[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26638-26672]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the order 
before the Senate right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the amendment No. 2608 
offered by the Senator from Montana to the substitute.
  Mr. HARKIN. We are on the farm bill and the pending business is an 
amendment offered by the Senator from Montana, Senator Burns; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first I want to take a little bit of time 
right now to once again respond to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle and wonder why 1 week before Christmas, less than 2 weeks before 
the end of this year, they continue to hold up the farm bill. We had 
another cloture

[[Page 26639]]

vote today in good faith, thinking that maybe over the weekend some 
minds might be changed; they might think secondly about stopping a farm 
bill that is so important to farmers in rural America. But on the vote 
we just had a little bit ago, I believe, if I am not mistaken, we had 
three Republicans vote for cloture. I am sorry, four Republicans voted 
for cloture. We picked up one.
  I am told by my friend from Mississippi we had four all along.
  Again, we see this stalling tactic, dragging out the farm bill. One 
of the press people outside just stopped me and said that a Senator on 
the other side said the reason this bill has so much trouble is because 
it is such a partisan bill. I would like to point out again to my 
friends and my farmers in Iowa and all over this country, this bill 
came out of the Agriculture Committee, every single title, on a 
unanimous vote, Republicans and Democrats. You can't get much more 
bipartisanship than that. Quite frankly, I will submit this is the most 
bipartisan bill to come out of our committee since I have been serving 
on it for the last 17 years in terms of support on both sides of the 
aisle on the final bill that came out of committee.
  Obviously, we disagreed on the commodities title, but that was still 
bipartisan. It was not unanimous, but it was still bipartisan.
  To those who say this is some kind of a partisan bill, I say: Look 
out the window. It is daylight out there. It is not midnight. It is 
daytime. Look at the bill for the facts of what happened when that bill 
came from committee. This bill has very strong bipartisan support.
  Again, there is a lot of politics now being played on this bill--a 
lot of politics being played. It is a shame. It is a shame that our 
farmers and their families, farm families all over America, facing the 
uncertainty of what is going to happen next year, are being held 
hostage by certain political games that may be going on here. It is 
just a darn shame. It is about time that we bring this bill to a close. 
We have the votes. We can have the debate, and we can have the votes. 
But it is obvious that for whatever reason, people on the other side of 
the aisle do not want this farm bill passed this year.
  I have said before we could finish this farm bill. We could have 
finished it today. If we had had cloture, we could have finished this 
thing today. This morning I talked on the phone to Chairman Combest 
from the other side. I said: If we finish this bill, can we go to 
conference?
  He said: Sure, we will go to it right away.
  So they are willing in a bipartisan way. The Republican leader of the 
Agriculture Committee on the House side said to me this morning: If you 
pass the bill, we are ready to go to conference today, tonight, 
tomorrow and begin to work this thing out.
  I am disappointed and saddened, not for me but for our farm families, 
especially in my State of Iowa and all over this country, who are being 
held hostage for whatever reason I can't discern.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from Iowa will yield for a 
question.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield for a question without losing my right to the 
floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I share the disappointment of the Senator 
from Iowa that we were not able to invoke cloture today for the second 
time. My belief is that we have a couple of major amendments remaining 
to be offered. In fact, the authors of one of them are both in the 
Chamber, Senators Roberts and Cochran. There is an alternative 
amendment to the commodities title which I understand they will offer. 
I hope at some point to offer an amendment that does some targeting, 
and my hope is that we can make some progress and move ahead.
  I still don't understand what the filibuster is about. My hope is 
that if we have major issues, let's move ahead with the issues, offer 
amendments, and have debates on the amendments.
  It is the case, is it not, that Senators Roberts and Cochran simply 
have a different idea with respect to how the commodity title ought to 
be applied and so they are intending to offer an amendment? I ask the 
Senator from Iowa if he has some notion of when that amendment would 
come; has he consulted with the authors of that major amendment? If so, 
what does that consultation disclose to us about when that amendment 
would be offered?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry. I was conversing with a member of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee. I missed the question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I was asking the Senator from Iowa if he has been able to 
consult with the authors of the other major amendment on the 
commodities title about when that might be offered. My hope is we could 
just proceed with the amendments, dispose of the amendments, at which 
point I hope we will reach the end of the consideration of this bill 
and be able to report out the bill.
  Has the Senator consulted with the major authors of that amendment, 
and what might we expect from that consultation?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield without losing 
his right to the floor, I will respond.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am glad to yield without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have indicated to the manager of the 
bill that we would be prepared to offer the amendment now and have a 
time agreement on the Cochran-Roberts amendment. I have suggested 2 
hours evenly divided so that both sides will have ample opportunity to 
talk about the amendment. We have already talked about this amendment 
Friday morning. Senator Roberts and I were here to discuss the 
amendment and talked about an hour and a half at that time.
  That is what I would suggest we do, and that would get us moving 
along. This would be a major alternative to the committee-passed bill, 
and we think that that would be one way to start moving toward final 
disposition of this legislation.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator from Iowa will yield further, might I say 
that is a very hopeful sign. It is certainly up to the chairman of the 
committee to decide whether that time agreement is sufficient. 
Certainly, it sounds reasonable to me. After that, we would be able to 
dispose of one of the major amendments and move through the bill and 
perhaps late today or tomorrow we would be able to complete 
consideration of the farm bill. That is the most hopeful sign I have 
heard for some long while.
  As I indicated, the authors of this legislation have been deeply 
involved in farm legislation for many years. They just have a different 
approach on the commodities title. The best way to resolve that is to 
have the discussion and vote and see where it comes out. I encourage 
the Senator from Iowa to proceed along the lines suggested.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator, that is encouraging news. We will 
get to that. I see the Senator from Arizona is on the floor and has 
offered an amendment. I would like to ask him, if I could, without 
losing my right to the floor for right now, is the Senator wishing to 
debate the amendment that he laid down last week?
  Mr. McCAIN. That is correct, without losing your right to the floor. 
I will be glad to enter into a reasonable time agreement, including a 
half hour equally divided.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside; that the Senator from Arizona be recognized to 
debate his amendment that is pending; that the time be limited to a 
half an hour evenly divided, at the end of which either a motion to 
table or an up-or-down vote would be in order.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we just received a call from 
one Senator, and we have to find out how much time that Senator wants 
to speak in opposition to this amendment. We could do that real 
quickly. We can't do it right now.
  Mr. McCAIN. May I ask the Senator to yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

[[Page 26640]]


  Mr. McCAIN. Would it be agreeable to start the debate? I will be glad 
to agree to any time limit that is agreeable to the other side on this 
amendment--5 minutes, half an hour, whatever is agreeable to the 
Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am willing, obviously, as the Senator knows, to enter 
into this time agreement. We seem to have an objection over here. I see 
the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. There are Senators who have expressed interest in 
this amendment and who wanted to speak. I will object to any time 
agreement until we are able to check with those Senators to see how 
much time they require.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Why don't we start debate on the McCain amendment, as 
the Senator suggested? He will agree to any time agreement. It is just 
a matter of how many people want to talk in opposition to it. And we 
can get unanimous consent that following disposition of the McCain 
amendment we proceed to consideration of the Cochran-Roberts amendment, 
with 2 hours of debate evenly divided.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the problem is if we start the McCain 
amendment and people start filibustering, we will have another 
filibuster going here. The Senator from Arizona has been forthright.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for another question, if it 
appears to be a filibuster, there is nothing I can do about that. We 
are going to move forward with the bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Arizona is a gentleman. I appreciate 
that. I wonder if we can then agree--I will yield the floor and the 
Senator from Arizona will be recognized. I will ask unanimous consent 
that on the disposition of the McCain amendment, the Senator from 
Mississippi be recognized to offer his amendment; that there be a time 
agreement on the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi, with 2 
hours evenly divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, will the Senator repeat the 
request?
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that when I yield the floor, the 
Senator from Arizona be recognized to speak on his amendment; that on 
the disposition of the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, the 
Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, be recognized to offer his 
amendment; that there be 2 hours for debate on the Cochran amendment, 
evenly divided, and at the end of that time, there be a vote on or in 
relation to the Cochran amendment, without further amendment to the 
Cochran amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I would not expect a 
second degree, but I think it would be important to see the amendment 
that Senators Roberts and Cochran intend to file. I would not expect a 
second degree to be offered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I assume the amendment is the same as was filed on 
Friday; is that right?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes. In response to the Senator, the amendment is at the 
desk, and it has been there. It is the one we discussed Friday. There 
were no changes since that time, to my knowledge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect 
to the McCain amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2603

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The McCain amendment No. 2603 is now the 
pending question.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is kind of an interesting situation 
that we are facing. It is instructive of a lot of things that are 
happening around here in the Senate and in the country. Even though it 
is only about catfish--the lowly catfish--it has a lot of implications. 
There are implications for trade and our relations with Vietnam. It has 
implications as to how we do business in the Senate. It has a lot of 
interesting implications, including the rise of protectionism in the 
United States of America, how a certain special interest with enough 
lobbying money and enough special interest money and campaign 
contributions can get most anything done.
  During consideration of the Senate version of the Agriculture 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, it was late at night and I 
voiced concern about the managers' decision to clear a package of 35 
amendments just before the final passage of the bill. I said: Has 
anyone seen these amendments? It was late in the evening. There was 
dead silence in the Senate. It was late in the evening so, 
unfortunately, I agreed for this so-called managers' amendment to be 
passed by voice vote, remembering that managers' amendments are 
technical in nature; they are to clean up paperwork or clerical errors.
  Well, in this package of 35 amendments, 15 were earmarked to members 
of the Appropriations Committee--several million dollars. I have 
forgotten exactly how much. And this is a so-called catfish amendment. 
My good friend from Mississippi will say the issue was discussed 
before. If it was, why didn't we have a vote on it? Why didn't we have 
the amendment up and have a vote on it as we do regular amendments? The 
reason is because the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from 
Texas, I, and many others--and I believe we are going to find that a 
majority of the Senate--would have rejected such a thing.
  As it turns out, I had good reason to be concerned. Included was an 
amendment banning the FDA from using any funds to process imports of 
fish or fish products labeled as catfish, unless the fish have a 
certain Latin family name. In fact, of the 2,500 species of catfish on 
Earth, this amendment allows the FDA to process only a certain type 
raised in North America--specifically, those that grow in six Southern 
States. The program's effect is to restrict all catfish imports into 
our country by requiring they be labeled as something other than 
catfish, an underhanded way for catfish producers to shut out the 
competition. With a clever trick of Latin phraseology and without even 
a ceremonial nod to the vast body of trade laws and practices we 
rigorously observe, this damaging amendment, slipped into the managers' 
package and ultimately signed into law as part of an appropriations 
bill--an appropriations bill--literally bans Federal officials from 
processing any and all catfish imports labeled as they are--catfish.
  It is going to be ludicrous around here and entertaining because we 
are going to talk about what is and what is not a catfish. Over there, 
we may see one with an American flag on it, which would be an 
interesting species. When is a catfish other than a catfish.
  On this chart is a giant catfish with a name I can't pronounce. Here 
is a yellowtail catfish. I didn't do well in Latin. Here is another 
one, a basa catfish--yes, the culprit. Here is the channel catfish. 
They are all catfish. There are 2,500 of them. I don't have pictures of 
all of them. Now there is only going to be one recognized as a catfish 
in America, which are those which are raised in America--born and 
raised in America. These are interesting pictures. We will have a lot 
of pictures back and forth. I think we will see more pictures of 
catfish than any time in the history of the Senate of the United States 
of America.
  As you can see, these are common catfish characteristics: Single 
dorsal fin and adipose fin, strong spines in the dorsal and pectoral 
fins, whisker-like sensory barbels on the upper and lower jaws, all 
part of the order of Siluriformes. We are going to only call catfish 
the kind that are raised in the southeastern part of the United States.
  Proponents of this ban used the insidious technique of granting 
ownership of the term ``catfish'' to only North American catfish 
growers--as if Southern agribusinesses have exclusive rights to the 
name of a fish that is farmed around the world, from Brazil to 
Thailand. According to the FDA and the American Fisheries Society, the 
Pangasius species of catfish imported from Vietnam and other countries 
are ``freshwater catfishes of Africa and southern Asia.'' In addition, 
current

[[Page 26641]]

FDA regulations prohibit these products from being labeled simply as 
``catfish''. Under existing regulations, a qualifier such as ``basa,'' 
or ``striped'' must accompany the term ``catfish'' so that consumers 
are able to make an informed choice about what they are eating.
  These fish were indeed catfish, until Congress, with little review 
and no debate, determined them not to be. No other animal or plant name 
has been defined in statute this way.
  All other acceptable market names for fish are determined by the FDA 
in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service after review 
of scientific literature and market practices.
  What are the effects of this import restriction? As with any 
protectionist measure, blocking trade and relying only on domestic 
production will increase the price of catfish for the many Americans 
who enjoy eating it. One in three seafood restaurants in America serves 
catfish, attesting to its popularity.
  This trade ban will raise the prices wholesalers and retail customers 
pay for catfish, and Americans who eat catfish will feel that price 
increase--a price increase imposed purely to line the pockets of 
Southern agribusinesses and their lobbyists who have conducted a 
scurrilous campaign against foreign catfish for the most parochial 
reasons.
  The ban on catfish imports has other grave implications. It patently 
violates our solemn trade agreement with Vietnam, the very same trade 
agreement the Senate ratified by a vote of 88 to 12 only 2 months ago. 
The ink was not dry on that agreement when the catfish lobby and its 
congressional allies slipped the catfish amendment into a must-pass 
appropriations bill.
  A lot of things come over the Internet these days. This is one called 
the Nelson Report. The title of it is the ``Catfish War.'' It talks 
about an obscure amendment to the agricultural bill that puts the U.S. 
in violation of the Vietnam BTA barely days after it goes into effect, 
and it is not just a bilateral problem. The labeling requirement goes 
to the heart of the U.S. fight with European use of GMO protectionism. 
It has already forced the USTR to back off from supporting Peruvian 
sardines.

       No. 1, don't get us wrong: We here at Nelson Report World 
     Headquarters flat out love fresh Arkansas catfish. Serve it 
     all the time at our house, with Paul Prudhomme's spicy 
     seasoning. Tasty and nutritious. So nothing in the Report 
     which follows should be interpreted as bad mouthing, you 
     should pardon the expression, catfish from the good old U.S. 
     of A.
       --and we will confess going along with the crowd, every 
     time Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas launched into one of 
     her lectures on the inequities of lower priced Vietnamese 
     catfish coming into the U.S. All of us at the press table, 
     and back in the high priced lobby gallery, were too smart for 
     our britches. So we missed the FY '02 Agriculture 
     Appropriations amendment, now signed into law, requiring that 
     only U.S.-grown catfish of a certain biological genus can 
     actually be called catfish.
       That's right: U.S. law now says you can be ugly, you can 
     have whiskers, you can feed on unspeakable things off the 
     bottom of whatever bit of god's creation you happen to be 
     swimming around in, but if you ain't in the same genus as 
     your Arkansas cousins, you ain't a catfish. Or, rather, you 
     can't be called a catfish. That's now the law of the U.S., to 
     be enforced by the Federal Food and Drug Administration.
       --so what, you may ask? Ask your spousal unit, or friends, 
     who does the grocery shopping. Except maybe in Little Rock, 
     catfish isn't marketed by brand name. You look for a package 
     that says ``catfish.'' That's it. So now, if a catfish from 
     Vietnam, or Thailand, or some of the places in Africa that 
     export catfish happens to be in your supermarket, you may 
     never find out, since they've got to be called something 
     else.

  The amendment Senator Gramm and I offered will repeal this import 
restriction on catfish. The amendment would define catfish according to 
existing FDA procedures that follow scientific standards and market 
practices. Not only is restrictive catfish language offensive in 
principle to our free trade policies, our recent overwhelming 
ratification of the bilateral trade agreement and our relationship with 
Vietnam, it also flagrantly disregards the facts about the catfish 
trade.
  I would like to rebut this campaign of misinformation by setting 
straight these facts as reported by agricultural officials at our 
Embassy in Vietnam who have investigated the Vietnamese catfish 
industry in depth. The U.S. Embassy in Vietnam summarizes the situation 
in this way. This is the exact language from our Embassy in Vietnam:

       Based on embassy discussions with Vietnamese government and 
     industry officials and a review of recent reports by U.S.-
     based experts, the embassy does not believe there is evidence 
     to support claims that Vietnamese catfish exports to the 
     United States are subsidized, unhealthy, undermining, or 
     having an ``injurious'' impact on the catfish market in the 
     U.S.

  Our Embassy goes on to state:

       In the case of catfish, the embassy has found little or no 
     evidence that the U.S. industry or health of the consuming 
     public is facing a threat from Vietnam's emerging catfish 
     export industry. . . . Nor does there appear to be substance 
     to claims that catfish raised in Vietnam are less healthy 
     than [those raised in] other countries.

