[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24990-24997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1731, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1731) to strengthen the safety net for 
     agricultural producers, to enhance resource conservation and 
     rural development, to provide for farm credit, agricultural 
     research, nutrition, and related programs, to ensure 
     consumers abundant food and fiber, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle (for Harkin) Amendment No. 2471, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Lugar/Domenici Amendment No. 2473 (to Amendment No. 2471), 
     of a perfecting nature.


                           Amendment No. 2473

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 50 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled on the 
Lugar amendment, No. 2473.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I yield to myself the time I may require. 
Being mindful there are others who may wish to speak on my amendment 
but seeing none for the moment, let me review the amendment for the 
benefit of Senators who, perhaps, followed the debate yesterday.
  I have offered an amendment which, in essence, changes substantially 
the ways in which farm families are supported in the United States of 
America. I have moved to a concept of a safety net in which, 
essentially, each farm family--regardless of the State, regardless of 
what products or farm animals or timber or what have you which comes 
from that farm--has equal standing. I think that amendment ought to be 
appealing to most States.
  As I cited yesterday, just 6 States of the 50 receive about half of 
the payments under the current system. That would be concentrated 
further in the bill that now lies before us. That concentration really 
occurs regardless of State, although many States receive very few 
benefits at all. If, in fact, 6 States receive about half, the 44 
divide the rest and, as I cited yesterday, many States have fewer than 
10 percent of their farm families who participate in these payments at 
all.
  I make that point again because I suspect it is not apparent to many 
Senators, to many people in the public as a whole, who believe we are 
talking today about the totality of agriculture in our country, farm 
families of all sizes. Much is said about small farm families, those 
who are in stress, in danger of losing their farms.
  Without being disrespectful of anyone's views on these subjects, I 
pointed out these small family farms are not likely to gain much 
sustenance from the subsidies that are being suggested presently. Let 
me cite, without getting into anyone else's backyard, the situation in 
the State of Indiana.
  The current program targets 16 percent of the payments in Indiana to 
1 percent of the farms--1,007 farms. In fact, it becomes equally 
apparent at the top 2 percent, which gets 26 percent, a quarter of all 
the farms. By the time you get to the top 10 percent, which now 
includes 10,000 farms out of roughly 100,000 that received payments 
from 1996 to 2000, the top 10 percent receive 66 percent of all of the 
money.
  Any way you look at it, the reasons for this are perfectly clear. 
Essentially, the payments are made on the basis of acreage and yield. 
Those farmers who

[[Page 24991]]

