible to have high water quality and 
wildlife habitat. I know if it were not for farmers all up and down the 
Midwest and the South, there would not be as many ducks to hunt every 
year. I know farmers have played a critical role in preserving wildlife 
habitat for hunters and for the enjoyment of so many other people.
  Farmers have a role not only in producing quality, affordable food, 
but also improving water quality and wildlife habitat, restoring 
wetlands, and protecting farmland from further development. I hope we 
are going to get some of that conservation assistance in the farm bill 
coming this fall. I would have preferred by far the bill that came out 
of the committee in the Senate. That was not possible because of the 
President's veto threat. That is what the ranking member just 
explained. I deeply regret that.
  As the chairman, Senator Harkin, pointed out, this would not have 
busted the budget. This was forward funding that would have gone into 
next year. The dollars then could have been distributed not only to 
help our farmers but also to do the conservation work that they do for 
all of us.
  I want to mention also that we have some crops in New York that do 
not produce a lot of money, less than $10,000, but we are proud of 
them. We have a lot of orchards in New York, going from 6,931 in 1964 
to 2,436 in 1997. We still are proud of our apple growers. We are proud 
of our speciality crops.
  In May, there was an article in the Washington Post about the plight 
of apple growers in Albany, NY. It told how this past March Susan and 
Gary Davis auctioned off the machinery they used to tend orchards and 
vegetables on a farm that had been in their family for a century. They 
said: You feel like you are letting them down, both past generations 
and your own children. But they just could not keep up with the costs, 
and their farm manager finally said he could not do it anymore. The 
grower gave up and moved to find a livelihood somewhere else.
  We know we have to do more to make farming a viable alternative for 
those who are willing to put in the long hours, are willing to do the 
work that gives us a safe food supply. I consider food security part of 
national security. Certainly that is true when it comes to the 
speciality crops and also when it comes to dairy in New York.
  Our dairy farmers are down to 8,732 farms. I bet a lot of people did 
not know there were 8,700 dairy farms in New York. We are the third 
largest dairy producing State in America, and we are proud of that 
fact. But we have to have some help. We have to be able to compete with 
our neighbors to the north, with our neighbors to the south, and with 
our neighbors to the west.
  Milk is New York's leading agricultural product, creating almost $2 
billion in receipts. We rank third behind California and Wisconsin. Our 
dairy farmers are probably the hardest working farmers, maybe the 
hardest working small businesspeople, one will find anywhere. It is a 
24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week job. I was visiting with some of our dairy 
farmers on the shores of Lake Champlain. They have been there for 
seven, eight, and nine generations. This is a difficult, tough job. We 
should not make it any harder. We should be proud of those who are 
willing to do this work, and we should find ways to support them 
because it helps all of us.
  Finally, I hope my colleague, Senator Schumer, and I are able to 
convey as clearly and, hopefully, persuasively as possible that when 
agriculture is discussed, New York should be at the table. I thank 
everyone in this Chamber for giving us the opportunity to have our 
farmers receive the same help that all of our farmers in America need.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, there is a sigh of relief all 
throughout farm country in regard to passage of this emergency 
assistance. We avoided a partisan train wreck, losing the money, taking 
the money from next year's farm bill, and or next year's emergency 
assistance. I regret that it came to this. This is a trail we really 
did not have to take.
  When you serve on the Agriculture Committee--and I have done that in

[[Page 16045]]

the House and Senate--you have the opportunity to serve on one of the 
most nonpartisan committees in the Congress.
  With the events of the past week, I deeply regret what some have 
referred to as partisan milk that got a little sour and curdled a 
little bit. But, we have cleaned it up and we have made some progress. 
We have an old expression in my hometown of Dodge City, KS: If you are 
riding ahead of the herd, it's a good thing to take a look back now and 
then to make sure it is still there.
  I say to my colleagues, the reverse is also true. We have done that 
today. It is a good idea for both sides to take a look and tell your 
leadership when you are about to be driven off an emergency assistance 
cliff along with our farmers and ranchers. We avoided that today, and 
that is a positive step.
  We had the possibility of endangering emergency funding for our 
farmers and ranchers. I was worried some would have preferred an issue 
as opposed to a bill. We were about to saw off the branch that supports 
our farmers and hang all of us in the process.
  Here is the deal. If the majority had prevailed, the bill would have 
had to be conferenced with the House. If we simply check the lights in 
the House, they are out of town; they are gone. I went over to the 
House last night during the debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I 
met with both the Agriculture Committee chairman, Larry Combest, and 
the ranking member, Charlie Stenholm, both good friends, not to mention 
the members of the House Agriculture Committee. They were adamant, and 
I mean adamant--put that in bold letters--in support of the statement 
they released a day or two ago. Their statement--not mine--said:

       For the sake of our farmers, the U.S. Senate must put 
     politics aside and realize the critical importance of passing 
     the 2001 crop assistance bill immediately, so that the 
     process can continue and a bill can be sent to the President 
     for signature.

  The House statement went on:

       The House Ag Committee, anticipating this need, acted early 
     and responsibly, passing a bill out 6 weeks ago.

  That is now 7 weeks.

       This bill was passed by the House on June 26--

  Unanimously on a voice vote--

     and was immediately sent to the Senate where it languished. 
     If payments are not made before September 30 of this year 
     then $5.5 billion that was fought for and budgeted for 
     farmers will disappear. At this critical time, we must all 
     put our agendas aside and concentrate our efforts on 
     providing the needed assistance for farmers. It is unwise to 
     encumber the bill with unnecessary, nonemergency items like 
     increased conservation spending when our farmers' livelihoods 
     hang in the balance. The process must move on.

  My friends, those were the words of the Chairman and Ranking Member 
in the House. We have done that. I think it is a step in the right 
direction.
  I point out that one of the reasons the House was so adamant, why 
they were so upset, is that the House Agriculture Committee passed a 
new farm bill out of committee last week, and it uses the $2 billion 
extra that was in the Senator from Iowa's approach for their farm bill. 
I do not know how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
have proposed, or we would have proposed, to reconcile the difference.
  I am not sure what the farm bill will look like in the Senate, but I 
do not think we want to propose the House cut their own farm bill in 
terms of target price, AMTA payments, loan levels. Obviously the 
farmers of wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and soybean in North Dakota, 
South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, and Kansas would not have 
supported that move.
  I say it again: We were about to borrow from the future. We did not 
do that.
  I will sum up what I think happened in this situation. I think it 
could be a good lesson learned.
  June 5, my colleagues on the other side take over control of the 
Senate and the Senate Agriculture Committee. June 20, the House 
Agriculture Committee passed its bill. This is the emergency assistance 
bill. June 26, the full House passed the bill on a voice vote. June 28 
to July 24, 6 hearings were held in the Senate Agriculture Committee on 
the farm bill and other issues no hearings or meetings on the 
assistance package were held during this time. July 25 we went to 
markup. Late July 27, the bill is brought up for debate; July 30 
through today, this moment, debate on the legislation. July 31, the CBO 
sends a letter to the Senate stating 2001 funds will be scored in 2002 
if the bill is not passed before the August recess. July 31, the House 
Agriculture Committee Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm 
asked the Senate to please approve the House-passed bill and get the 
money to farmers and ranchers. August 1, Mr. Combest and Mr. Stenholm 
make strong statements that I don't have to go into, again asking the 
Senate to pass the House bill. August 2, CBO verbally confirmed to me 
what they stated in their previous letter of July 31: The bill must be 
passed before the August recess or they will score the money going out 
in fiscal year 2002. Again this morning, CBO staff again confirm to my 
staff that the Senate bill, as written, must be passed before the 
August recess in order for the money to be scored in fiscal year 2001.
  I think that lays out the facts.
  Again, the point was, delay. In August, there is going to be a new 
budget estimate. I think we all know about the rhetoric and the 
legislation that will be flying around in September and October with 
any emergency or additional spending bumping against the trust funds.
  Do we really want to be considering a package like this with 
amendments, saying we cannot use the money because it will allegedly 
come from Social Security? Do we want agriculture in that position? Do 
we want farmers and ranchers being the poster people for raiding Social 
Security? I don't think that is a very good idea.
  Finally, you can't have it both ways. Further delay of trade 
authority for the President and getting a consistent and aggressive 
export policy will certainly mean a continued loss of market share and 
exports. We have to sell our commodities. If we don't, it means there 
will be calls for another emergency bill next year. I hope we don't 
have to have that, but we may. And this money and this emergency bill, 
or at least in the proposal offered by the distinguished chairman, 
would have taken money from that account.
  I was very worried this morning. I thought Senators could, maybe 
would, take this issue and ride with it, that we would have gone 
squarely into a boxed canyon and fired off our shotguns of partisan 
rhetoric, whoop and holler as to who was to blame. Some of that has 
been said on the Senate floor. Or we could have passed the House 
version, and we did, of emergency relief and get assistance to hard-
pressed farmers and hopefully begin bipartisan work on the next farm 
bill.
  I have been through six farm bills. You can always have an issue or 
you can always have a bill. It is basically that simple. In this 
regard, without question, I think the decision reached spared 
agriculture and that means the assessments will be forthcoming.
  There used to be a chairman in the House Agriculture Committee in 
Texas, Bob Poage, an outstanding chairman, great chairman. People used 
to ask Bob, when a farm bill came to the floor of the House, Mr. Poage, 
Mr. Chairman, is this the best possible bill? And he would say, no; but 
it is the best bill possible.
  In a gesture of friendship and bipartisanship with the distinguished 
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, the distinguished ranking 
member, and other members of the Agriculture Committee, the 
distinguished acting Presiding Officer is a very valued member of the 
committee. Let's work together on this. Let's not go down this road 
again. Let's work in a bipartisan matter for farmers. I pledge I will 
do that. I pledge to the chairman I will do that. This morning was not 
a pleasant experience for any of us. But we did the right thing as of 
this morning.
  To reiterate:
  Mr. President, this is a partisan trail that we did not have to take. 
When you serve on the Agriculture Committee, you have the opportunity 
to serve on