  The U.S. Embassy reported the following:
  Subsidies: American officials indicate that the Vietnamese Government 
provides no direct subsidies to its catfish industry.
  Health and safety standards: The Embassy is unable to identify any 
evidence to support claims that Vietnamese catfish are of questionable 
quality and may pose health risks. FDA officials have visited Vietnam 
and have confirmed quality standards there. U.S. importers of 
Vietnamese catfish are required to certify that their imports comply 
with FDA requirements and FDA inspectors certify these imports meet 
American standards.
  A normal increase in imports: The Embassy finds no evidence to 
suggest that Vietnam is purposely directing catfish exports to the 
United States to establish a market there.
  Labeling: The Vietnamese reached an agreement with the FDA on a 
labeling scheme to differentiate Vietnamese catfish from U.S. catfish 
in U.S. retail markets. As our Embassy reports, the primary objective 
should be to provide Americans consumers with informed choices, not 
diminish choice by restricting imports.
  The facts are clear. The midnight amendment passed without a vote is 
based not on any concern for the health and well-being of the American 
consumer. The restriction on catfish imports slipped into the 
Agriculture appropriations bill serves only the interests of the 
catfish producers in six Southern States that profit by restricting the 
choice of the American consumer by banning the competition.
  The catfish lobby's advertising campaign on behalf of its 
protectionist agenda has few facts to rely on to support its case, so 
it stands on scurrilous fear-mongering to make its claim that catfish 
raised in good old Mississippi mud are the only fish with whiskers safe 
to eat. One of these negative advertisements which ran in the national 
trade weekly ``Supermarket News'' tells us in shrill tones:

       Never trust a catfish with a foreign accent.

  This ad characterizes Vietnamese catfish as dirty and goes on to say:

       They've grown up flapping around in Third World rivers and 
     dining on whatever they can get their fins on. . . . Those 
     other guys probably couldn't spell U.S. even if they tried.

  How enlightened. I believe a far more accurate assessment is provided 
in the Far Eastern Economic Review in its feature article on this 
issue:

       For a bunch of profit-starved fisherfolk, the U.S. catfish 
     lobby had deep enough pockets to wage a highly xenophobic 
     advertising campaign against their Vietnamese competitors.

  Unfortunately, this protectionist campaign against catfish imports 
has global repercussions. Peru has brought a case against the European 
Union in the World Trade Organization because the Europeans have 
claimed exclusive rights to the word ``sardine'' for trade purposes. 
The Europeans would define sardines to be sardines only if they are 
caught in European waters, thereby threatening the sardine fisheries in 
the Western Hemisphere. Prior to passage of the catfish-labeling 
language in the Agriculture appropriations bill, the U.S. Trade 
Representative had committed to file a brief supporting Peru's position 
before the WTO that such a restrictive definition unfairly protected

[[Page 26642]]

European fishermen at the expense of sardine fishermen in the Western 
Hemisphere. As the Peruvians, a large number of American fishermen 
would suffer the effects of an implicit European import ban on the 
sardines that are their livelihood.
  Yet as a direct consequence of the passage of the restrictive 
catfish-labeling language in the Agriculture appropriations bill, the 
USTR has withdrawn its brief supporting the Peruvian position in the 
sardine case against the European Union because the catfish amendment 
written into law makes the United States guilty of the same type of 
protectionist labeling scheme for which we have brought suit against 
the Europeans in the WTO.
  Mr. President, I obviously do have a lot more to say. I know the 
opponents of this amendment have a lot to say as well. I would take 
heed, however, to the admonishments of the managers of the bill, the 
Senator from Iowa, the Senator from Mississippi, and I would be glad to 
enter into a time agreement so we can dispense with this amendment as 
quickly as possible.
  I do not know how both Senators from Arkansas feel, but I would 
propose a half hour--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage 
in a colloquy with the Senators from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask the Senator from Arkansas, is he prepared to have a 
time agreement?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I say at this time I am not prepared to enter into a 
time agreement. There are a number of Senators, and I don't know how 
long they need to speak. An original agreement was full and open 
debate. This is a good time for full and open debate, and it is not in 
the best interests to enter into a time agreement.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Arkansas. I know he would 
probably not want to filibuster this bill. I think he agrees we would 
want to have an up-or-down vote as he described. We are prepared to 
only use another 20 minutes on this side. I hope the Senators from 
Arkansas can find out who wants to speak and for how long so we can 
establish a time agreement. We need to move on with the important 
Cochran and Roberts amendment to the farm bill.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Speaking for myself, I agree with the Senator that we 
can probably get through debate rapidly. I think the Senator from 
Mississippi, and maybe Senator Hutchinson, and there may be a few other 
Senators who want to speak, but I don't foresee it taking a good deal 
of time, and we could conclude our comments rapidly.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for her courtesy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am delighted to engage in this debate. As my 
colleagues listen to the facts concerning the Vietnam basa and the 
impact on the domestic catfish industry, they will see things in a 
different light. I voted for the Vietnamese Free Trade Agreement. I 
believe in free trade. I believe in fair trade. I also believe in 
accurate labeling and that the American people ought to know what they 
are buying.
  We heard the term ``catfish lobby'' used frequently last week and 
today. It has an ominous ring to it. I am not sure what the catfish 
lobby is. I know this: I have thousands of people who are employed in 
the catfish industry in Arkansas. I was in Lake Village, AR, on 
Saturday. Chicot County is one of the poorest counties in Arkansas--one 
of the poorest counties in the United States, as a matter of fact. We 
had 70 or 80 catfish growers who were present on Saturday. I didn't see 
agribusiness. I didn't see wealthy landholders. I saw a group of small 
business men and women struggling to survive in an industry that has 
been one of the bright spots in one of the poorest spots in the United 
States in the last decade.
  One of the farmers came up and said: I want to give you my books for 
the last 5 years--and handed me spread sheets. When they talk about us 
being wealthy catfish growers, I will show my books. He had a net 
profit last year of $8,000. This is a part of the country where the 
median household income is $19,000, about half of what it is in the 
State of Arizona.
  I take exception when we talk about the catfish lobby as if it were a 
powerful, wealthy, devious, insidious group. This amendment cripples 
and potentially destroys the aquaculture industry in the State of 
Arkansas. This industry has been in distress over the last year because 
of the influx of Vietnamese fish mislabeled as catfish. The Vietnamese 
basa is not catfish.
  On November 28, 2001, President Bush signed into law what was a great 
victory for our Nation's catfish farmers, a provision that simply said 
the Vietnamese basa would not be labeled ``catfish.'' It is a different 
species; it is a different order; it is a different fish.
  This language attached to the Agriculture appropriations bill has 
also been included in the farm bill that passed the House of 
Representatives. Put in the bill was language that would limit the use 
of the common name ``catfish'' for the Vietnamese basa. Importers have 
hijacked the common name of catfish and applied it to a species of fish 
that is not closely related or similar to what we commonly consider 
catfish.
  The domestic catfish industry has spent millions and millions and 
millions of dollars to try to educate the American people as to the 
nutritional value and the health and safety conditions in which farm-
grown catfish are raised. All of that investment the domestic channel 
catfish industry has made has been hijacked by importers who see a 
quick way to profits.
  The language in the appropriations bill corrected this mislabeling of 
fish and misleading of American consumers. This limitation will give 
our domestic catfish producers a reprieve from unfair competition and 
mislabeling. I share Senator McCain's belief that competition is good 
when open and a competitive market benefits our Nation's economy and 
consumers. However, misleading consumers and mislabeling a product is 
wrong. To allow it to continue at the expense of an entire industry is 
unthinkable.
  The States of Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana produce 
95 percent of the Nation's catfish. If you look at the broad area of 
aquaculture, 58 percent of fish grown in the United States are catfish. 
This is a huge aspect of fisheries in general in the United States, and 
95 percent of those are grown in these four Southern States. These 
catfish are grain fed, they are farm raised catfish, produced under 
strict health and environmental regulations.
  Arkansas rates second in the amount of catfish produced nationally, 
but it is an industry that has grown and has thrived in one of the 
poorest areas of this country, the Mississippi Delta, an area that has 
sometimes been referred to as the Appalachia of the 1990s. When I say 
that Chicot County and Desha County are two of the poorest counties in 
Arkansas, it is true they are two of the poorest counties in the 
Nation.
  Despite the work ethic and strong spirit, economic opportunities have 
been few and far between. The aquaculture industry has been a shining 
success story for this region of the country. I made a number of visits 
to southeast Arkansas and to the Mississippi Delta and to our 
aquaculture regions of the State. I have been to the processing plants. 
I have seen them and talked to those who are employed in the catfish 
processing plants. I have gone to the ponds. I have seen the pristine 
conditions in which the fish are raised.
  This past Saturday, I saw the pain and distress and concerns 
reflected in the faces of these catfish growers who have built an 
industry and seen hope and are now seeing that hope ripped away from 
them. It is estimated that as high as 25 percent of the catfish growers 
in Arkansas could go bankrupt within the next year. This is not some 
obscure debate about free trade; it is people's livelihoods, people's 
lives.

[[Page 26643]]

  At a time when there is a lot of attention being paid to an economic 
stimulus package for the Nation, I suggest to my colleagues this is one 
of the poorest regions of our Nation. Just think of the economic damage 
that can be done with this kind of amendment.
  Some of my colleagues are making accusations that this legislation is 
in violation of trade practices, saying this legislation is unfair.
  What is unfair is that our catfish farmers are being subjected to 
competing with an inferior product that simply adopts the name of a 
successful product and gains acceptance. What is unfair is these fish 
are being pawned off as catfish to unsuspecting American consumers at a 
time when the fears of unemployment and the reality of an economic 
downturn in the wake of the September 11 attacks are weighing heavily 
on the minds of Americans. It is not acceptable for us to sit back and 
watch as an industry which employs thousands is allowed to be crushed 
by inferior imports because of the glitch in our regulatory system.
  Vietnamese exports are being confused by the American public as being 
catfish due to labeling that allows them to be called basa catfish. 
These Vietnam basa are being imported at record levels.
  The chart to my right demonstrates what has happened. As late as 
1997, imports of Vietnam basa were almost nonexistent. Yet if you look 
at 1998 and 1999, and particularly this year, they have grown 
exponentially. In June of this year, 648,000 pounds were imported into 
the United States. Over the last several months, imports have averaged 
382,000 pounds per month.
  To put this in perspective, in all of 1997 there were only 500,000--
one-half million--pounds of Vietnam basa imported into the United 
States. However, it is predicted that 15 million to 20 million pounds 
could be imported next year.
  The Vietnamese penetration in this market in the last year has more 
than tripled. Market penetration has risen from 7 percent to 23 percent 
of the total market. As a result of that incredibly fast increase of 
penetration into the American market from 7 percent to 23 percent, 
American catfish growers have seen their prices decrease 15 percent 
just in the last few months in 2001 alone.
  For those who argue this is the result of a competitive market, let 
me offer a few facts.
  When the fish were labeled and marketed as Vietnamese basa, when they 
imported it and put ``Vietnam basa'' on it, or they just put ``basa'' 
on it, sales in this country were limited, almost nonexistent. Some 
importers were so creative that they tried to label basa as white 
grouper, still with very little success. It was only when these 
importers discovered that labeling it as catfish added a lot of appeal 
that sales began to skyrocket and imports began to skyrocket. Try this, 
and it didn't work. Try this, and it didn't work. And try catfish, 
because of the great investment this domestic industry made, and sales 
took off.
  Although the FDA issued an order on September 19, stating that the 
correct labeling of Vietnamese basa be a high priority, the FDA is 
allowing these fish to retain the label of ``catfish'' in the title.
  Whether it is budget constraints or lack of personnel, it is obvious 
that inspections have been lacking in the past and the inclusion of the 
term catfish in the title only serves to promote confusion.
  Prior to this ruling there were numerous instances where the 
packaging of these fish was blatantly misleading and even illegal.
  This illustration shows how Vietnamese companies and rogue U.S. 
importers are trying to confuse the American public.
  Names such as ``Cajun Delight,'' ``Delta Fresh,'' and ``Farm 
Select,'' lead consumers to believe the product is something that it is 
not.
  ``Catfish'' in large letters, ``Delta Fresh''--no one would suspect 
it is from the Mekong Delta.
  The total impact of the catfish industry on the U.S. economy is 
estimated to exceed $4 billion annually. It has gone up dramatically. 
Approximately 12,000 people are employed by the industry.
  When you talk about the catfish lobby and say it in such sinister 
terms, please think about the 12,000 people--thousands of them--in the 
delta of Arkansas, the poorest part of this Nation, who are employed in 
this industry. That is the catfish lobby.
  It is estimated that 25 percent of my catfish farmers in Arkansas 
will be forced out of business if this problem is not corrected.
  Catfish farmers of this country have invested millions of dollars 
educating the American public about the nutritional attributes of 
catfish. Through their efforts, American consumers have an expectation 
of what a catfish is and how it is raised.
  They have an expectation that what they purchase is indeed a catfish.
  Here you will see an official list of both scientific names and 
market or common names from the Food and Drug Administration. Almost 
all of these fish can contain the word catfish in their names under 
current FDA rules.
  All of these fish in this one order can use the term ``catfish'' 
under current FDA rulings. It is the same order, if you look at the 
channel catfish. The basa are here at the bottom. In fact, you will 
find that while they are of the same order as Senator McCain rightly 
pointed out, they are of a different family and a different species; 
that is, channel catfish and the basa--totally different species. Even 
more importantly, when we look at trade issues, they are a totally 
different family.
  This is a very important distinction to realize. Most people just 
look and see the word ``catfish'' and they don't pay any attention to 
the package. They are currently allowed to use that term.
  In fact, you will notice, if you look a little farther down on the 
chart, the Atlantic salmon and the lake trout are of the same family or 
more closely related to the channel catfish than the basa. Ask those 
who are from the States where Atlantic salmon is an important fishery 
product whether they would appreciate lake trout being allowed under 
FDA rules to be labeled ``Atlantic salmon.'' Those two fish are more 
closely related than the channel catfish is to the basa. You can see 
that the Atlantic salmon and the lake trout are of the same family 
while channel catfish is of a different family entirely.
  Most people are not able to make those distinctions and are being 
misled when they see that word ``catfish'' put on the package.
  When the average Arkansan hears the word ``catfish,'' the idea of a 
typical channel catfish come to mind. When they sit down at a 
restaurant and order a plate of fried catfish, that same channel 
catfish is what they expect to be eating.
  One cannot blame the restauranteur who is offered ``catfish'' for a 
dollar less a pound for buying it. However, in many cases they do not 
realize that what they are buying is not really channel catfish.
  It is obvious that this confusion has been exploited and will 
continue to be exploited unless something is done to correct the 
obvious oversight that is jeopardizing American jobs.
  Further, American catfish farmers raise their catfish in pristine and 
closely controlled environments. The fish are fed pellets consisting of 
grains composed of soybeans, corn, and cotton seed. These facilities 
are required to meet strict Federal and State regulations.
  In fact, this upper picture is a very accurate reflection both of 
U.S. farm-raised catfish--what it looks like--and the conditions in 
which it is grown. I was there this Saturday. I have flown over our 
catfish ponds in delta Arkansas time and time again. They are clean, 
they are pristine and well regulated, and they are inspected.
  I understand the Vietnamese basa fish are raised in far different 
conditions. In the Mekong Delta, one of the most polluted watersheds in 
the world, basa are often exposed to many foul and unhealthy elements, 
sometimes even feeding off raw sewage. In fact, because an importer 
signs a statement saying he guarantees it was raised in

[[Page 26644]]