are strongest make use of research; they make use of marketing 
techniques. They, in fact, have costs that are less than the floor, so 
there are incentives to produce more each time we come along with 
another farm bill. And that will be the case again. Therefore, the gist 
of my amendment is we must change.
  The distinguished chairman of the committee, as he responded last 
evening, said the Lugar amendment contemplates so much change it will 
be shocking to country bankers; it will be shocking to farmers 
generally. When you knock the props out of all kinds of layers of 
programs that have been built up year after year, one subsidy on top of 
another, even if it only touched 40 percent of farm families generally 
with 60 percent not touched at all, certainly there will be an impact 
on the 40 percent.
  My point is the 40 percent overstates it. The real impact will be 
upon the 1's, the 2's, the very top numbers in terms of people who have 
very large enterprises. I think that is not the will of the Senate. But 
the effect of the policies has been this, as detailed State by State by 
the Environmental Working Group Web site. Any Senator, prior to a vote 
on this amendment, can go to that Web site and find out, person by 
person, every farm that has received subsidies during the last 5-year 
period that is covered, plus the summary I have cited.
  The change I am suggesting is one that is still a generous amount of 
taxpayer money. Yesterday Investor Daily editorialized about the debate 
we are having and commended my bill as the best of the lot but 
suggested it is still a lot of money from some taxpayers in America to 
farmers. Indeed, it is to the extent that I am suggesting a farmer 
receive a voucher worth 6 percent of all that he or she produces on the 
farm and that it not be simply curtailed to wheat, corn, cotton, rice, 
and soybeans but to livestock, to fruits and vegetables, to wool, to 
whatever comes from that entity--all things added up on the Federal tax 
return that arrive at a total farm revenue picture.
  I used the hypothetical farmer yesterday who received, say, $100,000 
of total receipts from all sources getting a voucher for $6,000, enough 
to pay for a full farm insurance policy that guarantees 80 percent of 
the revenue based on the last 5 years.
  There are very few businesses, if any, in America that could purchase 
this kind of revenue assurance that would guarantee--given the ups and 
downs of our economy--at least 80 percent of the revenue would be 
available come hell or high water, including bad weather, bad trade 
policies, and whatever. This $6,000 voucher would not be paid for by 
the farmer. It is by virtue of the production indicated on the tax 
returns that he or she submits. It is possible, because we already have 
a generous crop insurance program as I pointed out that undergirds 
agriculture now, that not all farmers will take advantage of that, 
which is too bad. The educational process must continue so farmers 
understand how much insurance and assurance they could obtain under 
current legislation.
  My point is, we ought to be providing a safety net that has equality 
for all States, all crops, all conditions, and all sizes of farms and 
that genuinely meet the needs of a safety net as opposed to a haphazard 
disaster relief bill here or there on the appropriations of 
agriculture, and the perennial summer debates about supplemental 
assistance, that somehow there are shortfalls, even though this year we 
are having a record net income for all of agriculture--$61 billion. It 
has never been higher.
  Yet this debate proceeds as if the totality of American agriculture 
were in crisis. The 10-year bill suggested by the House of 
Representatives suggests the crisis inevitably goes on for 10 years 
adding one subsidy on top of another throughout that period of time.
  That is what my amendment tries to stop. I appreciate that for many 
Senators the problem of explaining all of this to their constituents 
may be difficult. The easier course may be simply to say: I did my best 
for you.
  As I witnessed the debate thus far, I have an impression that many 
Senators have come into that mode as they approach the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, or me, or other Members who have been 
involved in the debate. The question is not that overlayers of 
subsidies on top of subsidies is good for the country, good for farmers 
generally, good for the deficit, or good for whatever. The question is, 
what is in this bill for me, or my farmers, or the political support I 
can gain from the person to whom I can write that I was in there 
fighting for the last dollar for you.
  I must admit that the bill which has been laid down before us by the 
Agriculture Committee has a lot of money in it. The disillusionment 
will come that 60 percent of farmers will find there is nothing in the 
bill for them--nothing. I hope they understand that before we conclude 
the debate.
  In my State of Indiana, two-thirds of the farmers will find out very 
rapidly that there was very little left for them after the top 10 
percent took the money. That will come as a disillusion, perhaps. But 
hope springs eternal, perhaps. A trickle-down theory might occur even 
in farm subsidy bills.
  Let me point out that there is an opportunity here for both a safety 
net for farmers and finally a turnaround from a policy that came in a 
long time ago with deep origins in the row crops coming out of the 
Depression but less and less relevant to the actualities of farming in 
America today and what people actually do.
  The 2 million farms that are listed by the census in most cases do 
not have active farmers on the farm. The most rapidly rising source of 
new farms in the country are persons who are professionals, doctors, 
lawyers, teachers, and others who purchase 50 acres, or sometimes more 
within a reasonable driving distance of their urban offices, or 
locations, because they like some space. If they produce on that entity 
of 50 acreas or 100 or whatever the acreage may be, at least $20,000 in 
sales of anything agricultural, they are classified under USDA 
standards as a farmer. So the 2 million are made up principally of 
persons who gain some income from the farm.
  The only persons who gain the bulk of their income from the farm are 
commercial farmers in America. Most of them have 1,000 acres or more. 
They comprise roughly 10 percent to 15 percent of all of the entities. 
Even on those farms it is usual that one member of the family has a day 
job in the city or somewhere else.
  That is the nature of the business. I mention this because, in an 
attempt to have a comprehensive farm bill, it is virtually impossible 
to target and to find 2 million people. I think my bill does this the 
best because it simply says whether you produce $20,000, and you are in 
fact a lawyer, you still qualify as a farm so that there is at least 
something more than a casual interest in the farm. If you have $20,000 
in sales of any sort, you are eligible for the 6 percent voucher.
  My bill is not excessively generous as you rise in income because 
after the first $250,000 total revenue the voucher percentage drops to 
4 percent to the next $250,000. After $500,000 to $1 million in 
revenue, it is 1 percent. Then sales on your farm over $1 million would 
not have the voucher. Thus, there is a limit effectively of about 
$30,000 for a farm family coming from this program.
  The distribution to all farm families in America in all States means 
that the money that is finally provided in my bill is spread even over 
a 10-year stretch. We are talking about a 5-year bill. Because many of 
these bills have been scored for 10, it is still less than the bill 
before us. But the cost of my bill in the 5 years we are talking about 
is dramatically less in large part because, although a lot of money is 
going to all the farm families at the rate of 6 percent of everything 
they are doing, essentially we are winding up the target prices, the 
loans, and the other subsidies on top of another. Therefore, as you 
subtract those savings, OMB has scored this 5-year experience in the 
commodity section of the Lugar bill of only $5 billion as opposed to, 
as I recall, the $27 billion for 5 years in the bill before us now. 
That is substantial money.

[[Page 24992]]