[[Page 16046]]

one of the most nonpartisan committees in the Congress. With this 
standoff, I deeply regret the spilled partisan milk, and its gotten 
pretty sour.
  There is an old expression we have in my home town of Dodge City, 
KS--``If you are riding ahead of the herd it's a good thing to take a 
look back now and then to make sure its still there.''
  My colleagues, the reverse is also true. It would be most timely and 
a good idea this morning for the herd across the aisle to look ahead 
and tell your leadership that you are about to be driven off an 
emergency assistance cliff--along with our farmers and ranchers.
  Those who are endangering emergency funding for our farmers and 
ranchers, those who apparently prefer an issue to emergency farmer 
relief are about to saw off the branch that will support farmers and 
hang all of us in the process. Here is the deal.
  Obviously, should the majority prevail, this bill would have to be 
conferenced with the House. Check the lights over there, the House is 
gone. I went over to the House last night during the debate on the 
Patients' Bill of Rights and met with both Agriculture Chairman Larry 
Combest and Ranking Member Charlie Stenholm, not to mention many 
members of the House Agriculture Committee.
  They are ADAMANT in support of the statement they released just a day 
or two ago. That statement, theirs--not mine--said this:

       The Senate Majority Leader is diverting attention with a 
     fast shell game to quickly switch blame for the Senate not 
     finishing its work on farmer assistance on time. Close of 
     business set for early August has been scheduled since the 
     beginning of the year. Against this well publicized early 
     August deadline, the Senate has had the House-approved bill 
     languishing for over a month now. There has been absolutely 
     nothing keeping the Senate Agriculture Committee from moving 
     on its own package, rather than waiting until the last 
     minute. The Senate's search for an excuse on a past-due bill 
     must mean they fear going home to face the music from 
     constituents.

  In another statement on July 31:

       For the sake of our farmers, the U.S. Senate must put 
     politics aside and realize the critical importance of passing 
     the 2001 crop assistance bill immediately so, that the 
     process can continue and a bill can be sent to the President 
     for signature. The House Ag committee, anticipating this 
     need, acted early and responsibly, passing a bill out 6 weeks 
     ago. This bill was passed by the House on June 26, and was 
     immediately sent to the Senate where it has languished. If 
     payments are not made before September 30 of this year, then 
     $5.5 billion that was fought for and budgeted for farmers 
     will disappear. At this critical time, we must all put our 
     agendas aside and concentrate our efforts on providing the 
     needed assistance for farmers. It is unwise to encumber the 
     bill with unnecessary, non-emergency items like increased 
     conservation spending when our farmers' livelihoods hang in 
     the balance. The process must move on, and the Senate must 
     act.