conditions comparable to the United States and meets health and safety 
requirements of the United States is little assurance to the American 
consumers.
  There is, I believe, a pretty good indication of the comparison, and 
most assuredly a comparison of the two different fish that are 
involved. One is Vietnamese basa, a different species, and a different 
family from United States farm-raised catfish, channel catfish.
  I understand that my colleague from Arizona has a strong desire to 
promote competitive markets and encourage trade but markets must be 
honest and trade must be fair.
  I again emphasize that these are people's livelihoods. Congress acted 
properly limiting the use of the common name ``catfish.'' This action 
was warranted because exporters in Vietnam and importers in the United 
States have used the term ``catfish'' improperly and unfairly to make 
inroads into an established market.
  This provision does not exclude Vietnamese basa from being imported. 
Let me emphasize that it does not violate any trade agreements.
  There can be as many Vietnam basa fish imported into the United 
States as they can sell if it is properly labeled Vietnamese basa. My 
objective under the provisions that were included in the Agriculture 
appropriations bill was to ensure that labeling is accurate and 
truthful.
  That language ends the practice of purposely misleading consumers at 
the expense of an industry in one of the poorest parts of the Nation.
  Some people may argue that the restriction of the use of the name 
``catfish'' to members of the family Ictaluridae runs counter to past 
international seafood trade policy, and may hinder our progress of 
increasing trade. In fact, that is the very argument that has been 
made.
  Two examples of attempted nomenclature restrictions used to support 
this argument are name restrictions for scallops proposed by the French 
Government and one for sardines proposed by the EU. Both of these 
efforts have been strongly opposed by American producers. We do not 
dispute that; in the cases of the scallops and the sardines, these 
nomenclature restrictions are unfair.
  However, both of these examples--and I suspect the Senator from Texas 
will talk about these examples and try to make it identical to the 
issue of catfish; and, in fact, it is not at all--are based on groups 
of animals that are much more closely related taxonomically than are 
basa and channel catfish. Channel catfish and the Vietnamese basa are 
classified in different taxonomic families--Ictaluridae for channel 
catfish and Pangasidae for basa. As is shown on this chart, the 
families are entirely different for the channel catfish and the 
Vietnamese basa.
  This is a very distant relationship, analogous to the difference 
between giraffes and cattle, which differ at the level of family within 
the mammal grouping. However, the scallop issue involves members of a 
single molluscan family, the Pectenidae. That is, the molluscs at issue 
in the French case differ only at the genus or species level.
  The European Union sardine issue likewise involves members of a 
single family of fish, the Clupeidae. Again, the fish species allowed 
by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's Codex 
Alimentarius standard to be sold under the common name ``sardine'' 
differ only at the genus--that is shown here on the chart--and species 
level, not at the family level.
  The Vietnamese basa and the American channel catfish are in different 
families. They are only in the same order--Siluriformes--which has more 
than 2,200 different species in it. This order is characterized by the 
presence, as Senator McCain has said, of barbels or whiskers. Some will 
say: If it has whiskers, then it is a catfish. I heard my colleague 
make that statement. So should all of these fish be allowed to be sold 
as catfish--these 2,000 different species? Do you think it is all right 
with consumers to sell them nurse shark labeled as catfish? They have 
the barbels or the whiskers. They have the pictures here to show that. 
Do you not think that would be a little bit deceptive for the nurse 
shark to be labeled as catfish?
  Now think about if that nurse shark were raised in salt water under 
health inspection conditions that only require the producer to sign a 
piece of paper that states that health standards are being upheld.
  Now imagine that because of the way this nurse shark is raised--it is 
cheaper, significantly cheaper. What if that nurse shark, raised in 
salt water under questionable health conditions, was allowed to be sold 
as catfish? Is that fair trade? That is exactly analogous of what is 
being done today when Vietnamese basa is being labeled as catfish. It 
is not fair trade.
  Now imagine that they tried to sell it as nurse shark and couldn't 
develop a market--understandably--but suddenly, when they labeled it as 
catfish, they saw their market grow by not 100 percent, not 400 
percent, but 700 percent. Because they took the nurse shark and labeled 
it as catfish, wouldn't that be considered deceptive and considered 
unfair? The answer is obvious.
  This is exactly the case that our catfish farmers in Arkansas, 
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama are facing. And it is not fair.
  Black drum fish have whiskers. That should not be labeled as catfish. 
Sturgeon have whiskers and barbels. It should not be labeled as 
catfish. The blind fish, the blind cave fish uses whiskers or barbels 
to feel its way around, but no one would suggest they should be 
marketed as catfish.
  That is why we introduced S. 1494 on October 3, 2001. Many of us, 
including my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, came to this 
Chamber and described the situation in great detail at that time. 
Nothing was hidden. We had an open and full debate. Afterwards, we 
worked to include this needed legislation in a number of bills, finally 
being successful in getting it into the Agriculture appropriations 
bill.
  I remind my colleagues, again, as they will hear of the wealthy 
catfish growers, they will hear of agribusiness. They will hear of the 
catfish lobby. Two counties in Arkansas that grow the most catfish are 
Chicot County and Desha County.
  In Chicot County, 33.8 percent of the residents live in poverty--33.8 
percent. The median household income in Chicot County is $19,604. That 
is the average household income.
  In Desha County, 27.5 percent of the residents live in poverty, with 
the median household income being $23,361.
  By contrast, in the State of Arizona, 15 percent of the residents 
live in poverty. That is one-half the poverty rate of Chicot County. 
And the median household income in Arizona is $34,751--$15,000 per 
family more than Chicot County.
  I would not suggest that we should try to hurt, destroy, undermine, 
or undercut industries in the State of Arizona because they are 
prospering more than these two poor counties in the delta of Arkansas. 
But I assure you, I am going to stand in this Senate Chamber and fight 
for the thousands of people who are employed in this industry and the 
one ray of light in that delta economy.
  When they talk about large agribusinesses and wealthy catfish 
growers, it should be remembered that 70 percent of the catfish growers 
in the United States qualify under the Small Business Administration as 
small businesses. And many of that 70 percent are fighting for their 
survival.
  So, Mr. President, and my colleagues, I ask we keep very much in mind 
that this is not a free trade issue. This is a fair trade issue. It is 
a truth-in-labeling issue. It is calling Vietnamese basa what they 
are--basa--and allowing that term ``catfish,'' which has been part of 
an important educational and nutritional campaign in this country, to 
not be kidnapped by those importers that seek to make a quick buck.
  I ask my colleagues to vote down the McCain-Gramm amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for

[[Page 26645]]

being in this Chamber and so eloquently describing the issue with which 
we are dealing, particularly in our home State of Arkansas, 
particularly in the area of the Mississippi Delta region of Arkansas 
that has been so hard hit by the unfairness of the influx of trade from 
the Vietnamese basa fish.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona for his continued leadership and his 
work in keeping us focused on making sure we are on the straight and 
narrow and that we are doing business in the Senate in the way that 
business should be handled. He is always there working diligently in 
that regard.
  Today I rise to respectfully oppose the amendment that Senator McCain 
has offered on catfish and, again, thanking him for his leadership and 
doing many things in keeping us straight in the Senate. But I 
respectfully disagree with him on this one.
  Our distinguished colleagues who support this amendment argue that 
this issue is about free trade. They argue this amendment is about 
preserving the integrity and the spirit of our trade agreements, in 
particular, the bilateral agreement with Vietnam this body approved 
earlier this fall. And they are right on both of these points, but not 
for the reasons they describe.
  This issue does touch on free trade and on the integrity of our 
agreements. It touches on the fairness of trade and on the trust that 
we ask our citizens in this country to put into our trade agreements.
  For global market liberalization to succeed, it must be built on a 
strong foundation of rules. This rules-based market system must be 
transparent and fair. It must be reliable and it must encourage market 
confidence.
  That is one reason we worked so hard to negotiate our trade 
agreements within the auspices of a stable, multilateral institution 
such as the WTO. If we do not work within a reliable, predictable 
rules-based system, then people lose faith in the promise of free trade 
and the free trade agenda is undermined. I do not think anyone in this 
body with the state of the economy wants to undermine the opportunities 
that free trade brings to this great Nation.
  Many of our farmers have lost faith in our promises of free trade 
because they sense that their trading partners are not playing by the 
same rules. The House barely approved TPA last week in large part 
because rural Members and their constituents have lost faith in free 
trade. Our catfish farmers are now having to confront this issue of 
fairness and trust. They are having to confront imports of a wholly 
different kind of fish that is brought into this country but that is 
labeled as catfish.
  Let's remember what it is we are talking about when we talk about 
catfish. As a young girl, I learned how to shoot using target driftwood 
on the Mississippi River. I also learned how to enjoy the outdoors and 
fishing by catching some big catfish in many of our lakes and streams 
in Arkansas, the thrill of being able to be a part of the environment 
and something that is a part of our heritage in Arkansas and in the 
Mississippi Delta region.
  Some of us have in mind a specific kind of fish, the catfish that we 
grew up catching and eating. If we look at the chart, which has been 
shown to you by my colleague from Arkansas, which was prepared by the 
National Warmwater Aquaculture Center in Stoneville, MI, we see, as my 
colleague pointed out, what catfish consumers in this country think of 
as classified taxonomically under the family known as Ictaluridae.
  It is a week before Christmas, a time when we should all be focused 
on family and getting home to our families so we can celebrate this 
Christmas. Let's look at this family column of what we are talking 
about. Look at the Ictaluridae area of the family column, more 
specifically known by its genus species as the channel catfish, which 
is what we are talking about today. In contrast, the basa fish that is 
being imported and labeled as ``catfish'' is classified under the 
family name here known as Pangasiidae. So not only are the channel 
catfish and the basa fish not members of the same genus species, they 
are not even members of the same family. They are only members of the 
same taxonomic order.
  To get an idea of what this means or of how different these fish are, 
let's look at classifications of other items that we buy and consume. I 
mentioned this in my comments when we did bring up this amendment on 
the floor and talked about the bill we had introduced.
  An Atlantic salmon and a lake trout, as my colleague mentioned, are 
members of the same family. So they are closer relatives than are the 
channel fish, catfish, and the basa fish. I suppose if we are prepared 
to say that basa would be sold under the label of ``catfish,'' then 
lake trout can be masqueraded as Atlantic salmon. I imagine many of my 
colleagues in this body would disagree with that.
  Here is another one: A cow and a yak are members of the same family; 
once again, closer relatives than the channel catfish and the basa. So 
if we are prepared to say that the basa can be sold under the label of 
``catfish,'' then we are more justified in saying that yak meat can be 
labeled and sold as New York strip steak. Or how about a camel or a 
giraffe? Both are members of the same order as a cow so just as close 
as the channel catfish and the basa fish. I suppose our opponents 
believe that an importer ought to be able to label a camel or a giraffe 
as beef and deceive the consumers into thinking they are buying filet 
mignon. Of course, it would be absurd to let a business deceive a 
consumer in such an egregious manner. To do so is nothing more than 
outrageous deception.
  Do not let the other side fool you by suggestions that all fish are 
the same. It is not true, not any more than saying all four-legged 
mammals can be sold as beef.
  These basa fish are brought into this country, packaged to mimic 
American brand names, even to mimic U.S. brand emblems for catfish, 
then labeled and sold to consumers as catfish in a blatant attempt to 
deceive the consumer into thinking he or she was buying a certain kind 
of catfish. That catfish they think they are buying is the North 
American channel catfish, not a basa fish.
  This issue really hits home in Arkansas. As was mentioned by my 
colleague, we are talking about the Mississippi River Delta region of 
Arkansas where I grew up, one of the poorest regions in the Nation, one 
of the areas where our catfish farmers have contributed significantly 
to the economic viability of our Mississippi Delta counties, an area 
which has already been hit hard by the downturn in the rural economy 
which occurred over 4 years ago or better.
  At a time when terribly low prices of other crops have been sending 
more and more farmers into bankruptcy, our catfish farmers have been 
able to scratch out a living by carving out a new market in this stable 
economy. These are farmers who in years past have left row cropping, 
who have found an environmentally efficient way to take their lands, 
their productive lands, and put them into aquaculture, thereby not only 
looking at the environmental impact statement they can make, the 
economic impact they can make, because they will hire more individuals 
and put more individuals to work, but also carving out a niche in the 
economy that needed to be filled.
  So many of these farmers and workers once worked in production of 
other crops. As we have seen, the market for those crops has gone in 
the tank. There wasn't a very proud commercial market in catfish to 
speak of, but these farmers and these workers, after finding it nearly 
impossible to make a living in other crops, saw an opportunity to 
develop a market and build an industry. That is exactly what they have 
done over the last 15 to 20 years. They have built from scratch this 
market for aquaculture. So many of these communities, these farmers, 
their families and related industries invested millions and millions of 
dollars into building a catfish industry and into developing a catfish 
market. It has taken years, but they have done it. They are still doing 
it.

[[Page 26646]]

  But now, just as they are seeing the fruits of their years of labor 
and investment, just as they are finding a light at the end of the 
rural economic tunnel, they find themselves facing a new and even more 
devious form of unfair trading practice. The people importing these 
Vietnamese fish see a growing market of which they can take advantage. 
It is irrelevant to them that what they are selling is not really 
catfish.
  Why are they doing it? Because the catfish market in America is 
growing. Americans like catfish. As the Senator from Arizona mentioned, 
it is wholesome and healthy. It is safe. But as in any other crop in 
this Nation, as we continue to demand of our producers in this great 
Nation that they produce the safest--environmentally safest and product 
safest--economical product, we must be willing to stand by them, 
whether it is in an incredibly good farm bill, which the chairman has 
produced, or whether it is in trading practices to ensure that we stand 
by our producers.
  American-raised catfish is farm raised and grain fed, grown in 
specially built ponds, cared for in closely regulated and closely 
scrutinized environments that ensure the safest supply of the cleanest 
fish a consumer could purchase.
  Some basa fish are grown in cages in the Mekong River in conditions 
that are far below the standards which our catfish farmers must meet. 
Do consumers know that? Are they aware of the product they are getting? 
It is an unfair irony that our catfish farmers, many of whom left other 
agricultural pursuits, find themselves once again in the headlights of 
an onslaught of unfair trade from another country.
  It is not true, as Senator McCain has suggested, that these are 
simply wealthy agribusiness corporations with deep pockets. These are 
farmers and workers and families who have built their lives around a 
productive aquaculture business, who have been scraping out of the land 
and the mud of the Mississippi Delta a living in an area that has been 
so traditionally downtrodden.
  In fact, 70 percent of the catfish processing workforce consists of 
single mothers in their first jobs. These are single working mothers, 
many of whom are coming off the welfare rolls in one of the poorest 
regions in the country. One of the farmers from Arkansas whom I know, a 
gentleman named Randy Evans, is a Vietnam veteran himself who has sunk 
his life savings into his catfish farm. Another year like the last one, 
he tells me, and he will be out of business. His story is a common one.
  Another farmer, Philip Jones, also from Arkansas, decided to quit 
farming in other crops 4 years ago because it was too tough to make a 
living and decided to throw his and his wife's savings into the catfish 
business. Now, as Randy Evans, they face losing all of their savings 
and going out of business if the next year is like the last.
  To hear the other side describe, the troubles these farmers are 
facing couldn't possibly have anything to do with increasing sales of 
basa as catfish. They will try to point out that basa imports represent 
only 4 percent of the catfish market. But that's only if you look at 
the entire catfish market. What they don't tell you is that basa 
imports are primarily in the frozen filet market, which is the most 
profitable market within the catfish business. And within the frozen 
filet market, basa imports have tripled--tripled--each of the last 
couple of years--from 7 million pounds to 20 million pounds annually.
  Looking at that trend line, it is easy to understand how imports of 
these misleadingly labeled basa fish will very soon have a devastating 
effect on the catfish industry; that is, unless something is done to 
bring some fairness to the marketplace.
  My colleagues and I felt that this problem could best be resolved by 
addressing the unfair trading practice where it occurs--at the labeling 
stage. That is exactly what the language included in the Agriculture 
appropriations bill does, which was signed into law by President Bush 
on November 28, just 3 weeks ago. It simply prohibits the labeling of 
any fish as ``catfish'' that is in fact not an actual member of the 
catfish family ``Ictalariidae.''
  We are not trying to stop other countries from growing catfish and 
selling it into this country. We simply want to make sure that if they 
say they are selling catfish--then that is what they are really doing. 
It does not violate the ``national treatment'' rules in our trade 
agreements, nor should it violate our bilateral agreement with Vietnam, 
as some may argue. That is because the language included in the 
Agriculture appropriations law applies to anybody who tries to mislabel 
fish as ``catfish,'' whether that mislabeled fish has been grown in 
Asia or in Arkansas.
  I have heard some people mention a case involving sardines and the 
European Union. In that case, the EU is trying to limit the label of 
``sardines'' to a specific genus species that is harvested in the 
Mediterranean. That case is different from ours for three reasons.
  First of all, the European action violates an applicable 
international standard that is binding on the EU under the Technical 
Barriers to Trade Agreement. There is no applicable international 
standard that applies to catfish. So one of the main objections to the 
EU sardines case is not even relevant to our case.
  Second, the EU action would change the way sardines imports had 
already been handled. So the EU action represented an about-face of 
sorts against the way the sardines importing industry had been doing 
business. This is different from our case because these basa imports 
have only recently begun to deluge our market. So there is no existing 
way we have dealt with the catfish labeling issue. We are establishing 
that manner right now.
  Third, as I mentioned earlier, the EU action would limit the label of 
sardines to within the specific genus species that is harvested in the 
Mediterranean. So sardines that are within the same taxonomic family as 
the European species could not use the sardines label. This is 
different from our case because we're talking about fish that is not 
even a member of the same taxonomic family.
  And do not let others sell you on the argument that we would violate 
the ``national treatment'' and most-favored-nation provisions of our 
trade agreements. Our language focuses only on the types of fish, not 
on the place of origin, so it would apply equally whether the fish is 
grown in Asia or in the Mississippi Delta.
  If our trading partners want to raise catfish of the ``Ictaluridae'' 
family overseas and import it into this country under the label of 
``catfish,'' then they can do that. Our language does not seek to stop 
them. It only requires them to deal with the consumer honestly. It only 
prohibits them from deceiving the consumer.
  This is about truth and fairness and that is what the language 
included in the Agriculture appropriations law accomplishes. So our 
colleagues on the other side of this issue are right when they say this 
is about preserving the integrity of our trade agreements.
  What is at stake is whether we will honor the spirit of a rules-based 
global trading system that relies on transparency and fairness. Will we 
encourage our farmers and workers to trust increased trade? If so, then 
vote against this amendment.
  I, once again, would like to go to and reconfirm that this is not an 
issue of campaign finance reform. This is an issue of jobs--jobs in an 
area of our country that has traditionally suffered unbelievable 
poverty and unemployment. These are about hard-working families, in an 
area of our country that, again, has been downtrodden for years. It is 
about encouraging diversity in an industry, particularly agriculture, 
where we have seen our agricultural producers in this great Nation who 
have been farming away the equity in their farms that their fathers and 
grandfathers and great-grandfathers built up before them because we 
haven't provided them the kind of agriculture policy that could sustain 
them in business. It is providing the diversity that when row crops 
can't provide that stability, they can diversify into aquaculture, into 
an area where