  Let me point out that in addition there are some important aspects in 
the second section of my bill. The distinguished chairman of the 
committee, as he responded yesterday, pointed out that the committee 
bill has much more generous provisions for the nutrition section. I 
applaud that. I worked with the chairman to make certain we had very 
strong bipartisan support for doing more in the food stamp area, in the 
WIC Program, in the School Lunch Program, and in the feeding of people 
wherever they may be in America.
  But there is a difference between the two bills--my bill, 
essentially, is the amendment before the Senate now--with some of the 
savings that come from this remarkable difference between $5 billion 
for commodities in my bill and $27 billion in Senator Harkin's bill. My 
bill provides $3.7 billion for nutrition in the first 5 years and the 
Harkin substitute $1.6 billion. That is a substantial difference.
  Yesterday, I detailed the extraordinary efforts of hunger groups 
throughout our country, of advocates not only for the poor but for 
better nutrition, of people involved in the School Lunch Program who 
regularly testified before our committee, as well as those who have 
been advocates for full coverage of the Women, Infants, and Children 
Program--the WIC Program--to fulfill those objectives.
  My bill allocates $3.7 billion in the next 5 years. If it were scored 
over 10 years, it would be up to $11.9 billion. The Harkin substitute 
has $1.6 billion in the first 5 years, scoring $5.6 billion in the 10-
year period, with less than half the nutrition impact. That is not by 
chance.
  For Senators who believe one of the major points of a farm bill that 
comes from Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ought to be the feeding 
of all Americans, in addition to targeted benefits for very few 
Americans on the production side, I hope they will find my amendment 
appealing. It was meant to be that way. The priorities are significant.
  For the moment, Madam President, I will yield the floor so I will 
have a few moments, perhaps, at the end of the debate to refresh 
memories of Senators who may not have heard all of this presentation 
today and may be preparing for their votes.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in 
the quorum call I am about to propound be charged equally against the 
two sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, as I understand, again, for the benefit 
of all Senators, we are under an hour of debate evenly divided on the 
Lugar amendment regarding nutrition with a vote to occur at 10:30; is 
that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there is 
to be a 50-minute debate equally divided and controlled with the vote 
to occur at 10:25.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand I must have about 25 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Madam President, now that we have had some opportunity over the 
evening to look at Senator Lugar's proposed nutrition title, I would 
like to discuss a little bit of the difference between his approach and 
the approach we came out of the committee with, again, keeping in mind 
that our nutrition title did come out of committee, if I am not 
mistaken, on a unanimous vote on that title.
  Again, like so many other things that have come through any 
legislative process here, but especially on agriculture, I am sure 
there were things we might have wanted to do differently in one way or 
the other. Would we like to put more money in nutrition? Yes. But then 
we have to balance it with everything else we have. So we tried to come 
out with a balanced bill, as I said yesterday.
  I really believe my colleague's amendment would upset that balance 
greatly. And even though we might want to do more for nutrition, I 
believe we have met our responsibilities for nutrition in this bill to 
meet the nutritional needs of our people. I will go through that 
shortly.
  I did want to correct one thing. I believe my colleague and friend 
said that on nutrition our spending over 5 years is $1.6 billion. Our 
data shows that our outlays for 5 years are $2.2 billion. I just wanted 
to make that correction. I think his is $3.7 billion and we are at $2.2 
billion. I do know his outlays are more than ours; at least I believe 
his budget authority is $3.7 billion. I do not know what the outlays 
are for 5 years, and perhaps Senator Lugar could enlighten us on that. 
But I just want to talk about some of the differences and some of the 
potential problem areas I see in the title proposed by Senator Lugar.
  I think we have all agreed that the outreach for the Food Stamp 
Program is vitally important to make sure that eligible people 
understand they can participate and to get them to participate. In the 
past, this has really been a problem. So we put provisions in our bill 
that would provide for more outreach to go out and make people 
understand they are eligible for food stamps. That, I believe, is 
lacking in the Lugar proposal.
  Again, this is one area where, if you look at the amount of money we 
have for nutrition, you have to understand that food stamps are an 
entitlement; that if the economy goes down, if people are out of work, 
if they qualify, they get food stamps. That is not included in our 
bill. That is just an entitlement. What is important is whether or not 
people know they can get food stamps, whether or not they know they are 
eligible, and the outreach programs that will bring people into the 
Food Stamp Program. That is where I believe we have met that 
obligation. The Lugar proposal does not. It is important to go out and 
get people to understand they are eligible for the Food Stamp Program. 
So we included a number of provisions to make sure that information 
about the Food Stamp Program and the applications are made available to 
eligible people who are not now participating in the program.
  We also include pilot programs, testing different ways to go out and 
reach people. Those pilot programs are not in the Lugar proposal.
  The committee bill also includes provisions that will help able-
bodied adults without dependents--subject to time limits under the Food 
Stamp Program rules--to find jobs. For example, the committee bill 
allows a rigorous job search activity to count as a work requirement 
for able-bodied people without dependents. Quite frankly, if people are 
making an honest effort to find work, if they are in an approved job 
search program, why should they be penalized? They should be eligible. 
We have that in our bill. That is not in the Lugar proposal.
  In our bill we have also designated funds specifically for employment 
and training activities for this very group of people. While States 
should have flexibility to use their employment and training funding as 
they see fit, they should be able to draw upon a special reserve for 
people who are subject to a time limit. If there is a time limit, they 
ought to be able to have some leeway for employment and training 
activities. Again, we have that in our bill. That is not in the Lugar 
proposal.