  I would also point out that the House Agriculture Committee passed a 
new farm bill out of committee last week. It uses this $2 billion for 
2002 funding on the new farm bill.
  How do my colleagues on the other side propose to reconcile this 
difference? I'm not sure what the farm bill will look like in the 
Senate. But would they propose the House cut the target price, AMTA, or 
loan levels in its proposal? Will the wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and 
soybean farmers in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, 
Arkansas, and other States support that move?
  I will say it again, we are borrowing from the future if we pass this 
bill as it is currently written.
  Mr. President, let me sum up:
  June 5: My colleagues on the other side take over control of the 
Senate and Senate Agriculture Committee.
  June 20: House Agriculture Committee passes its bill.
  June 26: The full House passes the bill on a voice vote.
  June 28 to July 24: Six hearings in the Senate Agriculture Committee 
on the farm bill and other issues. No hearings or meetings on this 
assistance package.
  July 25: Mark-up.
  Late July 27: Bill is brought up for debate.
  July 30 through today: debate on this legislation.
  July 31: CBO sends letter to the Senate stating 2001 funds will be 
scored in 2002 if the bill is not passed before the August recess.
  July 31: House Agriculture Committee Chairman Combest and Ranking 
Member Stenholm ask the Senate to approve the House passed bill and get 
our money to our farmers and ranchers.
  August 1: Mr. Combest and Mr. Stenholm accuse the Senate majority 
leader and chairman of obstructing the passage of this important 
legislation.
  August 2: CBO verbally confirmed to me what they had stated in their 
previous letter of July 31: the bill must be passed before August 
recess or they will score the money going out in FY02.
  Mr. President, I believe that lays out the facts.
  Again, the point is the delay. In August, there will be a new budget 
estimate. And we all know the rhetoric and legislation that will be 
flying around here with regard any emergency or additional spending 
bumping against trust funds. Do we really want to be considering this 
package with amendments saying we cannot use the money because it 
allegedly will come from Social Security. Do we want agriculture in 
that position?
  Finally, let me say you cannot have it both ways on the other side of 
the aisle. Further delay of trade authority for the President will 
certainly mean continued loss of market share and exports. That means 
another emergency bill next year. And, this money robs that account.
  Now, Senators can take the issue and ride with it, squarely into a 
box canyon and fire off our partisan pop guns and whoop and holler as 
to who was to blame. Or we can pass the House version of emergency 
relief and get the assistance to our hard pressed farmers and hopefully 
begin bipartisan work on the next farm bill.
  We can have an issue or we can enact emergency assistance, it is that 
simple. In this regard, without question the decision reached this 
morning will spare agriculture further delay and will provide the 
assistance needed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I came to the floor last night in a 
great deal of frustration, and now I come to the floor in a great deal 
of disappointment. This morning, the Senate moved forward on an 
emergency assistance package for farmers that most in this body know is 
inadequate. We have done something. We have moved forward, as many 
people have said, because the House has left or because the President 
drew a line in the sand.
  That is not what our job in the Senate is. Our job in the Senate is 
to do the best we can possibly do. Is this bill the best we can do? 
Absolutely not. I don't think there is a Senator in this Chamber who 
thinks we have done the best job we could do on an Agriculture 
emergency supplemental bill. That is amazing to me.
  We approved a bill that most Members know is not going to provide 
even the minimum of support that our farmers and our communities, our 
rural communities, our community banks, and our rural economies really 
need. Our program crops said from day 1 of this year they needed AMTA 
payments at 100 percent of the 1999 level.
  In February, when we started going to the administration, saying we 
are going to need an emergency Agriculture supplemental bill, we are 
going to need 100-percent AMTA at 1999 levels, we are going to have to 
have it; our bankers are saying they are making loans to our 
agricultural producers based on the fact they are going to get 100 
percent at 1999 levels, the administration and others came back and 
said: Wait until we get through with this tax bill. Then they said: 
Well, wait until we finish with the education bill. Then we will deal 
with it. And then: Let's wait until we get past the Patients' Bill of 
Rights and we will deal with it. Wait, wait, wait until we get back 
from the Fourth of July recess.
  And guess what. We made the mistake of believing them and we waited 
in good faith, thinking at the end of the road the administration would 
have the same consideration for production agriculture as those who 
have grown up in it. Guess what. We were

