[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16047-16051]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  EMERGENCY AGRICULTURE ASSISTANCE ACT

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I know for me to speak on the floor 
about agriculture raises some eyebrows, let's say. I have found that as 
I, along with others, have been trying to help my colleague from 
Vermont who has been fighting a lonely battle, for Northeast 
agriculture. When I spoke in the Democratic caucus, I heard someone 
sort of singing ``Old McDonald,'' and other things. So people ask, why 
am I so interested in agriculture, coming from a State such as New 
York?
  For one thing, people forget how much agriculture there is in the 
State of New York. We are a large agricultural producer. We rank third 
in dairy production. We rank second or third, depending on the year, in 
apple production. We are high up in onions and many kinds of specialty 
products. In fact--and these are numbers that even surprised me--New 
York has 38,000 farmers. That is 13,500 more farmers than Idaho; 10,400 
more than Montana; 7,700 more than North Dakota; 5,500 more than South 
Dakota; and 28,800 more than Wyoming. So those States which are 
regarded as agricultural States have fewer farmers, many fewer, than my 
State of New York.
  We do have a large city--we have several large cities. Thank God, we 
have lots of other kinds of industries. But agriculture is a vital 
industry.
  The second reason I care about agriculture--and it has been new to 
me; 18 years in the House serving a district in a corner of Brooklyn 
and Queens, we didn't have any farmers--is meeting the people who do 
it. I met one family with a farm in their family in Suffolk County for 
12 generations. You look into their eyes and see how hard-working they 
are and see how productive they are, and you see the land and God's 
beauty in a wonderful way give forth fruits and vegetables and crops. 
You see how hard they work and you feel for them.
  They are on a frustrating treadmill. It seems they work harder and 
harder but survival in agriculture is even more difficult for them. You 
look into their eyes and you realize something else. These farmers are 
the breeder reactor, the place where American values grow and are 
nurtured. It has been so since the Republic was founded, and it still 
is. The values of hard work and teamwork and self-reliance and 
individuality, for which our country is known and blessed, have started 
on the farm.

[[Page 16048]]