[[Page 24993]]

  Our bill also acknowledges that people who participate in employment 
and training activities have certain additional expenses, such as 
transportation. If they are looking for a job--let's say they are in a 
training activity. They may have to go clear across town or across the 
city to this training activity. That costs money. We increase the 
amount of money available to States to help defray those costs. That is 
in our bill. That is not in the Lugar proposal.
  Another key difference between what is in the committee-passed bill 
and Senator Lugar's proposal is that we include a substantial commodity 
purchase of $780 million over 5 years. At least $50 million of that 
will go to purchase fruits and vegetables for the School Lunch Program. 
At least $40 million a year must be used to purchase commodities for 
the TEFAP Program--The Emergency Food Assistance Program. Again, 
Senator Lugar's proposal only provides funding for TEFAP commodities, 
not for the School Lunch Program. Again, if we are talking about low-
income families on food stamps who need nutritional help, it is their 
kids who are in school who get the free meals--free or reduced-price 
meals; mostly free in this case. So we provide money in the bill to go 
out and buy apples and to buy oranges and to buy other fruits and other 
vegetables for the School Lunch Program to meet the free and reduced-
price School Lunch Program for these needy kids. That is not in the 
Lugar proposal. We provide $40 million for the TEFAP Program; Senator 
Lugar provides $30 million, $10 million less.
  We also included a pilot program. This may seem insignificant, but I 
don't think so. We included a pilot program to test in public schools 
in four States to see whether or not distributing free fruits and 
vegetables is beneficial and whether students would take advantage of 
that. In other words, the idea is, if a student is in a public school, 
rather than going to the vending machine and putting in their 75 cents 
or a dollar now and getting a candy bar or something like that--usually 
in the vending machines there is candy, and then down at the bottom 
there is usually an apple at the same price--the kid is not going to 
buy the apple.
  Let's say you provided in the school lunchroom free apples, free 
oranges. Let's say a student has a hunger pain. They can go to that 
vending machine and put in their $1 or 75 cents or they can go to the 
lunchroom and pick up a free apple. We provide for that pilot program 
in four States. That is not in the Lugar proposal. This would also be a 
proposal beneficial to our fruit and vegetable growers. Certain 
vegetables we are talking about--carrots, broccoli, whatever, celery, 
different things such as that--that kids could get free under this 
pilot program, it is not included in the Lugar proposal.
  We also in our bill include a provision to strengthen nutrition 
education efforts in the Food Stamp Program. A lot of people in the 
Food Stamp Program use their food stamps and they buy Twinkies and 
potato chips and fat-filled kinds of food. It may not be very 
nutritious. We need more nutrition education in the Food Stamp Program. 
We include a provision to strengthen that. I do not believe that is in 
the Lugar proposal.
  There is one other point I want to make, and that is in terms of 
whether or not people who are in certain programs, who rely on certain 
programs for noncash assistance, such as the Temporary Assistance to 
Needy Families--if you are getting child care and things such as that, 
if you are in that category, basically we are saying you should be 
eligible for the Food Stamp Program. You should not have to go back and 
qualify for this, qualify for that, and go through all the redtape. 
Senator Lugar includes a provision that would have the effect of making 
people who rely on this noncash assistance ineligible for the Food 
Stamp Program. Again, a lot of times these people use the Food Stamp 
Program as a boost to help get back on the road to self-sufficiency.
  Last year we worked to give States the option of liberalizing the 
food stamp vehicle. A number of States have already done this. They 
have changed their policies on the value of a car you can have. I 
wonder if it is going a bit far, as Senator Lugar does, to require that 
all States exclude all vehicles from consideration in determining food 
stamp eligibility. We want to liberalize it. I think my State is way 
too low. When you have a State that says you can only have a car worth 
$3,500, these are the people who need transportation to go back and 
forth to work. That is the kind of car that breaks down all the time. 
These rules ought to be raised. Some States are much higher.
  I stand to be corrected, but I think Utah, for example, is several 
thousand--maybe more than that--higher in an automobile. It just makes 
sense to allow a person to have a decent car that doesn't break down 
all the time.
  Senator Lugar says we will require all the States to exclude all 
vehicles, as I read the amendment. I could be corrected on that, but 
that is the way I read it. That is going a bit far. We ought to let the 
States rate the eligibility, but to require them to exclude all 
vehicles may be loosening it up too much.
  The restoration of the immigrant benefits provision is very 
controversial to some people. We tried to take a targeted approach 
where benefits are restored to the most needy legal immigrants; that 
is, children, the disabled, refugees, asylum seekers. We say the kids 
who are of legal immigrants should not have to wait to get food stamps. 
Again, this is in line with our thinking that if you are a child, you 
ought to get nutrition because it saves on health care. We know that 
children who receive nutrition learn better. They will be better 
students. As far as kids go, we are saying: If you are a child of a 
legal immigrant, you should get food stamps now.
  As I read the Lugar amendment, he says they have to wait 5 years--all 
immigrants who have been in the United States for at least 5 years. 
Under the committee-passed bill, we don't wait 5 years to restore 
benefits to children. We do it immediately, not 5 years from today.
  Again, there are some significant differences between what Senator 
Lugar is proposing and what we have done in the committee. It is true, 
I admit quite frankly, that Senator Lugar puts more money into 
nutrition than we do. That is true. But I still will say that in terms 
of the program that most needy people rely on to meet their nutritional 
needs--that is, the Food Stamp Program--the most critical part of that 
is outreach, information, and support to people who are not now 
applying but who are eligible to get into the Food Stamp Program. That 
is what we do. That doesn't cost a lot of money. And if it does get 
people into the program, and they get food stamps, that is not counted. 
That is not counted on our ledger sheet.
  I believe our bill actually will provide more nutritional support to 
people than the Lugar proposal, even though it doesn't show up on the 
balance sheet as such.
  The other part is simply the fact that where Senator Lugar is getting 
the money for this really does upset the balance we had in our 
commodity programs. I don't think this is the time to demolish farm 
commodity programs in order to adopt a wholly untested voucher system 
as a total replacement. That is the other side of this amendment. Farm 
programs are not perfect. I will be the first to admit it. But we 
cannot abandon the safety net at a time when it is obviously inadequate 
already.
  What this amendment does is weaken help for all program crops--dairy, 
sugar, peanuts, everything--and it replaces it with a voucher program 
whereby a farmer can go out with a voucher and get crop insurance and 
can get insurance, not just for destruction of crops but for lack of 
income. It has been untested. We don't know if it would work.
  This is something that probably ought to be done on a pilot program 
basis at some point, but not right now, a whole commodity program that 
we have structured. Quite frankly, I believe that on our committee we 
have a