[[Page 26647]]

they can employ more people and preserve the environment, and they can 
make an effort at building a part of the economy that needs to be built 
in this great Nation.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona again for his leadership and for 
always coming forward to try to set us straight. I respectfully 
disagree with him. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
people of the Mississippi Delta, the farmers of this Nation who have 
been willing to diversify and to seize a marketplace that needed to be 
seized, and to give them fairness so that once again the American 
farmer, the American producer, can have faith in the integrity of the 
free trade that this Nation stands behind on their behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, surely God must be smiling that we are here 
on December 18th talking about catfish. I would like to try to address 
all these issues that have been raised as quickly as I can and get to 
the bottom line of what this issue is about.
  Let me first say I take a back seat to no man or woman on the issue 
of catfish. I have eaten as many or more catfish than anyone in the 
Senate. In fact, as a boy growing up on the Chattahoochee River, I can 
remember buying catfish from people along River Road who had up a sign: 
``Our catfish slept in the Chattahoochee river last night.''
  I think it is an incredible commentary on how poorly we understand 
trade that we have heard an endless debate today about what the income 
level of catfish producers is while nobody has mentioned catfish 
consumers. Is there anybody here who would be willing to wager whether 
the average catfish consumer in America is substantially poorer than 
the average catfish producer? Nobody would make that wager. Nobody 
thinks there is any question about it.
  The amazing thing about the debate on trade is that nobody cares 
about the consumer. The consumer is absolutely irrelevant in the trade 
debate. The trade debate is basically about single-entry bookkeeping. 
Nobody looks at all the agricultural products that the
Vietnamese buy from America. Nobody looks at all the jobs that creates. 
Nobody looks at the fact that every American dollar that goes to 
Vietnam, or any other country, for that matter, comes back to America 
in purchases. We are focused on single-entry bookkeeping, and in this 
sort of naive world of the Senate trade debate, the end of all 
activities is exports. Imports seem to be terrible things.
  If that is true, I wonder why my colleagues go to the grocery store. 
They talk about free trade. But when is the last time Kroger or Safeway 
bought anything from you? They have never bought anything from me. I 
have never sold anything to a grocery store. I am engaged in absolutely 
one-way unfair trade with the grocery store. The groceries sell things 
to me but they do not buy things from me. If I listen to the logic of 
this debate, we should be putting up barriers to people getting in the 
grocery store because of unfair trade.
  Maybe I have been following these debates for too long, but I thought 
the end of all economic activity was consumption. Does no one care 
about what impact this provision will have on consumers? Does anybody 
doubt that limiting competition in the sale of catfish will hurt poor 
people? It will, and it will hurt them everywhere--not just in 
Arkansas, not just in Texas, but everywhere.
  I also do not understand the point about people in Arizona being 
richer than people in Arkansas. On that logic, why don't we simply have 
amendments to redistribute wealth? I do not think any of that is 
relevant.
  My point is that no one can dispute that the average consumer of 
catfish is poorer than the average producer of catfish. So if we are 
here choosing up sides based on income, we would all be against the 
provision that limits competition in catfish. But obviously, that is 
not what we are about.
  Let me try to address some of the issues that have been raised. First 
of all, many comments have been made today that I do not think comport 
with existing regulations and laws. I have here a September 27 
directive by Phillip Spiller, who is director of the Seafood Center for 
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, about labeling of Vietnamese 
catfish. I will ask that it be printed in the Record when I get through 
speaking. He lists about 30 commercial catfish labels, none of which is 
just plain catfish. You can label it basa catfish. You can label it 
bocourti catfish. You can label it short barbel catfish. You can label 
it sutchi catfish. You can label it striped catfish. But you certainly 
cannot label it plain catfish. So the idea that we have no way to 
indicate whether or not catfish is U.S. catfish just does not comport 
with the regulations in place today.
  In looking into this issue, and trying to find a neutral source, we 
pulled up www.fishbase.org, which is a taxonomic database on the 
Internet that serves as a reference for fisheries scientists. Rather 
than going to an old dusty library and pulling out a reference book and 
blowing the dust off it, you now can call up this information from a 
database on the Internet. And up pops various kinds of catfish.
  It is interesting to me that our colleagues are so adamant that the 
catfish grown in Vietnam is not catfish. That will come as a surprise 
to the scientists who compiled the taxonomic database at fishbase, 
because sure enough, right there on the database--and I challenge my 
colleagues to look it up--is this basa catfish. So apparently the 
scientists are confused. They may call this a basa catfish, and they 
may have a picture that goes with it that sure looks like a catfish to 
me. But we, of course, have in-depth knowledge of the catfish and the 
catfish family and its scientific names.
  I went to great trouble to actually get a photograph of this 
nefarious catfish. Just the growth of this catfish puts people out of 
work, and spreads hunger and disaster across the globe. Here is a 
picture of a very young one. If you put that before any child in 
America over the age of 3 and asked, what is that fish, what would they 
say? Mama, it's a catfish.
  I have a blowup of this picture. See those whiskers? Do you think 
that is a crab or a bass or a salmon? It is a catfish. Not only does it 
look like a catfish, but it acts like a catfish. And the people who 
make a living in fisheries science call it a catfish.
  Why do we want to call it anything other than a catfish? We want to 
call it something other than a catfish because of protectionism. I have 
never run into a man or woman serving in public office who said: I am a 
protectionist. Nobody says that. They are always for free trade, but 
they are never for free trade in anything that in any way affects 
anybody they represent. It never ceases to amaze me. I do not know what 
free trade they favor other than something their state does not 
produce. But that is not the way trade works.
  Let me address the many other issues raised. One argument we hear is 
that this Vietnamese catfish is an inferior import. If it is inferior, 
why do restaurants buy it in such overwhelming volume? Do they not want 
people to come back to their restaurant? Are they not interested in 
customer loyalty? And if it is inferior, why has no one presented us 
with taste test results? I do not know that such a test has ever been 
done. Do you know why I do not think it has been done? Because people 
would not be able to tell the difference. There obviously is a 
difference between a mud cat and a channel cat. I prefer the channel 
cat. If you tried to serve mud cat in a restaurant, you would not have 
many repeat customers.
  Restaurants are serving basa catfish because it is good catfish, 
people like it, and it is cheaper. You might say that there is 
something wrong with it being cheaper. What is trade about except 
seeing products become cheaper? Why would we trade with anybody for any 
item unless we could buy it cheaper from them than we could produce it 
for ourselves? That is what trade is about. That is where we gain from 
trade. But all that gets lost in this debate.

[[Page 26648]]

  What about a nutrition study? Does Vietnamese catfish have the same 
nutritional value as U.S. catfish? Is it nutritionally inferior? When 
consumed by the human species are its digestive qualities different? I 
suspect not, because certainly the proponents of preventing this 
catfish from being called a catfish would have done these studies if 
they thought there were any possibility of generating data in their 
favor.
  On the argument regarding a surge in imports, it all depends on where 
you start. It is true that between 1997 and 2000, there was a big surge 
in catfish imports, from .9 million pounds to 8.2 million pounds. But 
if you go back to 1986, the level of imports then was 8.2 million 
pounds. So the level of imports has not changed, at least as measured 
in million-pound increments, since 1986. It may have declined in 1997, 
but in terms of imports, we are not appreciably different today than we 
were in 1986. This data is data from the State Department. It is 
unclassified and available for everyone to look at, and I ask my 
colleagues to look at it.
  In terms of dirty conditions, where is the evidence? The State 
Department was asked to go out and look at how the Vietnamese catfish 
were grown, and they have come back and tell us that the conditions are 
highly sanitary. It is interesting that at this very moment, the 
Chinese are beginning to produce channel cat from American strains. 
There is no evidence to suggest that the Vietnamese could not 
ultimately produce channel cat. What would the argument be then?
  It seems to me all of the arguments we are hearing today come down to 
an argument against trade. The question turns on what is in a name.
  Imagine for a moment that Alaskan king crab were required to be 
labeled as ``giant sea spiders.'' Just imagine that I am in France and 
I don't want these Alaskan king crab brought into France because they 
are good, relatively inexpensive, and superior to the crab we have in 
France. The Alaskan king crab is a different subspecies. As everyone 
who has ever seen a blue crab and an Alaskan king crab knows, one is a 
No. 1 jimmy, the very top one you can get, at about 6 inches across. 
Then there are various gradations in the Maryland blue crab.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield? Shouldn't we change the name of 
one of those?
  Mr. GRAMM. My point.
  Mr. McCAIN. They don't look as much alike as the catfish shown in the 
pictures, yet we will make sure that the term ``catfish'' is removed. I 
don't see why either the dungeness or the blue, one of those, should 
clearly not be called ``crab.''
  Mr. GRAMM. The point is, what is the purpose of a name? The purpose 
of a name is to convey information. A blue crab, a dungeness crab, a 
king crab--all are labeled as crab because, while they look very 
different and are very different sizes, they basically are similar 
creatures and a very high quality food source. Why would you call them 
anything but the same thing unless the objective was to try to reduce 
or remove one of the products from the market?
  Now, we produce Alaskan king crab. It is a superior product. I don't 
know whether people that produce it are rich or poor. I know anybody 
who has enough income to afford Alaskan king crab likes to eat it. I 
do. But if I were in France and I were in the crab business and I 
didn't want to compete against Alaskan king crab, what would I do? I 
would say this is not a crab. I would say that our French crab is a 
superior product and this Alaskan king crab is an inferior product that 
is being foisted off on French consumers by French chefs.
  What about the Florida stone crab that is so expensive and that 
people like so much? Now, I will say, and I speak with some authority, 
poor people do not eat stone crabs because it is expensive. It is very 
expensive. And it is very, very good. If I am in France, I have this 
crummy little crab they grow in France. It is good, but it does not 
compare to the Florida stone crab or the Maryland blue crab--I sing its 
virtues--or the Alaskan king crab. I don't know whether God didn't love 
them as much as he loves us, but he gave us this great variety of 
crabs. If I am a French crab grower--a ``water man'' as they call it on 
the eastern shore of Maryland--I might start a campaign because I don't 
want to compete against these crabs by going to a French 
parliamentarian.
  Do you think that parliamentarian would stand up and say: Although 
the American crab are better and cheaper, we don't want them in France 
because we think consumers in France are not paying enough for crab. We 
want to literally steal the crab right out of their mouths. We want to 
rip them off.
  Do you think you would stand up and say that, even in the French 
parliament? I think not. You know what I think the parliamentarian 
would say? He would get a picture of a glorious French crab and he 
would say: Monsieur, this is a crab. And then he would talk about the 
French water men who go out in the North Sea, with the winds blowing, 
where it is cold and risky. He would have a picture of a water man who 
fell and broke his leg during a storm, and with tears in his eyes, he 
would say: Are we going to take bread out of their mouths? Are we going 
to let Americans continue to send these inferior crabs into France? And 
then they would take down the picture of the French crab, with its 
scientific name, and he would put up a picture of the Alaskan king 
crab, and he would say: Can anyone say that is a crab?
  Then he would put up a table showing a family tree of the crab. He 
would show the crummy little French crab at the top, and the Florida 
stone crab and the Alaskan king crab, way down here. He might even 
argue that genetically, the Alaskan king crab is closer to being a 
lobster than to being a crab. I don't know. I have not looked at the 
crab family tree.
  Then he would say: We cannot allow these Americans to call this thing 
a crab. So he might suggest to the French parliament: Let us call it 
some scientific name that would scare consumers to death, like a giant 
sea spider.
  Now you go into a grocery store in France, and you see these Alaskan 
king crab--superior to any crab grown in France, and cheaper to boot--
and it is labeled in French ``giant sea spider.'' Why would it be 
called a giant sea spider instead of a crab? Because the French crab 
grower does not want people to buy it.
  That sums up what this debate is about. How can you sell catfish when 
you can't call it catfish? If the suggestion were to require that the 
catfish be labeled ``Vietnamese catfish,'' I would vote for it. I don't 
think that is a good idea nor one that would benefit me. I don't get 
all these arguments about it being unpatriotic to buy some product from 
another country at the same time that we want them to buy things from 
us. I don't understand it. I think that view is a road to poverty. I 
think that that view is what politicians have done to their people for 
thousands of years.
  The new thinking, the new revolution is trade. But what this is 
about--with the best of intentions--is the fact that we have 
competition in catfish. It has gotten cheaper. The consumer has 
benefitted, real income has risen, and nutrition levels are up because 
catfish now is cheaper.
  What we are debating now is an effort to take what the Internet 
reference database used by the scientists call a ``catfish'' and say 
they don't know what they are talking about because it is not a 
catfish. Just like the French might say the Alaskan king crab is not a 
crab. Instead we will force the Vietnamese catfish farmers to market 
their catfish under a name that nobody knows. Who knows what ``basa'' 
is?
  Let us say that I am a low-income person. I am looking at every 
penny. I am working. I have gotten off welfare. I am going to the 
grocery store to buy a product: catfish. So I go to the catfish 
counter, and I see catfish. It looks kind of high in price. Then I see 
basa over here. It looks like catfish, but I don't know if it is 
catfish.
  Is forcing sellers to call a product by a name that has nothing to do 
with our common knowledge of the product an insurmountable obstacle to 
trade? I believe that it is. I believe that any trade

[[Page 26649]]

panel impaneled anywhere in the world would rule that this practice is 
an unfair trade practice. If scientists say it is a catfish, why don't 
we say it is a catfish? Why would we say it is not a catfish? If there 
were no significant imports of Vietnamese catfish, would we be in a 
debate about whether this is catfish?
  If this were a gathering of ichthyologists--the name for people who 
study fish--would we be debating whether this catfish is a catfish? No, 
we would not be debating it. We are debating it because people want 
protection. I understand why they want it. I am not saying some people 
may not be hurt without the protection, without destroying the ability 
of a competitor to compete.
  But my point is this: We are the greatest exporting nation in the 
world. Protectionist efforts are being directed at us all over the 
world. Similar debates are occurring in every parliament and every 
congress on Earth. In fact, right now there are efforts in the European 
Community to change our ability to market U.S. sardines. And the French 
have tried to label foreign scallops as not being scallops. I can't 
pronounce the French name for scallops. Why are they doing that? Is not 
a scallop a scallop? Quite frankly, even though the French scallops are 
smaller, they are superior to ocean scallops. Why are they doing that 
in France?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the Senator aware that the suit was 
brought against France for exactly that--mislabeling scallops? The 
United States is one of them. WTO ultimately ruled against the French 
and changed the regulation, as they will rule against this. But it 
would take years to do it.
  Mr. GRAMM. Why do the French want to say a scallop is not a scallop? 
Because they wanted to cheat French consumers. They wanted to make 
French consumers consume their domestically produced scallops rather 
than being able to buy scallops from around the whole world.
  Why is concern focused only on the people who produce things and not 
the people who consume things? How extraordinarily different that world 
view is. Quite frankly, when I look to the future, it frightens me that 
at the very time when we are seeing developing countries start to open 
up trade, developed countries are restricting trade. We are the 
greatest trading country in the world, with the largest export and the 
largest import base of any country on the planet. Yet somehow something 
is said to be wrong.
  I am reminded of Pericles, who gave the funeral oration each year in 
Athens to honor those who had died during the Peloponnesian War. Other 
than the Gettysburg Address, probably the most famous speech ever given 
was Pericles's funeral oration. It is very interesting that of all the 
things Pericles could have chosen to show the greatness about Athens, 
he picked out trade, and specifically, imports. He didn't pick out 
exports, although he could have said that if you go all over the world 
you will find products from Athens. But he didn't say that. He said: 
``Because of the greatness of our city, the fruits of the whole earth 
flow in upon us, so that we enjoy the goods of other countries as 
freely as of our own.'' To Pericles, that fact represented the 
greatness of Athens.
  But yet, in America, the greatest, richest, freest country in 
history, we are debating a proposal that a catfish is not a catfish 
because catfish are too cheap and we want to restrict competition by 
forcing people who produce catfish in Vietnam to call it something 
other than catfish. Quite frankly I think that is a problem.
  Let me make a couple of other points.
  What is a red snapper? I thought I knew what a red snapper from the 
gulf was. I am sure the Presiding Officer, if I asked him to draw a 
picture of a red snapper, would draw the same picture of a red snapper: 
a red fish that is kind of flat. But if you asked Senator Stevens or 
Senator Murkowski to draw a red snapper, they would draw a very 
different fish because, in fact, the red snapper of the gulf coast is a 
very different product from the red snapper of Alaska. Should we pass a 
law that says you can call one a red snapper but not the other? Would 
that make any sense?
  I have already talked about crab, and the example of the French 
parliamentarian. Can you imagine the great passion he could muster in 
making his argument--an argument that quite frankly, would be a better 
case than we have here? The difference between the Alaskan king crab 
and the crummy little French crab is far starker than the difference 
between these two catfish.
  All over the world today, this very same debate is going on about 
what is crab and what is not crab, what are scallops and what are not 
scallops, or what are sardines and what are not sardines. Does this 
debate serve any purpose other than to cheat people, to limit trade, 
and to produce declining living standards?
  Finally, let me say that this effort won't end with seafood. Is pima 
cotton the same thing as short-strand cotton? Is the cotton produced in 
Arizona and West Texas the same cotton that is produced in Georgia and 
central Texas? Is Egyptian cotton the same as U.S. cotton? Could we not 
find ourselves in a similar debate over, literally, buying sheets?
  I have a son who is getting married on the 19th of January. I have 
become an expert on bedding. When you want to give someone the nicest 
sheets, you get sheets made of pima cotton or Egyptian cotton, because 
that is long-strand cotton. And you look for a large number of threads 
per square inch.
  If the United States Senate changes by legislation what catfish is 
for the purpose of trade--even though scientists classify catfish 
differently--is it hard to imagine that we might actually see a 
proposal that says Egyptian cotton is not cotton? Is that out of 
anybody's imagination? It is not out of my imagination. We could 
literally have a situation where a superior product--long-strand 
cotton--could not be sold because it was not allowed to be called 
cotton and consumers were not able to know what it was.
  I understand cotton. I must be like every other Member of Congress in 
that I have been given thousands of T-shirts every year. If it is not 
100-percent cotton, I give it away. First I give it to my staff. If 
they don't want it, I send it off to somebody who is collecting 
clothes. It is not that I would take it if it said ``Free Love'' or 
something like that on it. But I want 100-percent cotton.
  What if, for political reasons, we started saying that some kinds of 
cotton are not cotton? The only reason someone would want to do that 
would be to impede trade. The purpose of this effort to prevent the use 
of the name ``catfish''--the name used by fisheries scientists--for 
imported catfish is to impede trade.
  Catfish, at the end of the day, is important to our trading partners 
in Vietnam. We could cheat them. And we could cheat catfish consumers, 
who probably would never know it. The millions of people who eat 
catfish have no idea that we are debating this today.
  I am guessing that some catfish producers are looking over my 
shoulder and sending letters back to Texarkana or the Golden Triangle--
where people grow catfish--asking whether Phil Gramm cares about 
catfish producers. Yet nobody is looking over my shoulder asking 
whether I care about the catfish consumer.
  This is how bad law is made. Even though nobody other than a few 
catfish producers is ever going to know how senators vote, I urge my 
colleagues to vote with Senator McCain because this is an important 
issue. If we start changing names to impede trade, who is more 
vulnerable to this kind of cheating than the United States of America? 
If we can do this to Vietnamese catfish, it can be done to every 
agricultural product that we produce.
  In fact, it is being done to our beef exports today in Europe using 
phony science. The scientific community says growth hormones have no 
impact. Yet the Europeans, for protectionist reasons, have reached the 
conclusion they do. It is limiting American cattle growers and it is 
cheating Europeans out of a superior diet.
  The problem with cheating in little ways in trade is that it 
undercuts our