  So even if all the food could be produced somewhere else and it could 
be as good and as high quality, I do not think we would want to lose 
farmers from America and the American way of life because the two are 
so inextricably tied. So I care about agriculture. I care a great deal 
about our farmers in New York.
  This farm bill, admittedly, does not do what we want. But I want to 
tell the farmers that we have gotten a pledge from our majority leader 
that the part of this bill that was cut out by the House will be 
debated in September. That includes the relief for the apple farmers 
that many of us in the Northeast--my colleague, Senator Clinton--and 
Senator Levin and Senator Stabenow and the two Senators from Washington 
worked hard to get in the bill. That will come back and have another 
chance. The provisions the Senator from Iowa put in the bill to deal 
with specialty crops and conservation, which affected the Northeast, 
will come back as well. I am glad about that.
  When the farm bill comes up, we will make our fight for the dairy 
farmers, and it is going to be a royal fight because we really care 
about them.
  What I would like my colleagues to know is, my good friend from 
Vermont, who has often been alone in this fight, is now being joined by 
many of us. As I mentioned, my colleagues Senator Clinton and Senator 
Torricelli are in the fight; Senator Jeffords, of course, has always 
been in the fight, as have our Senators from Massachusetts and 
Pennsylvania and other States as well. We are going to put Northeast 
agriculture on the legislative map.
  It will not be good enough to have bills any longer that do not do a 
thing for us. I think we have persuaded our Democratic leadership here 
in the Senate to do so. We have a bit of work to do in the House. We 
have a bit of work to do in the White House. But we are going to do it.
  In fact, as I look at this as somebody admittedly new to agriculture, 
I would like to make a point to my colleagues. I have never seen a 
place where we spend so much money and where there is so much 
unhappiness among the recipients. Something is dramatically wrong.
  Mr. President, 50 percent or 47 percent of farm income is now 
Government. I do not know one other area in the country where that 
happens. I am willing to do it because, as I said, I believe in the 
family farm and the values that they bring. But can't we come up with a 
better way? Can't we come up with a way that makes the family wheat 
farmer in North Dakota and the family corn and hog farmers in Illinois 
happier than they are now? Can't we as we come up with that come up 
with something that includes the dairy farmer in New York or Vermont or 
the apple grower in New Jersey or Massachusetts? We have to come up 
with a better way because the present way isn't working.
  More and more money--this is another $5 billion--doesn't help our 
area. Our fights will come later in September and in October with the 
farm bill. But that $5.5 billion isn't making many people happy, even 
though they are getting it, because they are still struggling.
  Freedom to Farm is a problem. Everyone says it. I tend to agree. But 
you know that we had problems before Freedom to Farm, too. As long as I 
have been in the Congress, which is from 1981, we have seen more and 
more money going to agriculture and our family farmers be less and less 
happy. They are not happy in the Northeast where we get very little 
help. They are not happy in the Middle West and the South where they 
get a lot of help.
  We are going to have to come together and come up with a system that 
works that doesn't put 80 percent of the money to huge agribusiness 
where they do not need it but directs the dollars at the family farm 
and gives that family I talked about as I began my speech, who wakes up 
at sunrise and battles the elements and produces God's bounty from the 
Earth, a fighting chance.
  Let's not continue on this treadmill to nowhere. It is going to 
divide us. You see the fissures already. More importantly, it is not 
going to help the people we want to help--the family farmer.
  I am here today to stick up for the 38,000 New York farmers who work 
hard--and many others who depend on them--and the Northeastern farmer 
and to say to my colleagues we have to do a lot better in a system that 
continually spends more money and produces less happiness among the 
people who are its recipients.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud the senior Senator from New York 
for his statement. I note that the two Senators from New York have been 
in the conferences we held. They fought hard for the interests of the 
Northeast and the Atlantic States. It is partly because of that fight 
that I have to stand here today to strongly oppose another of the 
misguided, unbalanced, and actually archaic plans for emergency 
agricultural assistance.
  To put it bluntly, not only for Vermont farmers but farmers 
throughout the Northeast and Mid Atlantic States, they receive little 
or no relief from this package. This package is unbalanced and unfair 
to my region, even when it passed the House of Representatives, and it 
remains unbalanced and unfair as it passes the Senate today.
  Chairman Harkin's bill that passed out of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee recognizes the emergency assistance needs for all farmers in 
all States. Chairman Harkin's bill has comprehensive assistance for 
specialty crops, including desperately needed assistance for our 
Nation's apple growers. It also adds needed funding for voluntary 
agricultural conservation programs on private lands, programs that the 
President chose not to fund this year despite overwhelming needs, and 
in spite of critical backlogs in all 50 States.
  Conservation assistance funds are critical for cash-poor farmers--
especially in my region of the country--helping farm families comply 
with the highest water and soil quality standards to keep their 
farmland healthy not only for this year but for next year.
  None of those comprehensive specialty crop funds, nor conservation 
funds, are found in the bill we just passed.
  Senator Harkin's bill also added disaster assistance for the 
devastation caused by armyworms in New England and throughout the 
country. None of this assistance is in the bill we just passed.
  Despite what one may hear, the bill we passed is not agricultural 
assistance for all farmers--not by a long shot. It is sodden with 
regional disparity. Those of us from the regions that have been 
slighted strongly believe that this has to be the last agricultural 
bill with such bias. It is not even fiscally responsible.
  The bill sends billions of taxpayer dollars--dollars that come from 
farm families across the Nation--to a handful of States in the Midwest. 
In fact, almost $3 billion of the $5.5 billion in emergency 
agricultural assistance--about 50 percent of this agricultural 
assistance--will go to only 10 States.
  I have to ask, Why? Why does my State of Vermont--a State where 
family farmers are in serious trouble, where low prices and poor 
weather conditions are forcing farmers to sell their family land--
receive less than four one-hundredths of a percent of this year's 
emergency agricultural assistance?
  Vermont farmers pay taxes, too. In fact, if assistance in this so-
called agricultural emergency bill were based on the true value of 
Vermont's contributions to the Nation's agriculture, Vermont would 
receive over six times what I see in this bill.
  Farmers throughout the Northeast and Mid Atlantic States pay their 
taxes. While those farmers produce almost 7 percent of the Nation's 
agricultural products, those farmers receive 1 percent of the $5.5 
billion flying out these doors to the Midwest.
  Look at Texas. Texas farmers are going to receive about 8 percent of 
the $5.5 billion--almost $400 million alone. When all is said and done, 
five select States in this country will each receive