[[Page 24994]]

lot of expertise. We have Senators on both sides who have been involved 
in agriculture for a long time. We have former Governors on our 
committee. We have former Congressmen on our committee. We have people 
who have been on the agriculture committees of their State 
legislatures, of the House of Representatives, and now in the Senate. 
We have people with a lot of expertise in agriculture on our committee.
  These are not people who just sort of off the cuff decide to do 
something in agriculture. These are people, Senators, such as the 
present occupant of the Chair, who think very deeply about what is best 
for their people and what is best for the commodities in their State.
  The Senators know their commodities and the programs. So we hammered 
out and worked out compromises and a commodity structured program that 
will benefit all of agriculture in America. Again, it may not be 
perfect. I daresay I haven't seen a Government program yet that is 
perfect. But to throw it all out the window and to substitute this 
untested, untried voucher program when we have no basis to understand 
how it would ever work right now would cause chaos and disruption all 
over agricultural America.
  On the nutrition side, I believe that our approach, the committee 
approach we have come out with is responsible, reasonable; it gets to 
the kids who need nutrition; and it has a good outreach program to make 
sure people who are not on food stamps understand it. On the other 
hand, on the commodity side, I believe our commodity program is well 
structured, sound, responsible, evenhanded all over America, and it is 
built upon programs and ideas that we know work. We know direct 
payments work. We know loan rates work. We know that conservation 
payments work. These things out there have been tested and tried and 
they work. Now is not the time to pull the rug out from underneath our 
farmers for an untested program.
  For both of those reasons--on the commodity side and nutrition side--
I respectfully oppose the Lugar amendment and urge all Senators to 
support the well-thought-out, responsible nutrition title that we 
brought out from the committee. It is good, solid, and it is something 
for which I think we can be proud.
  With that, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Indiana is 
recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I respectfully say to my distinguished 
colleague that the only well-thought-out aspect of the bill before us 
are thoughts as to how a Senator might be enticed by more money for 
particular crops for his or her State. It is a catchall bill. It really 
has no particular philosophy. One subsidy is piled on top of another.
  That is my point. Somebody has to bring an end to this chaos. The 
chaos is not going to be joyous if continued as the Senator from Iowa 
pointed out. Sixty percent of farmers get nothing from this; they are 
not going to get a dime. I hope that understanding finally comes 
through to agricultural America. This bill is targeted at a very few 
farmers. Forty percent at least have a chance; but as a matter of fact, 
as we pointed out numerous times, half of the payments go to 8 percent 
of those farmers who have a chance. And very sharply, large percentages 
go to a very few that fall behind the top 8 percent. In fact, by the 
time you get to the top 20 percent, 80 percent of the money is gone, 
even for that segment that is getting something.
  This bill has been a grab bag of trying to figure out how various 
Senators might be enticed into a coalition if a certain amount of money 
was promised, regardless of who it goes to--the size of the farmers and 
the problems of the farmers notwithstanding. I have tried to shake up 
the order and say that if we are going to distribute money, let us do 
so to all farmers, all States, all crops, all animals, as opposed to 
the very few that are clearly the targets of the bill that came out of 
the Agriculture Committee.
  The chairman is right. We have been doing it this way for almost 70 
years. With increasing overproduction, increasing reduction of prices, 
this bill stomps down prices. They have no chance to come up. I hope 
there will not be any speeches next year on why prices are at an 
alltime low. Of course, they are going to be low. If you stimulate 
overproduction, they will go down every time. We have been doing that 
consistently year after year. To suggest that chaos ensues because you 
try to bring an end to this seems to me not very logical.
  I admit that it would be a total surprise to the country if all 
farmers shared, if all States shared--a remarkable surprise. I think it 
would be a good surprise, as a matter of fact. That is why I am 
suggesting what is admittedly a very large change. We are winding up 
the old and trying out a true safety net for all of us in agriculture.
  Let me respond briefly on the nutrition side. The distinguished 
chairman has pointed out what he believes are deficiencies in my 
approach. Let me say that, at the bottom line, we may not provide as 
much information about how you get the benefits, and perhaps that is a 
deficiency, but we simply provide more food, more nutrition for 
millions more Americans. That is pretty fundamental.
  The outlays in our bill are $4.1 billion, and the chairman's bill is 
$2.1 billion. That is twice as much food. In ours, the budget authority 
is 3.7 and his is 1.6--twice again. It is very hard to match the 
quantity of the service, the number of people being affected, by 
getting into the particulars.
  Having said that, I am perfectly willing to work with the chairman, 
as he knows, to try to find whatever deficiencies we can meet, making 
certain that all Americans know of the possibility for whole meals. 
That is our intent, to have a very strong nutrition safety net with the 
assistance of almost every group in our society; they have been working 
at this longer than the chairman and I have.
  I hope Members will vote for my amendment. I believe it is a 
significant change that will lead not only to less subsidization but to 
higher prices, higher real market values that come to farmers, with a 
safety net in the event there are weather disasters, trade disasters, 
and other things well beyond the ability of farmers to control.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Lugar 
amendment to the Farm bill before us and to express my strong support 
for the nutrition provisions included in the underlying bill as 
introduced by Senator Harkin.
  I want to make it clear that while I appreciate Senator Lugar's 
investment in food stamps and food nutrition programs, I oppose the 
Lugar provisions on the commodity title because it undermines a crucial 
safety net for our Nation's farmers. These commodity assistance 
programs are vital to the competitiveness and survival of the U.S. 
farming base and the rural communities that depend on a healthy 
agricultural economy.
  I applaud Senator Lugar's attention to the need to expand the Food 
Stamp Program in this difficult economic time. The Food Stamp Program 
is one of the most effective and efficient ways we directly help low-
income families, and the elderly and disabled. The language in Senator 
Harkin's bill will make this important program more efficient and 
effective for those who rely on it most.
  There is no doubt that the economy is weaker than it was at this time 
last year--or even this summer when we passed President Bush's tax 
cuts. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, announced on 
Monday that the country has a $63 billion deficit in the first 2 months 
of the new fiscal year. CBO's report attributes most of the extra 
spending to increased Medicaid costs and unemployment benefit claims.
  This does not surprise me, especially when one considers these 
indicators of the current state of Washington's economy: Unemployment 
rose a half-point in October to reach 6.6 percent in the State--the 
highest rate in the Nation; new claims filed for unemployment insurance 
claims rose 33 percent over the