[[Page 26650]]

credibility when we tell other nations to treat people fairly and to 
respect free trade.
  I want to make one final argument. I know people flinch when I say 
it, but it needs to be said. I personally do not believe that the 
Vietnamese or the Chinese or anybody else will put us out of the 
catfish industry. But God did not guarantee that people have a right to 
be in the catfish business. I did not get to play in the NBA or the 
NFL. I did not get to act in movies. Nobody guaranteed me those rights. 
If other people can produce a catfish product that is better and 
cheaper than our catfish, what is wrong with letting consumers buy that 
catfish and letting us engage in the production of products that we do 
better?
  One final point, and then I will end my statement. Trade creates 
progress and increases living standards. Take textiles. For years, 
political representatives of the South tried to protect textiles--a 
low-wage industry that in the old days provided very poor working 
conditions and very poor benefits. By the way, Americans pay twice as 
much for their clothing as they would pay if we had free trade in 
textiles. Our textile policy literally steals money out of the pockets 
of working men and women in America, and cheats them every day through 
protectionism in textiles.
  Now any job is a godsend to anybody who wants to work. But Senator 
McCain and I recently were in South Carolina together campaigning at a 
BMW plant. I was struck by the fact that the old textile plants had 
gone broke anyway, and the same people who had worked in the textile 
mills now were working at BMW at three times the wages and with 
substantially better working conditions.
  I urge my colleagues: Let's not get into the business of saying that 
a catfish is not a catfish for a quick benefit today, because in 100 or 
1,000 or 10,000 other ways the same game can be practiced on us. And we 
are far more vulnerable than the poor Vietnamese because they do not 
produce and sell many things. We produce and sell things all over the 
world. And when we start this kind of business, it encourages others to 
do the same against us. Certainly then the impact would become 
significant enough that people would pay attention.
  So I thank Senator McCain. His objection to this proposal is in part 
because the proposal is unfair, and in part because of the way the 
proposal was enacted. But as trivial as this issue may seem now, at 
4:35 on the 18th of December, when we should long ago have gone to our 
homes and made merry with our families--as trivial as it sounds at the 
moment, saying that a catfish is not a catfish for political reasons is 
dangerous business. It may benefit a few producers--although not the 
consumers, who nobody cares about--in a couple of States today, but it 
could hurt every State in the Union and every consumer in the world 
tomorrow. That is why Senator McCain is right on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand that Senator McCain is offering 
an amendment to the farm bill which would strike a key provision of the 
fiscal year 2002 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. Earlier 
this year, the House and Senate sent to the President an Agriculture 
Appropriations report which contained language banning the commercial 
and legal use of the word ``catfish'' by importers and restaurants for 
the Vietnamese basafish. I rise to support our earlier conference 
agreement, and I voice my opposition to the McCain amendment to the 
farm bill. As many of you know, the domestic catfish industry is very 
important to my home State of Mississippi. Commercially-raised North 
American catfish farms and processing facilities bring jobs and 
benefits to many people living in the communities of the Mississippi 
Delta, one of the poorest regions in America. I fear that the McCain 
amendment will undo much of the hard work by private companies and 
government officials to bring economic development to this region.
  I have heard from catfish producers and processors in Mississippi, 
Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana regarding the unfair marketing of the 
Vietnamese basafish as a ``catfish'' in stores and markets across the 
entire country. I agree with their arguments that by permitting this 
Vietnamese fish to be imported and marketed as a ``catfish'' the Food 
and Drug Administration, FDA, is allowing customers to be misinformed 
and defrauded. Domestic catfish industry officials rightfully fear they 
will lose revenue and that their businesses and workers' livelihoods 
will be endangered.
  The scientific fact is that the basafish is not closely related to 
the North American channel catfish and thus should be commercially and 
legally identified as a separate variety of fish so that American 
consumers are fully informed as to what they are buying.
  The Vietnamese basafish and the North American channel catfish are as 
genetically-related to one another as a cow and a pig. All we want is 
for the FDA to provide the same scientifically-based commercial 
distinction between these two items as they give between beef and pork. 
We want sound science to define what is a catfish and what is not. I 
ask unanimous consent that a copy of the attached taxonomic chart be 
printed in the Record following my statement to reinforce the above 
argument.
  Now, some will argue that the fiscal year 2002 Agriculture 
Appropriations report discourages free trade. I disagree with such an 
assessment. It is not our intention to ban the importation of the 
Vietnamese basafish into the United States through this legislation. 
The fiscal year 2002 Agriculture Appropriations report will only 
require the FDA to recognize what science does, that this fish is not a 
``catfish.''
  I believe that the Agriculture Appropriations report actually 
encourages fair trade between America and emerging markets like 
Vietnam. Throughout this past year, my constituent catfish producers 
and processors have expressed their willingness and ability to compete 
head-to-head with consumers against the Vietnamese basafish for the 
frozen filet market demand, provided that Federal and State regulators 
direct importers and restaurants to honestly and correctly market the 
Vietnamese basafish as a Vietnamese basafish and not as a ``catfish''. 
Under a regulatory system based on sound science my constituents are 
confident that the North American channel catfish will easily outsell 
the Vietnamese basafish in the United States.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for fair trade, sound science, and 
informed consumers by opposing the McCain amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to draw my colleagues' attention to 
an action Congress recently took, but which they most likely know 
nothing about, a severe restriction on all catfish imports into the 
United States. Much more is at stake here than trade in strange-looking 
fish with whiskers. In fact, this import barrier has grave implications 
for the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement, for our trade relations 
with a host of nations, and for American consumers and fishermen. 
America's commitment to free trade, and the prosperity we enjoy as a 
result of open trade policies, have been put at risk by a small group 
of Members of Congress on behalf of the catfish industry in their 
States, without debate or a vote in the Congress. Consequently, 
Senators Gramm, Kerry, and I are offering an amendment to the farm bill 
to elevate the national interest over these parochial interests by 
stripping this narrow-minded import restriction from the books and 
ensuring that we define ``catfish'' for trade purposes in a way that 
reflects sound science, not the politics of protectionism.
  During consideration of the Senate version of the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, I voiced deep concern about 
the managers' decision to ``clear'' a package of 35 amendments just 
before final passage of the bill. The vast majority of Senators had 
received no information about the content of these amendments and had 
had no chance to review them.
  As it turns out, I had good reason to be concerned. Included in the 
managers' package was an innocuous-

[[Page 26651]]

sounding amendment banning the Food and Drug Administration from using 
any funds to process imports of fish or fish products labeled as 
``catfish'' unless the fish have a certain Latin family name. In fact, 
of the 2,500 species of catfish on Earth, this amendment allows the FDA 
to process only a certain type raised in North America, and 
specifically those that grow in six southern States. The practical 
effect is to restrict all catfish imports into our country by requiring 
that they be labeled as something other than catfish, an underhanded 
way for U.S. catfish producers to shut out the competition. With a 
clever trick of Latin phraseology and without even a ceremonial nod to 
the vast body of trade laws and practices we rigorously observe, this 
damaging amendment, slipped into the managers' package and ultimately 
signed into law as part of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, 
literally bans Federal officials from processing any and all catfish 
imports labeled as what they are, catfish.
  Proponents of this ban used the insidious technique of granting 
ownership of the term ``catfish'' to only North American catfish 
growers, as if southern agribusinesses have exclusive rights to the 
name of a fish that is farmed around the world, from Brazil to 
Thailand. According to the Food and Drug Administration and the 
American Fisheries Society, the Pangasius species of catfish imported 
from Vietnam and other countries are ``freshwater catfishes of Africa 
and southern Asia.'' In addition, current FDA regulations prohibit 
these products from being labeled simply as ``catfish.'' Under existing 
regulations, a qualifier such as ``basa'' or ``striped'' must accompany 
the term ``catfish'' so that consumers are able to make an informed 
choice about what they're eating.
  These fish were indeed catfish until Congress, with little review and 
no debate, determined them not to be. No other animal or plant name has 
been defined in statute this way. All other acceptable market names for 
fish are determined by the FDA, in cooperation with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, after a review of scientific literature and market 
practices.
  What are the effects of this import restriction? As with any 
protectionist measure, blocking trade and relying on only domestic 
production will increase the price of catfish for the many Americans 
who enjoy eating it. One in three seafood restaurants in America serves 
catfish, attesting to its popularity. This trade ban will raise the 
prices wholesalers and their retail customers pay for catfish, and 
Americans who eat catfish will feel that price increase, a price 
increase imposed purely to line the pockets of Southern agribusinesses 
and their lobbyists, who have conducted a scurrilous campaign against 
foreign catfish for the most parochial reasons.
  The ban on catfish imports has other grave implications. It patently 
violates our solemn trade agreement with Vietnam, the very same trade 
agreement the Senate ratified by a vote of 88-12 only two months ago. 
The ink was not yet dry on that agreement when the catfish lobby and 
their Congressional allies slipped their midnight amendment into a 
must-pass appropriations bill.
  Over the last 10 years, our Nation has engaged in a gradual process 
of normalizing diplomatic and trade relations with Vietnam. Our 
engagement has yielded results: the prosperity and daily freedoms of 
the Vietnamese people have increased as Vietnam has opened to the 
world. The engine of this change has been the rapid economic growth 
brought about by an end to the closed economy under which the 
Vietnamese people stagnated during the 1980s. Many Americans, including 
many veterans, who have visited Vietnam have been struck by these 
changes, and the potential for capitalism in Vietnam to advance our 
interest in freedom and democracy there. We have a long way to go, but 
we are planting the seeds of progress through our engagement with the 
Vietnamese, as reflected most recently in ratification of the bilateral 
trade agreement by both the United States Senate and the Vietnamese 
National Assembly. Indeed, the trade agreement only took effect this 
week.
  This trade agreement is the pinnacle of the normalization process 
between our countries. It completes the efforts of four American 
presidents to establish normal relations between the United States and 
Vietnam. It is the institutional anchor of our relationship with 
Vietnam, the 14th-largest nation on Earth, and one with which we share 
a number of important interests.
  Yet in the wake of such historic progress, and after preaching for 
years to the Vietnamese about the need to get government out of the 
business of micromanaging the economy, we have sadly implicated 
ourselves in the very sin our trade policy claims to reject. The 
amendment slipped into the Agriculture Appropriations bill openly 
violates the national treatment provisions of our trade agreement with 
Vietnam, in a troubling example of the very parochialism we have urged 
the Vietnamese government to abandon by ratifying the agreement.
  The amendment Senator Gramm and I are offering today would repeal 
this import restriction on catfish. Our amendment would define 
``catfish'' according to existing FDA procedures that follow scientific 
standards and market practices.
  Not only is the restrictive catfish language offensive in principle 
to our free trade policies, our recent overwhelming ratification of the 
Bilateral Trade Agreement, and our relationship with Vietnam; it also 
flagrantly disregards the facts about the catfish trade. I'd like to 
rebut this campaign of misinformation by setting straight these facts, 
as reported by agricultural officials at our embassy in Hanoi who have 
investigated the Vietnamese catfish industry in depth.
  The U.S. Embassy in Vietnam summarizes the situation in this way: 
``Based on embassy discussions with Vietnamese government and industry 
officials and a review of recent reports by U.S.-based experts, the 
embassy does not believe there is evidence to support claims that 
Vietnamese catfish exports to the United States are subsidized, 
unhealthy, undermining, or having an `injurious' impact on the catfish 
market in the U.S.'' Our embassy goes on to state: ``In the case of 
catfish, the embassy has found little or no evidence that the U.S. 
industry or health of the consuming public is facing a threat from 
Vietnam's emerging catfish export industry. . . .Nor does there appear 
to be substance to claims that catfish raised in Vietnam are less 
healthy than [those raised in] other countries.'' The U.S. embassy 
reports the following: Subsidies: American officials indicate that the 
Vietnamese government provides no direct subsidies to its catfish 
industry; Health and Safety Standards: The embassy is unable to 
identify any evidence to support claims that Vietnamese catfish are of 
questionable quality and may pose health risks. FDA officials have 
visited Vietnam and have confirmed quality standards there. U.S. 
importers of Vietnamese catfish are required to certify that their 
imports comply with FDA requirements, and FDA inspections certify that 
these imports meet American standards; A normal increase in imports: 
The embassy finds no evidence to suggest that Vietnam is purposely 
directing catfish exports to the United States to establish market 
share; and Labeling: The Vietnamese reached an agreement with the FDA 
on a labeling scheme to differentiate Vietnamese catfish from American 
catfish in U.S. retail markets. As our embassy reports, the primary 
objective should be to provide American consumers with informed 
choices, not diminish the choice by restricting imports.
  The facts are clear, the midnight amendment passed without a vote is 
based not on any concern for the health and well-being of the American 
consumer. The restriction on catfish imports slipped into the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill serves only the interests of the 
catfish producers in six southern States who profit by restricting the 
choice of the American consumer by banning the competition.
  The catfish lobby's advertising campaign on behalf of its 
protectionist agenda has few facts to rely on to support its case, so 
it stands on scurrilous fear-mongering to make its claim that

[[Page 26652]]

catfish raised in good old Mississippi mud are the only fish with 
whiskers safe to eat. One of these negative advertisements, which ran 
in the national trade weekly Supermarket News, tells us in shrill 
tones, ``Never trust a catfish with a foreign accent!'' This ad 
characterizes Vietnamese catfish as dirty and goes on to say, ``They've 
grown up flapping around in Third World rivers and dining on whatever 
they can get their fins on. . . .Those other guys probably couldn't 
spell U.S. even if they tried.'' How enlightened.
  I believe a far more accurate assessment is provided in the Far 
Eastern Economic Review, in its feature article on this issue: ``For a 
bunch of profit-starved fisherfolk, the U.S. catfish lobby had deep 
enough pockets to wage a highly xenophobic advertising campaign against 
their Vietnamese competitors.''
  Unfortunately, this protectionist campaign against catfish imports 
has global repercussions. Peru has brought a case against the European 
Union in the World Trade Organization because the Europeans have 
claimed exclusive rights to the use of the word ``sardine'' for trade 
purposes. The Europeans would define sardines to be sardines only if 
they are caught off European waters, thereby threatening the sardine 
fisheries in the Western Hemisphere. Prior to passage of the catfish-
labeling language in the Agriculture Appropriations bill, the United 
States Trade Representative had committed to file a brief supporting 
Peru's position before the WTO that such a restrictive definition 
unfairly protected European fishermen at the expense of sardine 
fishermen in the Western Hemisphere. Like the Peruvians, a large number 
of American fishermen would suffer the effects of an implicit European 
import ban on the sardines that are their livelihood.
  Yet as a direct consequence of the passage of the restrictive 
catfish-labeling language in the Agriculture Appropriations bill, USTR 
has withdrawn its brief supporting the Peruvian position in the sardine 
case against the European Union because the catfish amendment written 
into law makes the United States guilty of the same type of 
protectionist labeling scheme for which we have brought suit against 
the Europeans in the WTO. The WTO has previously ruled against such 
manipulation of trade definitions which, if allowed to stand in this 
case, could be used as a precedent to close off foreign markets to a 
number of U.S. products. I doubt the sponsors of the restrictive 
catfish language in the Agriculture Appropriations bill happily 
contemplate the potential of the Pandora's Box they have opened.
  This blanket restriction on catfish imports, passed without debate 
and without a vote on its merits, has no place in our laws. I urge my 
colleagues to join us in striking it from the books and allowing 
science, not politics, to define what a catfish is by supporting our 
amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of Senator McCain's 
amendment. This amendment would repeal a provision in the recently 
enacted Agriculture Appropriations bill that prohibits for the current 
fiscal year, the FDA from using any funds to process imports of fish or 
fish products labeled as ``catfish'' unless the fish have a certain 
scientific family name that is only found in North America. The House-
passed version of the Farm bill contains a similar provision that would 
make the ban on imports permanent. The amendment we are offering seeks 
to reverse this position as well.
  A number of scientific classification organizations have identified 
over 30 distinct families of catfish world-wide and over 2,500 
different species within these families. Quite frankly, the 
classification of species is a subject that I think is best left with 
the scientific community and the experts at the National Marine 
Fisheries Service and the Food and Drug Administration. I understand 
the concerns of the American catfish industry, however these kinds of 
trade wars only lead to our trading partners enacting similar 
protectionist measures against U.S. food producers.
  For example, the European Union has passed a provision that prohibits 
the use of the word sardine for anything other than the European 
species of sardine. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative was 
arguing to the World Trade Organization that the EU's new import policy 
restricting the labeling of sardines was unfair. After all, North 
American herring are a part of the sardine family, just like Vietnamese 
basa is part of the catfish family. Once the Agriculture Conference 
Report became law however, with its one year ban on imported catfish, 
everything stopped. American fishermen and processors in the Northeast 
have the Peruvian and Canadian governments to thank for stepping in to 
file a complaint with the WTO; otherwise American fishermen and 
processors have little hope of ever entering into the EU export market.
  Back in 1993 the French government attempted a similar provision for 
scallops. Only European caught scallops could be sold as ``Noix de 
Coquille Saint-Jacques'', which reduced the market value of imported 
scallops by 25 percent. The U.S. and a number of other nations 
protested to the WTO and overturned the decision.
  The U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade agreement, which came into force 
this week, requires that each country give ``national treatment'' to 
the products of the other country when those products share a likeness 
with domestic products. By denying American importers the right to 
bring in Vietnamese catfish under the name ``catfish'', the provision 
enacted in the Agricultural Appropriations Conference report, and the 
language in the House-passed farm bill, violate the trade agreement by 
denying the same treatment to Vietnamese catfish as we give to American 
raised catfish.
  The U.S.-Vietnam trade agreement is a vehicle for opening the 
Vietnamese economy to American goods and services. It is the precursor 
to a WTO agreement. For the United States to violate the letter and the 
spirit of that agreement by restricting the importation of Vietnamese 
catfish will undermine the process of implementation of that agreement 
before it has even begun.
  I wish to remind my colleagues that Brazil, Thailand, and Guyana are 
all members of the WTO and all three countries also export catfish to 
the U.S. This provision would deny them access to our markets as well, 
and I would not be surprised if they successfully protest this matter 
to the WTO should we choose not to repeal this provision.
  I understand the desire of my colleagues in the Senate and the House 
to try to help their domestic catfish farmers who have hit on hard 
times. I believe one of the ways to do this is to make it clear to the 
American consumer where the fish that they are purchasing comes from. 
Existing FDA and Customers regulations require country of origin 
labeling on catfish that is imported by U.S. companies. In fact, one of 
those importers in my home State of Massachusetts has shown me the 
label on his catfish. It leaves no doubt about the origin of the fish. 
However, I believe we should go a step further to include country of 
origin labeling for fish products at the consumer level as well. 
Consumers have a right to know where their food comes from.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the precedent of 
arbitrarily determining the acceptable market name of any fish. We have 
never before set into statute a market name for any animal or plant. In 
the case of fish, the Food and Drug Administration works with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service to review the available scientific 
literature and common market practices. They will then provide the 
fishing industry with guidance on acceptable names for their catch. 
This is to ensure that the consumers are getting what they expect.
  We have seen other countries draw arbitrary lines in the sand. In 
1995, the French tried to say that only the local French scallop could 
be called by their common name, ``coquilles St. Jacques.'' The result 
was that scallop fishermen in the United States who export their catch 
to France were essentially blocked from the market. You