[[Page 16049]]

over $300 million for this bill. Ten States are going to get over $150 
million. The rest get practically nothing.
  Some may say we passed this bill to expedite funds to our Nation's 
farmers. I think they are speaking of only a small number of farmers in 
only a very small, select number of States. They should be saying a 
small number of farmers in a small number of select States will get one 
heck of a lot of money, but to make it fair every other State will be 
allowed to pay the bill. That is really what they are saying. All of us 
will pay the bill so a small number of States can get the benefit.
  What bothers me is this goes on year after year after year. We have 
had disaster relief bills. We in the Northeast paid with our taxes a 
substantial part of the bill to try to help the country. But when we 
have had disasters I have never seen the return.
  We ``expedite funds to our Nation's farmers,'' as they say. They are 
not talking about Vermont farmers; they are not talking New Jersey 
farmers, or farmers throughout the Northeast and Mid Atlantic States, 
or the farmers in States with specialty crops not covered in the skewed 
State grant formulation we took from the House bill.
  We had a chance to even out the bias--at least to help all farmers in 
all States. As I said, we have taken an easy in irresponsible route to 
simply pass an unbalanced and unfair House bill. We have dismissed the 
true needs of specialty crop States, and we have dismissed the 
essential conservation programs that truly help my region's farmers. 
Sadly, once again, we are being left out in the cold.
  In fact, for that matter, even on the basis of this we get a bum 
deal. We get even worse because the dairy compact was left out of it.
  If you are a proponent of States rights, regional dairy compacts are 
the answer. They are State-initiated, they are State-ratified, and they 
are State-supported programs that assure a safe supply of milk for 
consumers.
  I received a letter signed by 22 Governors, Republicans and 
Democrats--I believe there is even an Independent in there--who are 
endorsing the dairy compact bill Because it would ratify the compacts 
that their States have negotiated among themselves.
  If you support interstate trade, regional compacts are the answer. 
The Northeast Dairy Compact has prompted an increase in sales of milk 
into the compact region from neighboring States.
  If you support a balanced budget, then regional compacts are the 
answer. Why? Because the Northeast Compact does not cost the taxpayers 
a single cent, which is a lot different from some of the farm programs 
that are being boosted up by billions of dollars in this bill.
  If you support farmland protection programs, regional compacts are 
the answer. In fact, that is why major environmental groups have 
endorsed the Northeast Dairy Compact; they know it helps preserve 
farmland and prevents urban sprawl. I recently received a letter from 
33 environmental, conservation, and public interest membership 
organizations supporting the dairy compact amendment.
  Lastly, of course, if we are worried about consumers, then we ought 
to like regional dairy compacts. Retail milk prices within the compact 
region are lower on average than in the rest of the Nation where they 
do not have a compact.
  The dairy compact has done what it is supposed to do: It has 
stabilized widely fluctuating dairy prices; it has ensured a fair price 
for dairy farmers; it has made it possible for farm families to stay in 
business; and it has protected consumers' supplies of fresh milk.
  Unfortunately, though, this is a policy debate that pits dairy 
farmers who go to work every single day trying to make a living against 
some of the Nation's most powerful corporations. It pits consumers and 
communities that treasure the open space and quality of life that local 
dairy farming offers, against those who can spend millions of dollars 
on ads and lobbyists here in Washington.
  We should not stay in the way of these State initiatives that protect 
farmers and consumers without costing taxpayers a cent.
  Dairy compacts are one of those issues where Members have very strong 
views even though we all share the same core beliefs. We all want to 
support our dairy farmers and we all believe that they should be able 
to earn a decent living for their families. We all want ample supplies 
of fresh milk, at reasonable prices, for our States' consumers. Unlike 
agricultural commodities such as wheat, corn, and soybeans, milk is 
highly perishable.
  When a dairy farmer brings the milk to market, that milk has to be 
sold right away, or it quickly loses its value. It can't be set aside 
in a silo. For big processors, that's just fine. They can buy milk at 
distressed prices and store it away to make cheese or powdered milk or 
ice cream. But that setup hurts farmers, who work incredibly hard just 
to make a living, and consumers, who want farmers around to supply 
fresh milk for the store shelves.
  As a nation we have tried several remedies to cut through this knot, 
and the record is proving that regional compacts are the most sensible 
and workable answer yet. And unlike other legislative remedies that 
come with price tags, and often hefty ones, compacts cost Federal 
taxpayers nothing.
  Milk is one of those unusual foods where the spread between what 
farmers get paid for their labor, and what consumers pay for the 
product, is huge and increasing throughout the Nation.
  In New England, what farmers get paid has been fairly stable since 
the dairy compact began working in 1997, and that is one of its great 
successes. But what processors and stores charge for milk has greatly 
increased since 1997--not just in New England, but in the rest of the 
Nation. Consumer prices are lower in new England than in much of the 
rest of the country and that the $10,000 to $20,000 in added annual 
income has helped keep New England farmers in business who otherwise 
would have had to leave farming.
  There is a hidden risk right now to consumers and farmers in New 
England--and the rest of the Nation. This is the growing concentration 
of processors in the milk industry.
  In New England, Suiza Foods is rapidly trying to cinch a stranglehold 
on milk supplies. In some parts of New England they already control 70 
to 80 percent of the fluid milk supply. They have swept in, bought 
processing plants in New England, and then closed them--elimiating 
competition.
  The ascent of Suiza is nothing less than stunning. In a few short 
years, Suiza has gained its dominant position in the milk processing 
business. I showed you three charts a couple days ago showing the 
incredible increase in the dominance of Suiza in just a few years. Even 
worse, if its purchase of Dean Foods is approved, a strong case can be 
made that Suiza is on the verge of becoming a monopoly in the milk 
processing business. I have asked the Department of Justice and its 
Antitrust Division to closely monitor Suiza's surging market dominance, 
and I again call to their attention the urgency of doing that.
  But equally remarkable is the fact that Suiza is also now in the 
process of consolidating a dominant position as the chief purchaser of 
milk from farmers. Simply put, in many parts of the country, Suiza 
Foods is the dominant customer--if it is not the only customer--for 
farmers' raw milk to be used for fluid processing. Suiza Foods is now 
dominating both the purchase and the sale of fluid milk in this 
country. Suiza is becoming--all at once--both a monopolist and a 
monopsonist in the fluid dairy marketplace.
  Suiza Foods is a new type of market force. I have searched our 
antitrust case law for a name for this type of combined market power. 
There is no adequate name on the books for what Suiza has become, as I 
called them in a recent Judiciary hearing, and on the Senate floor, 
they are ``suizopolies.''
  How can suppliers and consumers defend themselves from a giant firm--
this Suizopoly--that controls both the purchase of a product--from 
thousands of suppliers with little bargaining power--and its sale to 
millions of consumers?