[[Page 24995]]

same month last year; we now have the highest number of initial 
unemployment insurance claims since 1981; and unfortunately, one of our 
strongest and most stable employers--Boeing--has announced that 14,000 
of its workers in Washington State are going to be out of a job by next 
summer. This news is absolutely devastating for my State--according to 
the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, for every Boeing job lost the region 
loses another 1.7 jobs.
  There is no doubt that our economy works best when people are 
working. But when people lose their jobs, they need help to manage 
their unemployment, train for new jobs, and make an easy transition to 
new careers. And this includes broad-based assistance to families, 
especially through the food stamp and other Federal nutrition programs. 
If families are hungry and not meeting their basic needs, they 
certainly cannot focus on the training they need to attain long-term 
stability and self-sufficiency.
  I believe that strengthening the Food Stamp Program to assist low-
wage workers and those recently out of work is a critical component of 
Congress's response to the weakening economy. Unfortunately, as the 
economy deteriorates many working families are joining the lines at 
local food banks. Just this week, the Seattle Times reported on the 
food shortages in our area food banks and the fact that so many 
families are now seeking assistance from the very food banks to which 
they once donated. In fact, food stamp participation in Washington 
State increased over the last 12 months by 8.2 percent. But I am 
particularly concerned about those who are eligible for food stamps but 
do not use them since we passed the 1996 welfare reform legislation, 
food stamp participation rate decreased 32.2 percent in Washington 
State.
  Sadly, the percentage of households with children facing food 
insecurity--those who do not know where their next meal is coming 
from--is higher in Washington State than across the rest of the 
country. And food insecurity among emergency food recipients--those 
going to food banks, to emergency kitchens and shelters--is nearly 50 
percent higher in Washington than the rest of the country. And this is 
despite the fact that over 315,000 people in the State of Washington 
participate in the Food Stamp Program, and 153,000 people participate 
in the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, Program.
  I strongly support the nutrition provisions in the underlying bill. 
In order to address the increasing need for food stamp and other 
Federal nutrition support, Senator Harkin has increased mandatory food 
stamp spending by $6.2 billion over the next 10 years.
  The Harkin Farm bill provides an extension for transitional food 
stamps for families moving from welfare to work; extension of benefits 
for adults without dependents; and increased funding for the employment 
and training program. The bill would allow households with children to 
set aside larger amounts of income before the food stamp benefits would 
begin to phase out.
  Importantly, the bill simplifies the program for State administrators 
and participating families. Specifically, it simplifies income and 
resource counting, calculation of expenses for deductions, and 
determination of ongoing eligibility in the program. Together, these 
improvements will help both States and recipients because they lower 
burdens and increase coordination with other programs, such as 
Medicare, TANF, and child care, that the States administer.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill restores food stamp benefits 
for all legal immigrant children and persons with disabilities. 
According to Census data, 27 percent of children in poverty live in 
immigrant families, 21 percent are citizen children of immigrant 
parents, and 6 percent are immigrants themselves.
  Unfortunately, many citizen children of legal immigrants who remain 
eligible for the Food Stamp Program are not participating. Many of 
their families are confused about food stamp eligibility rules, and in 
some cases, the child's benefit is too small for the household to 
invest the effort to maintain eligibility. In fact, since 1994, over 1 
million citizen children with immigrant parents have left the program 
despite remaining eligible.
  After the Federal Government eliminated food stamp benefits for legal 
immigrants Washington State was the first State to put its own funds 
toward restoring food stamp eligibility for legal immigrants. The State 
Food Assistance Program uses State funds to support legal immigrants 
who were disqualified as a result of the 1996 welfare reform law. In 
fact, 11 percent of all food assistance clients in WA State are legal 
immigrants. This bill restores the Federal commitment to ensuring that 
legal immigrants have access to these important Federal programs.
  When we passed President Bush's tax cut, I said that I believed the 
country is at a critical juncture in setting our fiscal priorities--
deciding between maintaining our fiscal discipline and investing in the 
Nation's future education and health care needs, or cutting the very 
services used daily by our citizens. That statement is even more 
relevant today. Passing the food stamp expansions included in the 
Harkin Farm bill gives working families struggling to make ends meet 
the security they need in these uncertain times.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, time 
is charged equally to both sides.
  Mr. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. Mr. President, my understanding is that I have a minute 
and a half, which is declining as time goes by equally charged to both 
sides. So as opposed to seeing all of that decline, let me say I am 
most hopeful we are going to have a strong vote for the Lugar amendment 
because I believe it is a good amendment for all Americans.
  I stress that because sometimes in our zeal in these agricultural 
debates we are doing the very best we can for those in agricultural 
America, and that may be in many of our States as much as 2 percent of 
the population. But the rest of America also listens to this debate and 
wonders why there should be, as in the underlying bill, a transfer of 
$172 billion over the next 10 years from some Americans to a very few 
Americans--particularly, if 60 percent of the farmers don't participate 
at all and if it is narrowed to those who have very large farms. Most 
Americans, when confronted with that proposition, don't like it.
  I am preaching today, I suppose, to the choir of all Americans and 
hoping that agricultural America also understands that if we are ever 
to have higher prices and market solutions on farms, we must get rid of 
the subsidies that are a part of the underlying bill. And I do that. At 
the same time, I provide assurance and a safety net which I believe is 
equitable to all farmers and likewise to all Americans who look into 
this and find at least some hope for farm legislation as we discuss the 
Lugar amendment. I ask for the support of my colleagues. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Indiana just mentioned in 
rebuttal to my remarks about how not all farmers are getting benefits 
under this farm program. He is right. I believe the committee bill 
begins to change that somewhat. We include a conservation title in our 
bill that was supported unanimously by the committee that will begin to 
direct some funds toward those farmers who have not been included in 
our farm programs in the past--our vegetable farmers, organic farmers, 
fruits, minor crops. Now they will be able to get benefits from farm 
programs if they practice responsible stewardship of the land, protect 
the soil, and protect the water.

[[Page 24996]]