[[Page 26653]]

simply can't create a new name for a scallop and have consumers 
recognize what it is.
  Peru and Chile challenged the French restriction at the WTO. The 
United States filed briefs in support of that challenge. The WTO ruled 
that the French restriction had no scientific basis and could not 
stand.
  Unfortunately, that was not the end of this trend of discriminatory 
naming practices. Right now, the European Union has a restriction in 
place that prevents U.S. sardine fishermen from both the east and west 
coasts from selling their catch using any form of the word ``sardine.'' 
Fishermen in my home State are even prevented from clearly identifying 
their product as not being from the EU and selling their fish as 
``Maine sardines'' as they had in the past.
  This restriction is also being appealed at the WTO by Peru. The U.S. 
Trade Representative had been working with the U.S. sardine fishermen 
to file a brief in support of this challenge. As a result of the 
language included into the Fiscal Year 2002 Agriculture Appropriations 
bill, however, the USTR determined that filing such a brief would be 
contrary to statute. As a result, the U.S. sardine fishermen have to 
rely on the Peruvian Government to prove the scientific merits of the 
case and regain their market access.
  We must put a stop to this trend of arbitrary and discriminatory 
fisheries naming practices. In 2000, the United States exported over 
$10 billion worth of edible and non-edible fish and shellfish. This was 
a $900 million increase over 1999. Access to foreign markets is 
absolutely critical to our fishermen, and these naming practices only 
serve to undercut their efforts. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
join with me in supporting the amendment before us.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to an 
amendment which would repeal a provision in current law restricting the 
use of the term ``catfish.''
  The FY 2002 Agriculture appropriations conference report, recently 
signed into law, restricts the use of the term catfish to the family of 
fish that is present in North America.
  Unfortunately, there has been a campaign of misinformation about what 
this provision does, and I want to take this opportunity to set the 
record straight.
  First, the provision in the agriculture appropriations bill does NOT 
stop the importation of Vietnamese fish into the U.S. That would be a 
violation of the recently approved Vietnam trade agreement.
  Rather, this provision only requires the fish to be called what they 
really are--they are ``basa'' fish and not catfish.
  We learned in biology class about the classification of living 
things. We classify living organisms from kingdom on down to species.
  Specifically, the subcategories are: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, 
Family, Genus, Species.
  Vietnamese ``basa'' fish are not the same species as North American 
channel catfish. They are not of the same genus either. They aren't 
even in the same family of fish.
  These two fish are only in the same order.
  Well guess what. Humans are in the same order--primates--as gorillas 
and lemurs.
  We don't say that lemurs and humans are close enough to call them the 
same thing.
  What about other animals? Pigs and cows are in the same order.
  If an importer was shipping pork into the U.S. and passing it off to 
consumers as beef, we would rightly be outraged.
  Some in the Senate may say that the taxonomy of fish is different. So 
let's take a look at an example of my point using trout and salmon.
  Atlantic salmon and lake trout are closer to each other than basa 
fish and North American channel catfish.
  They are in the same family of fish, yet we do not say that salmon 
and trout should both be called salmon.
  It is a similar story here: the closest a Vietnamese basa fish is to 
a North American channel catfish is that they are in the same order. 
There are over 2,200 species in this order of fish.
  The opponents of this provision say that because both fish have 
whiskers, they both must be catfish.
  Do we call all animals with stripes zebras? Do we call all animals 
with spots leopards? Of course we don't. Similarly, because the fish 
has whiskers does not mean that it is a catfish.
  The whiskers on fish are called barbels, and a number of species have 
them, including the black drum, some sturgeon, the goat fish, the blind 
fish, and the nurse shark.
  By restricting the use of the word catfish to those species that 
actually ARE catfish, we can reduce widespread consumer confusion. 
Substituting species is extremely misleading to consumers.
  These ``basa'' fish are being shipped into the United States labeled 
as catfish. These labels claim that the frozen fish filets are cajun 
catfish or imply that they are from the Mississippi Delta.
  In fact, they are from the Mekong Delta in South Vietnam.
  As a result, American consumers believe that they are purchasing and 
eating U.S. farm-raised catfish when in fact they are eating Vietnamese 
``basa.''
  The Vietnamese fish sold as catfish continue to be found to be 
fraudulently marketed under names that the Food and Drug Administration 
has determined to be fictitious.
  These names are used to misrepresent imports as U.S. farm-raised 
fish. The provision that we have previously passed will reduce this 
consumer confusion.
  Since 1997, the import volume of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam 
that are imported and sold as ``catfish'' has increased at incredibly 
high rates.
  The volume has risen from less than 500,000 pounds to over 7 million 
pounds per year in the previous 3 years.
  The trend has continued this year--the Vietnamese penetration into 
the U.S. catfish filet market alone has tripled in the last year from 
about 7 percent of the market to 23 percent.
  The law of the United States and most countries seek to protect 
consumers by preventing one species of fish to be marketed under the 
preexisting established market name of another species.
  When the Vietnamese fish in question first started to be marketed 
significantly in the U.S., importers sought and received approval of 
the name ``basa'' from the FDA.
  However, some importers of the lower priced Vietnamese fish sold that 
fish as ``catfish'' to customers.
  The name ``catfish'' was already established in the U.S. market for 
the North American species.
  FDA has the legal responsibility to prevent ``economic adulteration'' 
of food products in the U.S. market.
  FDA has described ``species substitution'' in seafood as an example 
of ``economic adulteration.''
  FDA in recent years, however, has not taken an active role in 
enforcing these laws, and efforts made by the American farm-raised 
catfish industry to obtain enforcement went largely ignored.
  To make matters worse, the FDA in August of 2000, at the request of 
import interests, authorized the Vietnamese fish to be marketed under 
the name ``basa catfish.''
  My colleague from Arizona has mentioned on the Senate floor that this 
provision was done to protect the interests of ``rich'' agribusinesses 
in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana.
  I invite him to come visit the Alabama Black Belt, one of the poorest 
areas in the United States, and see these operations for himself.
  It is clear to me that this effort to go back and strike 
appropriations language is an effort being made on behalf of rich 
importers who are substituting this Vietnamese fish for channel 
catfish.
  In spite of full knowledge of the legality of substituting one fish 
species for another, importers are making more and more money passing 
off basa fish as channel catfish.
  U.S. catfish producers and processors have spent years creating a 
successful market for their fish.

[[Page 26654]]

  The Vietnamese and importers are taking advantage of this established 
market by substituting the basa fish for catfish.
  The provision in the agriculture appropriations bill makes it clear 
to importers that the practice of species substitution is unlawful. 
This is no change in substantive law.
  Nothing in the legislation imposes any restriction on the importation 
of Vietnamese fish of any kind. Nor does it prevent Vietnam or 
importers from establishing a market for Vietnamese fish.
  I encourage them to expand their market. Just don't substitute it for 
something that it is not.
  U.S. catfish farm production, which occurs mainly in Alabama, 
Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, accounts for 68 percent of the 
pounds of fish sold and 50 percent of the total value of all U.S. 
aquaculture, or fish farming, production. The areas where catfish 
production is greatest are in the Blackbelt of Alabama and the 
Mississippi Delta.
  These are some of the poorest areas of the United States, with 
double-digit unemployment rates. With depressed prices for almost all 
other agricultural commodities, catfish production is critical to the 
U.S. economy, and particularly to the economy of the South.
  U.S. catfish farming is one of the few successful industries in these 
areas of the South, and the farmers, processors, and the regions are 
suffering tremendously because of this dramatic surge in imports.
  If the Vietnamese were raising North American channel catfish of good 
quality and importing them into the U.S., I would have no problem. That 
is fair trade.
  Fair trade is not importing ``basa'' fish, labeling them as catfish, 
thereby taking advantage of an already established market, and passing 
them off to American consumers as American catfish.
  The Vietnamese and the importers need to play by the rules.
  The provision in the agriculture appropriations bill simply clarifies 
existing guidelines and sends a message that substituting these two 
species is fraud.
  A vote in favor of the McCain amendment is a vote in favor of fraud, 
consumer confusion and species substitution. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I feel constrained to say a couple things 
about what my friend from Texas has said. I wrote this down when he 
said it because I thought it was a pretty astounding statement. He said 
the end result of all economic activity is consumption. Think about 
that: The end result of all economic activity is consumption.
  Whether that is true or not, and if I were to go ahead and assert 
that it was true, I do not think there is anything inconsistent with 
saying people ought to know what they are consuming. But I would even 
go further than that and say, from a learned former professor of 
economics, I still find that an astounding statement; that the end 
result of all economic activity is consumption. If that is the case, 
let's bring back slavery. Hey, the cheapest thing for the consumers is 
to have free labor. Why not? Let's do away with all environmental laws 
that protect the environment. Why not? If the end result is 
consumption, then forget about all that nonsense. Worker safety laws? 
Forget about all that nonsense, if the end result is simply 
consumption.
  I really think what this amendment is about, and others that are like 
it, is really more about transparency in markets, I say to my friend 
from Texas, who is an economist, transparency in markets, truth in 
labeling, transparency, and information to the consumer.
  If a country wanted to all of a sudden say that the horse meat they 
eat is beef, could they sell it in this country as beef if that is what 
they call it? It is red meat. They are in the same family of animals as 
cattle. They just call it beef. Why can't they sell it in this county? 
Truth in labeling, letting the consumer know what they are consuming, 
that is what it is all about.
  We have had a long discussion on this. I would like to bring this to 
a close. I am going to ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Arkansas get 5 minutes, the Senator from Mississippi wants 1 minute, 
and then for wrapup the Senator from Arizona will be recognized for 1 
minute, after which time I would be recognized for a motion to table. I 
ask unanimous consent that be the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, in my 5 minutes, I just want to say to 
the Senator from Texas, I wish I could have been in his economics 
class. I would have said ``amen'' to everything he said except his 
initial supposition. His initial supposition was that we are trying to 
change the name of catfish. His initial supposition was there is no 
difference between a channel catfish and a basa catfish, that they are 
all catfish so just sell them as catfish. After all, we do not want to 
change, we don't want to get the truth. His basic supposition was 
wrong. And following everything after that initial supposition, you 
come to the wrong conclusion.
  He said: Nobody cares about the consumer. What is best for the 
consumer? Why isn't somebody asking about the consumer?
  Let me just this one time associate myself with the Senator from 
Iowa. I am concerned about the consumer. I am concerned about what the 
consumer is going to consume, what he is going to eat. Doesn't he have 
a right to know whether he is getting Vietnamese basa or he is getting 
channel catfish? He ought to have the right to know that when he goes 
in that restaurant, that when they are selling it as channel catfish 
that it is, in fact, channel catfish.
  The Senator from Texas, in great eloquence and great entertainment, 
said what we want is protection. I don't want protection. I want 
honesty.
  I want truth. I want fairness. At some point a name has to mean 
something. We pointed out--this is not me; this isn't something I 
dreamed up; this is science--the reality is that a channel catfish and 
a basa are not members of the same species. They are not members of the 
same scientific family. The truth is, the fact is, Atlantic salmon and 
a lake trout are more closely related than a channel catfish and basa.
  I don't want protection. I want truth. I want the consumer to know 
what he or she is consuming. That is all in the world this provision 
was in the Agriculture appropriations bill this year. It doesn't need 
to be rescinded. It needs to be sustained in this vote.
  The Senator from Texas asked, what is the purpose of a name? The 
purpose of a name is to identify. If, in fact, basa was the same as 
channel catfish, then I would say I am totally wrong; the catfish 
growers in the delta are totally wrong. But they are not the same. They 
are not the same fish. That should be reflected in what is labeled and 
what the American consumer knows he is getting.
  I ask my colleagues not to help poor people in the delta--that 
obviously doesn't move some--I ask my colleagues to demand that our 
trade be fair and that the American consumer be told the truth. It is, 
in fact, about transparency. I ask my colleagues to reject this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator 
from Arkansas for his very persuasive arguments on this issue today. He 
is absolutely right. There is not any effort being made to be unfair or 
to act inappropriately toward any legitimate importing concern selling 
fish or any other product in the United States.
  What is important is that the consumers in the United States have the 
information so they know what they are buying. I have seen logos and 
advertisements stamped on these fish cartons that say ``cajun 
catfish.'' Immediately one assumes that it is from south Louisiana. 
That is a distinctive name. It means something to the consumer in the 
southern part of the

[[Page 26655]]

United States. That fish is basa fish from Vietnam. It does not say so 
on the package.
  Another package said ``delta catfish.'' You immediately assume you 
are talking about the Mississippi Delta from where 50 percent of the 
aquaculture in the United States comes. But, no, that is the Mekong 
Delta that is being referred to in that package. It is misleading. It 
is unfair. It is unfair to those who have spent $50 million over time 
to develop a market for Lower Mississippi River Valley pond-raised 
catfish. That is how much has been invested over a period of years.
  Now it has become a food of choice for many Americans. They go into 
the supermarket and now they buy what they see is delta catfish. But it 
is not what they think it is. That is unfair to them. That is what this 
amendment seeks to correct. It simply says the Food and Drug 
Administration ought to ensure that these fish are labeled so consumers 
know what they are.
  We have it from the National Warmwater Aquaculture Center that this 
basa fish is not of the same family. It is not of the same species as 
is the delta pond-raised catfish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 1 minute.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think we ought to do something right 
away about dungeness crab and blue crabs. This is a remarkable argument 
we have been having. This is about several issues. This is why it is 
important.
  One, it is about process. In this place there are three kinds of 
Senators: Republican Senators, Democrat Senators, and appropriators. 
This was done on an appropriations bill. This is a major policy change 
that affects the lives of thousands and thousands of people. It was 
done on an appropriations bill.
  Two, it was inserted in a managers' amendment, in a managers' 
amendment which none of us saw because I asked this body if anybody 
knew what was in the managers' amendment. Not one person said they 
knew, including the managers of the bill themselves.
  Three, this is all about protectionism and free trade. If we do it 
here, we will do it on something else, and we will do it on something 
else, and we will do it on something else, whether it be crabs or 
whether it be scallops or whether it be cattle or whatever it be in the 
name of protectionism and jobs.
  I am a little bit offended when we talk about poor people. I will 
take you where the poorest people in America live. That is on our 
Indian reservations in the State of Arizona. Let's not talk about poor 
people. Those poor people who live on these Indian reservations would 
like to eat catfish. They don't want it priced out of the market 
because we put some phony name on it.
  There is a lot to do with this amendment besides the name of a 
catfish. I hope my colleagues will restore a normal process where we 
have an open and honest debate on major policies such as this rather 
than being stuck in a managers' amendment. I hope we will recognize 
that protectionism is not good for America. This is another 
manifestation of it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent, I move to 
table the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Corzine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 373 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--27

     Allard
     Bennett
     Biden
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Collins
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Akaka
     Brownback
     Helms
     Lott
     Murkowski
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank both of the Senators from 
Arkansas and the Senators from Mississippi. Senator Breaux and I join 
with them in sponsoring this provision in the Agriculture 
appropriations bill. I thank my colleagues for wisely defeating this 
amendment.
  Allow me to take a few moments to say that for Louisiana this is a 
very important industry. Catfish farmers in Catahoula Parish, Franklin 
Parish, and other parishes throughout our Mississippi Delta have spent 
years and a lot of money, as the Senator from Mississippi knows, in 
developing these farms and investing their hard-earned dollars in 
marketing this product to a nation that was somewhat reluctant some 
years ago to accept this. Now catfish is commonplace in restaurants 
across the country.
  Speaking for a State that represents the greatest restaurants in this 
Nation, let me say it is not only the farmers who benefit, but also our 
restaurants and our consumers. I thank the Senate for their wise 
tabling of the McCain amendment. I am for free trade but fair trade, 
and tabling this amendment was a step in that direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry for the information 
of all Senators: Am I correct the next order of business under the 
unanimous consent agreement is the Cochran-Roberts amendment, 2 hours 
evenly divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.