[[Page 16047]]

wrong. We were wrong. We thought they would come in good faith from the 
administration and work with Members on this.
  Have they? No. People have said: I am tired; it is time for vacation. 
Let's go home.
  Our specialty crops needed more money for commodity purchases and 
other forms of support. All of our production farmers needed 
assistance. Where were we? The administration says farm income is at an 
all-time high. Guess what. Do you know why it is at an all-time high? 
Because the rural economy has been in the tanks for years. Their energy 
costs are at an all-time high and rising. Their fertilizer input costs 
are at an all-time high. Their energy costs, diesel--name it--implement 
costs, the costs of buying machinery, and the costs of meeting 
environmental regulations, every one of them is at an all-time high, 
and many of our States have producers whose farmer income, 50 percent 
of it, is government payment. Why? Because we have not provided for our 
agricultural producers in terms of good, solid, trade opportunities and 
global marketplace shares because we have not taken into consideration 
what it means to those individuals to produce a safe and abundant and 
affordable food supply for those who enjoy it.
  We enjoy the most environmentally sound agricultural products in the 
world coming out of this country. That is all going away unless we make 
an obligation to production agriculture, that when it comes time to 
being there for them, we will be there, instead of just saying all year 
long: Just wait. Just wait until we get through all of these other 
things and then we will be there for you.
  I look at some of my local spinach growers in Arkansas who are not 
far from local canneries yet find it impossible sometimes to market 
their spinach just down the road because they can be outbid by spinach 
that is coming in from Mexico, grown with chemicals we banned over 10 
years ago.
  What are we doing for production agriculture, to make sure that you 
and I will continue to have that environmentally well grown product for 
our children and for future generations? What is our response? Give 
them less than they need, close up shop, and fly home for vacation. 
Why? Because the House is going home, we can't do anything.
  Well if the House jumps off the bridge, are we going to jump off the 
bridge, too? What if the administration says it is just not that 
important; we are not going to come over to negotiate with you to come 
to some middle ground that is going to provide our producers the 100 
percent of AMTA from 1999 levels that we promised them back in 
February? I don't know. I reject that. I still believe I am here to do 
the best job I can possibly do for those American producers. I reject 
the argument that it is too late. I reject the argument that we cannot 
give them what they need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I reject the argument that we cannot stay here and 
fight for our American producers and our farmers.
  Farmers themselves say that government is just waiting until they die 
away, that the family farmer is gone and we can just depend on 
corporate America to provide us what we need.
  I look around at some of the fights I have been fighting this year on 
behalf of aquaculture and fish farmers in Arkansas. They are having to 
compete with misleading labeling from other countries that are claiming 
they are producing that kind of product which we produce here, a farm-
raised, grain-fed product, when we know what is coming in the country 
from Vietnam is not that. It is raised on the Mekong River under 
unbelievable environmental conditions. Yet it has been sent to this 
country in misleading ways and sold to the consumers here.
  We are dealing with a crisis in agricultural production. I come to 
the floor saddened. As I look around at this body, I realize that the 
Members of the Senate years ago used to travel here from their home 
farms in faraway States and spend the time that they did to debate the 
issues of this country, all the while still remembering where they came 
from, the heartland that they represented, the communities and the 
agricultural producers. In my home State of Arkansas, when that farmer 
is out in the field and he is bringing in his crop, he is picking 
cotton or he is combining beans or he is combining rice and gets to the 
end of a long hot day, and the Sun is setting and he sees a 
thunderstorm coming out of the west, do you know what. He doesn't pack 
it up and go home. He turns the lights on, on his combine, and he keeps 
going, because he believes in producing for the American people and the 
world the safest, most abundant and affordable food supply in this 
world, and he does no less.
  I, for one, think the Senate could do better. I think we must.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

                          ____________________