[[Page 16050]]

  The best way is the dairy compact; it gives the public some control 
over access to milk, it assures fresh, local supplies of milk, and it 
gives farmers some ability to earn a living income.
  I also want to respond to seven myths about the compact that the big 
processors have spent millions of dollars to promote, through years of 
lobbying and advertising and campaign contributions. They were 
trumpeting many of these myths before the compact was enacted, and they 
have not changed their songsheets, even though the compact has done 
just what it was supposed to do, proving their arguments dead wrong.
  This first myth is that dairy compacts are milk taxes that hurt 
consumers. As you have just heard, concentration, is the major cause of 
consumer price increase in the milk sector.
  And, a recent independent study funded by USDA determined that 
industry profit taking--including profit taking by Suiza--and cost 
increases not related to the compact, are responsible for more than 90 
percent of the increase in retail prices in New England since the 
compact was implemented. This leaves less than three cents of a gallon 
of milk attributable to the compact.
  A recent GAO report requested by Senator Feingold and myself says to 
all: It compares the prices of a gallon of 2 percent milk in Boston and 
Milwaukee for last year. The wholesale price of milk in Boston was 
$2.03. The wholesale price in Milwaukee was $2.08--five cents more than 
in Boston. So you would expect retail prices to be about the same for 
Boston, or slightly less, than for Milwaukee.
  However, Suiza controls around 70 percent of the milk supply in 
Massachusetts and a greater amount in Boston. The average retail price 
listed by GAO is $2.74 in Boston for a gallon of milk but only $2.26 in 
Milwaukee.
  Obviously, the compact does not cause the difference--the wholesale 
prices for Boston are lower than in Milwaukee, as the GAO makes clear.
  The GAO report also shows that for most of the cities they examined, 
the consumer prices in the compact region were lower.
  There is a myth that the dairy compact has harmed nutritional 
programs such as WIC, school lunch, school breakfast, and food stamps.
  Wrong again. The fact is that the Compact Commission requires 
compensation to State WIC and school lunch programs for any potential 
impacts. In fact, if anything it has overcompensated the WIC program, 
as noted in the 1998 OMB study. A letter from the Massachusetts WIC 
Director says this:

       The Commission has taken strong steps to protect the WIC 
     Program and the School Lunch program from any impacts due to 
     the compact. . . . Because of this, our WIC Program was able 
     to serve approximately 5,875 more participants with fresh 
     wholesome milk without added costs. . . .