  Quite frankly, I believe this is going to be one of the best 
provisions for other areas of the country that have not participated 
before in our farm programs. That is in the committee bill. I know 
Senator Lugar's amendment does not touch that, but I understand there 
is going to be an amendment offered by Senators Cochran and Roberts 
that will take that away.
  I hope those who believe that we have to expand our reach and include 
more farmers in our farm programs will oppose that amendment because 
this is the one element that will go out to help those smaller farmers 
and the farmers who have not been in the major crops before.
  We also have an energy title. That energy title is new in this bill. 
Again, the Lugar amendment does not touch that. I understand that. I am 
not talking about that. The Cochran-Roberts amendment will basically 
defund all that. That is another provision that can help a lot of our 
smaller farmers and others who have not been included in farm programs 
in the past.
  I wanted to make the point we have taken strides to reach out in this 
bill to get farm program benefits to all regions of America.
  Senator Lugar also spoke about low prices and overproduction. The 
answer to low farm prices is not to idle half of America and to put all 
these farms out of business. That certainly should not be our answer. 
If you like imported oil, you will love imported food. That seems to be 
the answer. We will just shut down all the farms in America and buy our 
food from overseas. Good luck when that starts happening.
  We need agriculture. We need food security for our own Nation. We 
need to find new markets, new outlets for the great productivity, the 
great production capacity of American agriculture. That is what we 
need--new markets.
  Conservation is a marker. I believe energy is a new marker. Whatever 
we can make from a barrel of oil we can make from a bushel of soybeans 
or a bushel of corn or a bushel of wheat. Biomass energy, plastics, 
biodiesel, ethanol--think of the possibilities--pharmaceuticals. There 
are all kinds of items that come from our crops that we have not even 
tried. I believe that is what this bill also starts to do: find those 
new markets for the great productive capacity of America in 
agriculture.
  The answer is not just to shut down half of America. That is not the 
answer at all. Think what that is going to do to our small towns, our 
rural communities, our families if we do that.
  We have to keep the production going. We have to find new markets, 
and that is what we start to do in this bill.
  I believe also we have met all of the objectives of the nutrition 
community. We met with them. They testified before our committee on 
more than one occasion. Quite frankly, we met basically their 
objectives.
  I also point out when Senator Lugar says he provides more money for 
food--maybe yes, maybe no. Really what the Lugar amendment does is it 
increases the standard deduction a little bit. There are some 
additional provisions for able-bodied adults without dependents, but 
most of the money that is in the Lugar amendment is in simplifying 
rules, in simplifying programs. We include some of those in ours, but 
he goes a little bit further.
  I still believe the most important thing we can do is to provide the 
underpinning of nutrition, as we did in the committee bill, and then do 
more outreach to make sure people who are eligible for food stamps know 
they can get them and make it easier for them to apply for food stamps. 
We do that in our bill. That outreach, quite frankly, is not in the 
Lugar amendment.
  I think it is arguable whether the Senator provides more food than we 
do. I believe I can make the case we actually would provide more food 
because we do more outreach and get more people involved in the Food 
Stamp Program. We provide better commodity purchases for our school 
lunch programs. I believe that is a wash. Keep in mind the Lugar 
amendment destroys all our commodity programs, and we are not going to 
do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand all time has expired. I move to table the 
Lugar amendment and 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 motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 363 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Collins
     Corzine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are making progress on the farm bill. 
We have a couple of big amendments that were very thoroughly debated 
and voted on. We are ready to move ahead with other amendments. We are 