                Amendment No. 2671 To Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself and 
     Mr. Roberts proposes an amendment numbered 2671 to amendment 
     No. 2471.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted and Proposed'')
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, because the distinguished Senator from 
Iowa is involved in a very important discussion on the economic 
stimulus bill, as a high ranking member of the

[[Page 26656]]

Senate Finance Committee, he is supposed to be in a meeting discussing 
that right now. He is interested in this legislation, and I yield such 
time as he may consume to comment on the Cochran-Roberts amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for 
yielding me time. I will address one specific issue of the bill, which 
is the farmer savings account, and then I would like to speak to the 
trade-distorting aspects of the farm bill legislation that is before 
us, which the Cochran-Roberts amendment takes into consideration and 
alleviates a lot of problems that other farm proposals before us have.
  I will start with the farmer savings account. I want to make clear 
the farmer savings account is not an idea that comes only from America. 
Other countries, not exactly as in this bill, have come up with the 
idea of farmer savings accounts to help sustain family farmers from two 
standpoints: One, in a way that is not trade distorting and violative 
of the trading agreements; and, two, to continue support for the family 
farmer in a way that is not trade distorting.
  Few occupations face more uncertainties than agriculture. Each 
spring, farmers across the nation put their seed in the ground and pray 
for sufficient rain and heat. A single storm during the growing season 
can wipe out an entire year's work and place farmers in dire financial 
distress. Each fall, farmers go to the fields to harvest their crops, 
the value of which is completely subject to volatile and unpredictable 
commodity markets.
  As a result of these factors, farmers experience frequent cyclical 
downturns in income which can make it difficult to continue their 
operations from one year to the next. Farmers need the ability to 
offset these cyclical downturns by deferring income from more 
prosperous years to use during the lean years.
  The farmer savings accounts provision in the Roberts-Cochran title 
would allow a producer to establish a farm counter-cyclical savings 
account in the name of the producer in a bank or financial institution 
that has been approved by the Ag Secretary. The Secretary would provide 
a matching contribution that is equal to the amount deposited by the 
producer into the account, up to a maximum of 2 percent of the average 
adjusted gross revenue of the producer.
  A producer could withdraw the account funds from the account if the 
estimated net income for a year from the agricultural enterprises of 
the producer is less than the adjusted gross revenue of the producer.
  It is important to keep in mind that unlike other counter-cyclical 
programs before the Senate, this counter-cyclical approach is not 
dependent on commodity prices, farm production, or farm income. 
Therefore, this approach is ``green-box,'' or fully compliant with our 
international trade obligations. It would not subject our farmers to 
the possibility of retaliation by our trading partners.
  Moreover, this amendment benefits producers of non-program 
commodities that would otherwise be ineligible for assistance under our 
federal farm support programs. Producers of livestock, fruits, and 
vegetables are often overlooked by our federal farm programs. This 
amendment would give these producers the same counter-cyclical self-
help program that it gives producers of program commodities.
  In recent years, I have strongly advocated the creation of FARRM 
accounts to allow farmers to deposit funds in an account and defer 
income taxes for 5 years. Of course, this legislation would have to be 
considered within the context of the Finance Committee.
  The provision we are considering would ensure that matching 
contributions equal to the amount deposited by the family farmer, up to 
a maximum of 2 percent of the average adjusted gross revenue of the 
producer, would be placed in special savings accounts.
  I have been an advocate of this idea for a very long time. In fact, 
this is similar to the provision I introduced in my own commodity title 
working draft earlier this fall. This type of proposal will provide 
farmers an incentive to save money when they have the money to save. 
With this type of program, farmers can begin to fashion their own 
countercyclical protection.
  Now, this program sometimes is belittled with the fact that farmers 
are not making enough money to put away anything in savings. Let's not 
try to set a pattern and assume something for 2.5 million farmers, 
because 2.5 million farmers are not one to the other the same; they 
each have different circumstances. We can provide an environment where 
the farmer can make a determination for himself. This bill does that.
  In addition, if we are successful in advancing this concept through 
the Senate, I will push hard to protect these funds from up-front 
taxable consequences by modifying the bipartsan farm accounts 
legislation I have already introduced in the Senate.
  In conclusion, I urge my Senate colleagues to support the Roberts-
Cochran amendment. This amendment will give all farmers the much-needed 
opportunity to help themselves through less prosperous years. And it 
meets this need without risking a violation of our international trade 
agreements.
  Now, when it comes to the trade issues, I don't think there has been 
enough discussion either in the other body or this body on the impact 
of various proposals on our trade agreements with the concern about 
whether or not they violate trade agreements so we can be retaliated 
against. The Cochran-Roberts proposal takes that into consideration.
  Our family farmers are highly dependent on exports. For instance, in 
a given year, the United States exports about one-quarter to one-third 
of the farm products it produces, either as agricultural commodities or 
in a value-added form. For the past 25 years, the U.S. has exported far 
more agricultural goods than it has imported.
  One of the principal benefits of the Uruguay Round negotiations, 
perhaps the most important benefit for U.S. agriculture, was the 
improved condition of market access. For the first time, all 
agricultural tariffs were ``bound,'' and agricultural tariffs were 
reduced by 36 percent on average over a 6-year period.
  In addition, the U.S. made a binding commitment not to exceed its 
amber box spending limitation. Because we take our legally binding 
commitments seriously, and because we want our trading partners to do 
the same, we have never violated those commitments. Were we to do so, 
the United States and its trading partners would likely be subjected to 
harmful trade retaliation.
  What would retaliation mean for our family farmers?
  If a WTO complaint were brought against the United States for 
exceeding its domestic support commitments, it is possible that many 
countries could become complainants in the case and allege injury to 
their farmers and their economy.
  If the U.S. were found in violation of our trade obligations, we 
would be expected to change our current farm program, midstream. If we 
were not able to, the complaining countries would receive authorization 
to retaliate by raising duties on U.S. goods.
  The likely first target of any retaliation would be U.S. agricultural 
exports, because countries fashion their retaliation lists to pressure 
the non-complaint country to change its practices. The products chosen 
for retaliation are those that are the most successful exports.
  For example, U.S. exports of animal feed products and components 
could be targeted. This could affect corn, soybeans, wheat, beef, pork, 
or any of our agricultural exports. However, a country would not be 
limited to agricultural goods only; if it did not import significant 
amounts of U.S. agricultural goods, a successful complaining party 
could also target industrial products.
  Tariff retaliation against U.S. agricultural products would back 
products into the U.S. market placing ever greater downward pressure on 
domestic price. U.S. farm domestic prices would weaken even further, 
and this could cause the price of U.S. farm programs to rise 
dramatically.

[[Page 26657]]

  This would particularly be true in basic farm commodities such as 
wheat, corn, and soybeans where a large portion of the U.S. crop is 
exported. But if the programs that supported the commodity price were 
the same programs that were violating our trade commitments, we would 
not be allowed to provide our family farmers any support, at least 
above that limit.
  If our farmers experience a bad year and our farm programs pay out 
large amounts in no-trade compliant payments, we would be forced to 
freeze or alter our farm assistance payments. Simply put, the type of 
program the Senate Agriculture Committee approved would fail family 
farmers when their need is the greatest.
  Also, tariff retaliation against U.S. industrial goods due to 
excessive ``amber-box'' ag spending could create a substantial 
political backlash against U.S. farm programs. U.S. exporters of non-
agricultural products who might suddenly be caught in the crossfire of 
retaliation would demand that their government officials correct the 
problem so that they can regain their hard-earned access to foreign 
exports.
  U.S. credibility would be undercut if it were determined that the 
United States was not living up to its current commitments. It's very 
realistic that the Democratic farm bill we are considering would cause 
U.S. farmers to become increasingly dependent upon government payments 
that could vanish at a time when the economic situation is worsening 
and the federal budget surplus is disappearing.
  A decision by the United States to exceed its WTO domestic subsidy 
commitments would undermine the current Uruguay Round arrangement and 
make it much harder for the United States to achieve a workable 
multilateral agreement in the new WTO trade negotiations. This could be 
extremely important to farmers if the budget surplus evaporates and 
Congress is unable, or unwilling, in more difficult economic times to 
continue to fund farm programs at recent levels.
  It is very important the farm bill we pass be one that advances our 
trade agenda and does not hinder it. The farm bill needs to help family 
farmers, not limit their potential marketplace. Family farmers in Iowa 
and across the United States need profitability, and there is no 
profitability check from the Federal Government. The profitability 
comes from the marketplace. The Government cannot provide 
profitability, only that marketplace can. I think the Cochran-Roberts 
legislation has taken us to a point where we can be WTO compliant, help 
our farmers, and move ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his 
comments. His leadership in the areas of trade and agriculture have 
been very helpful in the Senate over the years as we have been called 
upon to legislate in this subject area. I am grateful to him for his 
complements to this legislation as they relate to our obligations in 
the World Trade Organization and likewise in the importance and support 
from the Government for those engaged in production agriculture.
  This legislation attempts to preserve the best of current farm law, 
improve programs that have proven to work in the areas of conservation 
and income protection.
  The Marketing Loan Program, which has been a centerpiece of our 
agricultural programs in the last two farm bills, is carried forward in 
this legislation. We have a predictable level of income support that is 
not coupled to planting decisions by farmers. This leaves them with the 
freedom to make planting decisions not based on what the Government 
will pay them for doing or not doing but on the basis of what they 
think is best for their farm and their individual circumstances. Their 
freedom in this farm bill to make those planting decisions will be very 
popular with farmers and for those who will depend on this legislation 
in the years ahead.
  That is one of the distinguishing characteristics between the 
Cochran-Roberts approach and the committee bill that is pending before 
the Senate. The committee bill depends upon high loan rates guaranteed 
to distort the market to encourage overproduction. That is not going to 
be the result under the Cochran-Roberts amendment.
  The Cochran-Roberts amendment provides, as the Senator from Iowa 
points out, for a new way to encourage farmers to save. It provides a 
matching formula for the Government to come in and help encourage the 
savings by farmers, much as a 401-K program does for others engaged in 
business in our country. Farmers will be able to use their funds to 
deal with the countercyclical price distortion if prices go down as 
they customarily do. There are good years and bad years. We all know 
that. This will offer an opportunity to hedge against those bad years.
  There is a substantial emphasis in this legislation on conservation. 
Two billion dollars in additional funding is authorized in this 
amendment for conservation programs and to provide technical assistance 
to farmers to help them make decisions that are consistent with good 
management practices to protect soil and water resources.
  There are also reauthorization provisions for the Conservation 
Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program, all of which have helped assure that those gradual 
and marginal lands are not farmed. The encouragement of benefits from 
the Government for making decisions not to plant on marginal lands will 
be carried forward and expanded in this legislation.
  I am hopeful that the Senate will look with favor at the difference 
between this bill and the committee bill in the area of rural 
development. The rural development title of the committee bill mandates 
that certain levels of spending be made on a lot of new programs that 
are authorized and funded in this legislation.
  Our approach is to authorize a wide range of rural development 
programs, rural water and sewer system programs, other infrastructure 
programs, and housing programs that will help those who live in small 
towns and rural communities enjoy the full benefits that those who live 
in more urban areas would enjoy. It costs more in many of these areas 
to provide those kinds of services. So the Federal Government is 
authorized to provide funding to help ensure that the quality of life 
for those in rural America is enhanced. But the programs are not 
mandated at certain high levels.
  The program managers in the Department of Agriculture and Department 
of Agriculture officials are given more latitude. The Congress is given 
more flexibility in appropriating each year the levels of funding that 
should be made available to those specific programs, rather than 
mandating certain high levels. This gives us budget flexibility. We 
know we are entering an era now where we are going to be hard pressed 
to stay within our budgets. This is important in this area of 
legislation as well.
  We are not on a certain path towards deficit spending, but I am 
afraid if we follow the course that is outlined in the committee bill, 
that will be the result.
  There are others who want to speak on this legislation. We have a 
time limitation of 1 hour per side.
  Let me at this point say that the distinguished Senator from Kansas, 
who is the cosponsor of this amendment, is due in large part the credit 
for coming up with the strategy for this amendment and a lot of the 
content for this amendment. He was chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee in the House of Representatives before he came to the Senate. 
He has long been a leader in agriculture in America. I respect his 
judgment. It has been a pleasure working with him in crafting this 
amendment.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from 
Kansas, Mr. Roberts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, a good 
friend whom I think every farmer understands. Every farmer and rancher 
understands that it has been Senator

[[Page 26658]]

Thad Cochran who has provided the investment in American agriculture so 
as to keep our heads above water and invest in the man and woman whose 
job it is to feed America and a very troubled and hungry world. I thank 
him for his contribution.
  As Senator Cochran said, we want to preserve the best in the current 
farm bill--much criticized, I understand, but basically build on that. 
My concern in regard to the Daschle-Harkin bill is that changing the 
Daschle-Harkin bill really takes us back to the past. I am talking 
about agricultural program policy that was built several decades ago. I 
used to support those bills. But I don't think it really fits the 
modern reality that faces agriculture today. I think it will lead us 
right back to calls for additional emergency assistance which we have 
tried to avoid.
  With all due respect, I do not think the proposal that is before us 
today is strictly bipartisan in the true sense of the word. When I say 
that, I understand we all have partisan differences. I understand we 
all have serious intent. I am not challenging anybody's intent or 
questioning anybody's intent.
  But especially on the commodity and conservation titles--and as the 
distinguished Senator pointed out on the rural development title--it 
has been a one-way street. I guess you could call it bipartisan. As a 
matter of fact, someone on the other side indicated the Republican 
position on this bill has been one of stalling. I don't think that is 
the case. I think we had very important amendments. I think we have a 
very strong difference of opinion as to where our farm program policy 
ought to go. But I guess you could call this bill bipartisan except for 
the front loading of the funding. We have $73 billion over a 10-year 
period. This farm bill is 5 years. Based on budget, it is already 
outdated. As a matter of fact, the administration says it is not the 
money, it is the policy we worry about.
  But if you look at the underlying bill, the Daschle-Harkin bill, it 
is front loaded to the tune of about $46 billion. That only leaves $28 
million in regard to any future bill or any baseline we would use in 
the future.
  That is something on which there is a strong difference of opinion. 
If you want to say that is partisan, I suppose you can. I think that is 
a significant difference of opinion. I guess you could call it 
bipartisan, except that the underlying bill is opposed by the 
administration and by the President.
  I suppose then you could say, well, yes, the President, the Secretary 
of Agriculture, the Trade Ambassador, don't think it is a good idea for 
all the reasons the distinguished Senator from Iowa has pointed out, 
but I wouldn't say it is exactly bipartisan in that regard.
  Then, of course, you could say it is bipartisan except for the WTO 
problems down the road. The Senator from Iowa did point this out: What 
if we reach a WTO agreement--that is a mighty big if; I know we are 
going to have a difficult time doing that--and all of a sudden in this 
bill that ``amber box''--and all that is is a box that all of a sudden 
is flashing ``amber'' as fast as it can--indicates you are over the 
limit in regard to the WTO cap. Then you have to come back in, and you 
could be fined. You could be in the business of trade retaliation. You 
could even, conceivably, have the Secretary of Agriculture come back 
and ask farmers and ranchers to give back some of the investment they 
have already received. I don't think we want that. So it is bipartisan 
except for, of course, that little minor disagreement.
  Then it could be bipartisan except for the farm savings account. We 
have the farm savings account in our bill. The Daschle bill does not 
have that. I am not saying they would not have it or they are not 
acceptable to some portion of it, but that is not bipartisan either.
  It is not bipartisan in regard to the situation of going back to loan 
rates and target prices as the investment by which we are going to 
protect our farmers as opposed to direct payments. We have a strong 
difference of opinion. So that really isn't a bipartisan situation 
either.
  It certainly isn't bipartisan in regard to how we use crop insurance. 
Crop insurance reform: It took us 18 months--us, meaning Senator Bob 
Kerrey, the former Senator from Nebraska, myself, Senator Cochran, 
Senator Burns, and others--to forge together and put together crop 
insurance reform.
  Where does the Daschle bill, and also the Harkin bill, get the money 
to increase loan rates? From crop insurance. That is not very 
bipartisan. We had a strong difference of opinion.
  It would be very bipartisan if in fact it were not for the really 
strong difference of opinion in regard to State water rights. That is 
the bill that was introduced by Senator Reid. It has Senator Crapo of 
Idaho and others from the West very worried about it. So it isn't very 
bipartisan in that regard either.
  Then we have mandatory conservation programs. And then we have this 
statement that we could go to conference a lot more quickly if in fact 
we would just pass the Daschle bill.
  My colleagues, the differences between the bill that is referred to 
as Daschle-Harkin and the House bill are enormous. You are not going to 
get that done until next year anyway. On the contrary, in the Cochran-
Roberts approach I think we could probably go to conference and settle 
it out in a day or two. We could get that done.
  So when people say it is partisan or bipartisan, or there are strong 
differences of opinion, or people are stalling, I think a little 
clarification certainly is in order.
  Let me just say I have touched on some of the specifics I had in my 
prepared remarks. I am not going to go over the process. If anybody 
wants to talk about process and what we deem as a better way to 
approach the process of this bill, they can go back to the statements 
Senator Cochran and I made last Friday.
  But let me say, again, that I believe the commodity title in the bill 
would really take us back to the past. Our producers will receive 
higher payments through higher loan rates--if they have a crop to 
harvest. If they have no crop to harvest, they receive no loan 
deficiency payments.
  The bill also includes a ``technical correction'' to the bill that 
addresses a $15.5 billion scoring problem in the dairy title of the 
committee-passed bill. That is quite a technical correction. Again, 
that is a strong difference of opinion.
  If you are going to return to target prices, I would say to my 
colleagues, that only results in payments to the producers if the price 
for that crop year is below the target price. And it has happened time 
and time again when a State up in the Dakotas, or a State such as 
Kansas, in high-risk agriculture will lose a crop, and the price rises 
above the target price, and then, when the farmer needs the payments 
the worst, then is when he does not get it, either from the target 
price or the loan rate. That is something we tried to fix in 1996 with 
our direct payment program. And that is basically the feature of our 
bill.
  I talked a little bit about the front-loading of the bill, which I 
think leaves us in a very precarious situation in the years of the 
coming deficits if in fact that takes place.
  Senator Cochran also pointed out that the underlying bill, the 
Daschle bill, front-loads spending for the popular programs, including 
EQIP, the Wetlands Reserve Program, WHIP, and the Farmland Protection 
Program.
  I think we could make a pretty good case, I say to Senator Cochran, 
that our bill is better in regard to the environment and conservation 
than the underlying bill. So we are basically mortgaging future farm 
bills simply to buy off votes on this one. I do not think that is good 
policy, and it is not good for the future of our farmers.
  We think we have the better approach. We take a very commonsense 
approach to conservation. It puts funding into those popular programs I 
just mentioned. It ramps up the funding so we have a significant 
baseline as we head into the next farm bill. I think the Senator from 
Mississippi indicated $2 billion in that regard. That is a big 
investment. We don't go ``Back to the Future.'' We don't raise loan 
rates or return to the target prices of the past.