  The New England Compact Commission has exempted school breakfast and 
lunch programs from any pricing impacts due to milk price regulation.
  Commissioner Kassler of Massachusetts tells me in writing that 
``without the compact, this [regional New England] milk shed will 
dwindle and milk would be brought in from greater distances and at 
greater costs.'' Those greater costs have been estimated in the range 
of from 20 to 67 cents per gallon.
  There is also a myth that dairy compacts are unconstitutional price-
fixing cartels. This is my favorite example of twisted logic. I believe 
my opponents' argument goes something like this:

       Interstate compacts would be unconstitutional if the 
     Constitution didn't explicitly contain a clause allowing the 
     creation of interstate compacts with the consent of Congress.

  By operation of the compact clause, States explicitly have the 
opportunity to solve regional problems in this constitutionally 
permitted way. United States Federal courts have recognized the 
Northeast Dairy Compact as a constitutional exercise of congressional 
authority under the commerce and compact clauses of the U.S. 
Constitution.
  There is a myth that dairy compacts are barriers to interstate trade. 
Dairy compacts encourage greater competition in the marketplace by 
preserving more family farms and increasing trade.
  An OMB study concluded that trade into the compact region actually 
increased after implementation. And I would also point out that farmers 
in non-compact States, like New York, or even Wisconsin, are perfectly 
free to sell their milk in the compact region at compact rates. New 
York dairy producers are benefiting today by doing just that. Indeed, 
if Wisconsin were to trade places with New York, Wisconsin farmers 
would gain the benefit of the compact.
  There is also a myth that dairy compacts encourage farmers to 
overproduce milk and will lead to a flood of milk in the market. The 
fact is that the dairy compact regulatory process includes a supply 
management program that helps to prevent overproduction. In 2000, the 
Northeast Dairy Compact States produced 4.7 billion pounds of milk, a 
0.6 percent decline from 1999.
  In the nearly 4 years that the compact has been in effect, milk 
production in the compact region has risen by just 2.2 percent. 
Nationally during this same period, milk production rose 7.4 percent. 
In Wisconsin milk production rose over 4 percent.
  There is a myth that dairy compact only help bigger farms at the 
expense of smaller ones.
  Just like most commodity programs, the compact benefits all 
participants. Also, 75 percent of the farms in New England have fewer 
than 100 cows.
  The worst myth is that the dairy compact has not been successful.
  The success of the Northeast Dairy Compact is undeniable.
  Let me just close with this.
  Mr. President, when I was a young man--actually even before my 
teens--I thought how much I would love being in the Senate. Why? 
Because every State has two Senators. A State with a large population, 
a powerful State such as the Presiding Officer's State, or a small, 
rural State such as mine each get two. The one place where every State 
is equal, supposedly, is in the Senate; two Senators.
  I thought what a joy it would be to represent my native State of 
Vermont in the Senate; and it has been. I love the Senate. I have so 
much respect for Members on both sides of the aisle.
  I think of the Senate as a place where the country can come together, 
where regional interests can be represented, and, of course, where 
States can maintain their identity, certainly, and where we have an 
obligation to help each other. And we have.
  Whether it be earthquakes in California or floods in the Midwest or 
defense programs in the Southeast, and on and on, the Senators from my 
part of the country have supported providing assistance to those parts 
of the country. I could give a million different examples. But there 
seems to be one area where that effort to help each other always falls 
apart: The Northeast Mid-Atlantic States, when it comes to agriculture 
disaster programs.
  We are always there. We are like the fire brigade that answers the 
call in the middle of the night. We show up all the time, show up all 
the time to protect those other ``houses.'' It would kind of be nice 
if, just once, when it is our ``house'' on fire, some of those we have 
helped throughout the years could come and maybe help us put out the 
fire. 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. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, let me begin by saying how honored I am 
to have a chance to rise while the distinguished Senator from Vermont 
is in the chair. I concur strongly with the majority of the arguments 
made by the Senator about the fairness of how our agricultural 
activities in our country are distributed. Sometimes our agricultural 
emergencies in the Northeast

[[Page 16051]]

are lost sight of when we get around to supporting our family farmers 
and agricultural activities.

                          ____________________