ready to move on. If other Senators have amendments, we are open for 
business. We hope people will come forward. We have maybe some 
reasonable time limits. On the Lugar amendment we had a decent time 
limit. We debated it thoroughly.
  It is vitally important that we finish this farm bill and that we do 
it expeditiously. I do not know exactly when we are going to go home 
for Christmas. This farm bill needs to be finished. We need to finish 
it expeditiously. The House passed their bill, and we need to pass ours 
and go to conference.
  We can finish this bill today. I see no reason we can't finish it 
today if we have some healthy debate on a couple more amendments. I 
know Senators Cochran and Roberts have an amendment they want to offer, 
which is a major amendment. We could debate that today and have a vote 
on that today. There are perhaps other amendments. I haven't seen any, 
but I have heard about some. I think we could move through this bill 
today and get it finished and go to conference.
  I urge all Senators who have amendments to come to the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to my friend from North Dakota 
for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I certainly share the Senator's interest 
in trying to conclude this farm bill or consideration of the farm bill. 
I am wondering, is there any opportunity at some point today to attempt 
to get a list of those who have amendments who wish to offer them on 
this legislation?
  Mr. HARKIN. I think the Senator has made a good suggestion and a good 
inquiry. I hope that at sometime today, with the leaders of both sides, 
we can have a finite list of amendments, that we can agree on those, 
and move ahead, because if we do not, we will just be

[[Page 24997]]

here day after day after day after day, and, as the Senator well knows 
from his experience here, this could go on indefinitely.
  So we do need to get a finite list. I hope we can get that done, I 
say to my friend.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further, I know it is certainly 
the goal of the Senator from Iowa to get a bill through the Senate, 
have a conference, and then get it on the President's desk for 
signature before we conclude this session of Congress. While I know 
that is ambitious, it certainly is achievable. I think we have the 
opportunity to finish this bill today or tomorrow. I know the chairman 
of the House Agriculture Committee is very anxious to go to conference.
  Is the Senator aware that the chairman of the House committee has 
indicated he is very anxious to begin a conference, which suggests if 
we can get a bill completed through the Senate, and get it to 
conference, we will be able to perhaps get it out of conference and on 
to the White House?
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from North Dakota, I think it is 
definitely possible we can get this done. I know that Congressman 
Combest and Congressman Stenholm, the two leaders of the Agriculture 
Committee on the House side, are anxious to get to conference. They 
have basically looked over what we have here, and we have looked over 
what they have in their bill. Really, I do not think the conference 
would take that long. But we just have to get it out of the Senate.
  Mr. DORGAN. One final question, if I might. I suspect the Senator 
from Iowa has been asked a dozen times now, before 11 o'clock, when we 
are going to finish this session of Congress or when we are going to 
finish this bill. I think everyone around here kind of wants to know 
when this session of Congress might end.
  That makes it all the more urgent we finish our work on this bill 
because this bill, the stimulus, Defense appropriations, and a couple 
of others need to be completed. I appreciate the work of the Senator 
from Iowa and the Senator from Indiana. And I know the Senator from 
Mississippi is going to have an amendment.
  I really hope we can have a good debate on important farm policy and 
then proceed along and see if we can get this bill into conference in 
the next 24, 48 hours. I appreciate the work of the Senator from Iowa 
and the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
  Seeing the Senator from Minnesota, who wants to speak, I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DAYTON. Sure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, while the leader is on the floor and while 
Mr. Baucus is on the floor, will the Senator yield to me for 5 minutes?
  Mr. DAYTON. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________