[[Page 26659]]

Instead, we increase the direct payment--listen up, all farmers, 
ranchers, and their lenders--we increase the direct payment levels back 
to near their 1997 levels while adding a payment for soybeans and minor 
oilseeds.
  This does create a guaranteed payment that the producers and their 
bankers can count on, even in years of crop losses when they need it 
the most. They do not have that guarantee in the committee-passed bill.
  Again, I would like to reflect on what the Senator from Iowa said. It 
is WTO legal. It will not really shoot our negotiators in the foot in 
these international trade negotiations. He is directly on point in 
warning what could happen on down the road.
  Our bill is supported by President Bush and Secretary of Agriculture 
Ann Veneman. So you are past that, and I think, obviously, you get to 
conference a lot quicker.
  Let me say that to the Kansas farmer and, for that matter, to the 
Mississippi farmer or the Montana farmer, or any of our colleagues who 
are privileged to represent agriculture and they say: Wait a minute, if 
you are stalling a bill, and you are going to hold up this bill, and 
you are not going to get progress, and you are not going to get the 
money invested--that the administration has said, over and over again, 
it is not the money, it is the policy, so the investment in agriculture 
will be there--if somebody comes to me and says, Pat, let's pass the 
farm bill, I would love to pass the farm bill in an odd-numbered year 
as opposed to an even-numbered year because it does get to be a tad 
political. But if I said: Now, wait a minute, Mr. Kansas farmer, what 
if that bill that you want to move, or that others on the other side 
want to move, contained $46 billion up front and left no money for 
future farm bills, would you support that? They would probably say: No, 
Pat, I don't think that is a very good idea.
  What if I said: Do you want to go back to loan rates? They might say: 
Well, I am not too sure. We never figured out whether that was income 
protection or market clearing. I don't know.
  We need that debate. We are having that debate.
  Actually, we are not having that debate. Nobody spoke to that. How 
are you going to pay for that? We are going to take it out of your crop 
insurance reform we had only last year. I don't think they will buy 
that and say: Pat, I don't want that kind of bill.
  Then if I said: Well, Mr. Farmer in Kansas, if this bill is supported 
by the President and the Secretary of Agriculture, and we could 
conference it more quickly with the House, would you prefer this than 
the other? Is that stalling? They would say: No, Pat, I don't think so.
  What if I said: Is it consistent with the WTO negotiations? They 
would look at me and say: Pat, do you think we are going to get that 
done? I would say: We haven't yet, but we are going to keep trying.
  Lord knows, it is a difficult process. But if the bill that we passed 
already has more money, so that the ``amber box'' is flashing so you 
can't even see past it, they are going to say: Well, Pat, I don't think 
we want that bill either.
  If they say, we are going to maintain the integrity of the crop 
insurance program in our better substitute, I think most farmers would 
say yes.
  Then there is an analysis by the Food and Agriculture Policy Research 
Institute that says the Cochran-Roberts proposal will result in higher 
market prices for farmers in the program crops than the committee-
passed bill. It says it right there. In Kansas, every Kansas farmer 
will understand we are losing $1.3 billion over the life of the bill if 
we go with the committee bill as opposed to our substitute.
  I could go on, but I think I have used up enough time and have made 
the points I tried to make. I do not want to go back to the old, failed 
policies of the past.
  As the distinguished Senator from Mississippi has indicated, let's 
preserve the best, and let's improve it.
  I say to the Senator from Mississippi, I think you control the time, 
sir. So I yield back to you.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his 
comments and his leadership on this issue.
  We have some time left.
  Does the senior Senator from Montana wish to speak at this time or 
will we reserve the time?
  Mr. BURNS. Whenever you all run out of gas.
  Mr. COCHRAN. We have not run out of gas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield so I can make a unanimous consent 
request at this point?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator for that purpose.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I neglected to ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Gordon Smith be added as a cosponsor of the amendment offered 
by Senator McCain in regard to catfish. We want to make sure the 
catfish cosponsors are, indeed, added.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I reserve the remainder of our time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have listened to the discussion. The 
chairman of our committee is now chairing a conference committee on one 
of the appropriations subcommittees. He will be back in the Chamber in 
a few moments. Let me consume some time to respond to a couple of the 
arguments.
  First of all, my colleagues ably described their proposal. Their 
proposal is different than the proposal brought to the Chamber by the 
Senate Agriculture Committee. I have listened to a substantial amount 
of discussion about the amber box. I suspect it is probably confusing 
to people listening to this debate about family farming to hear about 
the amber box. I heard someone say perhaps if we took the wrong turn 
here or made the wrong decision, we would shoot our trade negotiators 
in the foot. With all due respect, our trade negotiators have shot 
themselves in the foot. In fact, they took aim before they did it which 
really compounds the felony.
  This amber box is not of great interest to me. I understand it is 
part of our current trade regime. The amber box exists. So does unfair 
trade with stuffed molasses, so does unfair trade with potato flakes, 
with Canadian wheat, so does unfair trade with T-bone steaks to Tokyo. 
I could go on forever. While that amber box up there is shining amber 
for somebody, all I see are trade negotiators who negotiate bad trade 
deals for American farmers.
  Let me talk about boxes, not amber boxes. Let me talk about the box 
that the American farmers are in. That is the only box I really care 
about. Here is the box the American farmer is in. The American farmer 
is farming under a farm program whose presumption was to transition 
them out of a farm program, give them 7 years of fixed and declining 
payments at the end of which there would be no farm program. The whole 
point was to transition to the marketplace. That all sounded good 
because wheat was $5 or so a bushel back then. Just like people thought 
that the budget surplus was going to last forever, everybody thought--I 
did not--that the price of wheat would be $5. So let's give 7 years of 
fixed payments, farmers can put it in the bank, draw interest and be 
able to transition into a market economy.
  Almost immediately the market collapsed. The price of grain just 
collapsed. So then this farm program of fixed and declining payments 
didn't look good at all. Each year at the end of the year we had to 
pass an emergency bill to make up the difference for a farm program 
that didn't work.
  So this is the box the farmers have been put in: They are trying to 
do business, selling a product whose price has collapsed. That is a 
box. They are trying to do business and ship their product over 
railroads that are monopolies in most cases. That is a box. They are 
trying to do business when they buy chemicals from chemical companies 
that are getting bigger. These companies are exacting the prices they 
want to exact. That is a box. When our farmers sell their grain into 
the grain trade, they face concentrations in virtually every area of 
economic activity. That

[[Page 26660]]

is a box. Everywhere the farmer looks they are put in a box. It is not 
the amber box. It is just the box driving them flat broke.
  Then they turned to see a farm program that at its roots was wrong. 
The farm program said: We won't relate at all to what is happening in 
the marketplace. If the grain prices are higher, we will give you a 
payment. Wheat is $5.50 a bushel. Under our plan, you get a payment. 
Farmers don't need a payment. If wheat is $5 or $5.50 a bushel, family 
farmers don't need help from the Federal Government. That was the 
bankruptcy of that idea in the first place. It didn't recognize the 
times when farmers did not need assistance.
  We have had a real struggle to get this farm bill to the floor. We 
had the Secretary of Agriculture calling around to our colleagues 
saying: Don't do this; you shouldn't write a farm bill now. The current 
farm bill is just dandy. Wait until next year.
  We had colleagues say: The current farm bill is working just fine. 
Give it time. We shouldn't write a new farm bill this year.
  It was a long struggle. We have overcome that. We are on the floor. 
We have a farm bill. Now we have a filibuster. We have had two cloture 
votes, and we have not been able to break the filibuster. Eventually we 
will. Debating the Cochran-Roberts amendment is an important step 
forward, because this is the major amendment to the commodities title.
  I hope perhaps when we get past this we will be able to move through 
the rest of the amendments and get this bill completed. That is our 
goal. The idea in the Cochran-Roberts amendment with respect to the 
commodities title is a bad idea, but I am not trying to be pejorative 
about what they are doing. They have a different idea. I don't happen 
to think it works. I think it is almost identical to Freedom to Farm. 
The Freedom to Farm idea was fixed payments, not withstanding what is 
happening in the marketplace. We know that didn't work. We can do it 
again, but we know that won't work.
  So the question is, Do we want to revisit what we have done for the 
last 7 years with a few pieces of chrome added here and there, maybe a 
hood ornament here and there, but essentially the same basic 
philosophy? Or do we want countercyclical price protection so when 
times are tough, family farmers understand there is a bridge over these 
price valleys?
  That seems to me to be the right approach. That is the approach in 
the underlying bill offered by the Senate Agriculture Committee.
  The entire purpose of a farm program should be nothing more than 
helping this country maintain a network of family farms producing 
America's food. If it is not for that purpose, then let's just not have 
a farm program. Let's get rid of USDA. We don't need it. It was started 
under Abe Lincoln with nine employees over 140 years ago. We just don't 
need it if the purpose isn't to try to maintain a network of family 
farmers and ranchers who produce America's food supply.
  Why is there some special attention to those family producers? 
Because those family producers work under conditions that almost no one 
else in the country does. They don't know whether they are going to get 
a crop. They planted a seed. It may rain too much, or not enough. 
Insects might come and eat it up; they may not. It might hail; it might 
not. You might get crop disease; you might not. If you survive all of 
those ``mights'' and get to harvest time and get that crop, get it in 
the back of a two-ton truck, haul it to an elevator, what might happen 
to you, and almost certainly did happen to you every year under Freedom 
to Farm, is that elevator would say: On behalf of the grain trade, we 
must tell you your food has no value.
  That is the problem. That is the problem we are trying to fix. During 
tough times, can we create a farm program that offers a helping hand. 
That is the bill that was brought from the Agriculture Committee. It is 
a good bill. It has a commodity title that is now the target of this 
substitute. My hope is that we will defeat the Cochran-Roberts 
amendment.
  I have the greatest respect for both of the Senators who offered this 
amendment. We have worked together on a wide range of issues. They are 
terrific Senators. But this is a bad idea. This idea needs to be 
defeated so we can move on with the commodity title brought to the 
floor from the Agriculture Committee by Senators Harkin and Daschle. I 
hope we do that soon.
  I yield 10 minutes to Senator Conrad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague from North Dakota. I thank our 
colleagues, Senator Roberts and Senator Cochran, who are valuable 
members of the Senate Agriculture Committee and have a sincere 
dedication to agriculture. We have appreciated working together even 
when we have had disagreements, some of them strenuous disagreements on 
farm policy. There is no doubt in my mind about the genuine commitment 
of Senator Roberts and Senator Cochran to the rural parts of our 
country and to agriculture in America. Certainly their hearts are in 
the right place, and they are thoughtful and valuable members of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee.
  With that said, we do have a profound disagreement with respect to 
this amendment. If you liked the Freedom to Farm policy, then this is 
the amendment for you. This is a Freedom to Farm policy warmed over. 
Freedom to Farm had a shelf life of about a year. We were promised 
under that policy permanently high farm prices. That is what we were 
told over and over. What we saw was something quite different. What we 
saw was a collapse of farm prices after that legislation was put in 
place. In fact, I have shown on the floor many times the chart that 
shows the prices that farmers pay going up continually and the prices 
that farmers receive dropping like a rock after Freedom to Farm was 
passed in 1996. The prices farmers receive have been straight down, 
like a one-way escalator going down, ever since Freedom to Farm passed.
  We have had to pass four economic disaster assistance bills for 
agriculture since Freedom to Farm passed, four economic disaster bills 
costing over $25 billion because Freedom to Farm was a disaster itself. 
This amendment before us would continue that failed policy.
  Senator Roberts keeps warning about a return to the failed policies 
of the past. How about the failed policies of the present?
  (Mrs. CARNAHAN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, how about the failed policies of the 
Freedom to Farm bill, which has been such a disaster that each and 
every year for the last 4 years we have had to come to the Congress and 
pass an economic disaster assistance package for our farmers or see 
literally tens of thousands of them forced off the land.
  Even the authors of the House-passed bill labeled Freedom to Farm a 
failure. After 18 months of hearings, they concluded that one major 
change was needed in current policy. The change that the House 
agricultural leadership agreed upon was the addition of a 
countercyclical form of payments--payments that would increase if 
prices fell. That one feature sets the House bill apart from current 
policy. Yet the Cochran-Roberts bill and the Bush administration reject 
this fundamental feature. After 18 months of hearings, the House 
concluded there was one critical missing element. They put it in their 
bill. It is in the underlying bill, but it is not in this amendment. It 
is a countercyclical form of income support.
  Compared to the committee-approved bill, this amendment is 
particularly unfriendly to the so-called minor crops--commodities such 
as sugar, barley, sunflowers, and canola, which are crops that are 
critically important in my home State--and not just in my home State 
but in dozens of other States as well.
  For example, the Cochran-Roberts amendment fails to repeal the loan 
forfeiture penalty for sugar. If you are a cane or beet sugar producer, 
that one shortcoming will reduce the effective support rate of the 
sugar loan program and directly reduce the income of sugar producers.

[[Page 26661]]

  I find it particularly puzzling that the administration has endorsed 
the Roberts-Cochran amendment. After months of urging that we delay the 
process until next year, after months of opposing the additional farm 
money set aside in the budget resolution, and after issuing a policy 
report that indicts current policy for transferring the majority of 
farm dollars to a minority of large farmers, the administration has 
apparently done a double flip and has now endorsed the amendment before 
us that is a testimony to the status quo. The very thing the 
administration has opposed they now endorse. I guess one could ask: Are 
you surprised?
  Well, after the administration's performance in the farm bill 
discussion, nothing would surprise me anymore. First of all, they came 
out and said: Don't do a farm bill this year. Don't use the money in 
the budget resolution. Just wait, the money will be there next year. 
Then they came out and endorsed Senator Lugar's approach. And then the 
next week they took back that endorsement. Then they called the farm 
group leaders to the White House and said: Call the members of the 
Agriculture Committee and tell them not to write a farm bill this year. 
The money will be there next year.
  Well, anybody with an ounce of common sense could look at our fiscal 
condition and see what is abundantly clear to anybody who cares to 
look: The expenses of the Federal Government are going up with the war, 
the income is going down with economic conditions. That means every 
part of the budget is going to be squeezed. And we have a Secretary of 
Agriculture calling members of the committee telling them don't act 
this year, wait until next year, the money will be there.
  How is the money going to be there? How is the money going to be 
there, Madam Secretary? How can that be?
  The Cochran-Roberts amendment also maintains the status quo with 
regard to loan rates. It freezes them in place rather than increasing 
them as the committee bill does. The amendment continues direct 
payments to farmers regardless of whether prices are high or low. It 
doesn't matter, send checks.
  Let me just look at the differences commodity by commodity--the 
difference in the effective support level between the committee bill 
and Cochran-Roberts. Let's start with wheat. That is No. 1 in my State. 
You can see on this chart that the loan rate in the committee version 
is $3 a bushel. Cochran-Roberts keeps it at the current level of $2.58. 
On payments, the committee bill has 44 cents a bushel; Cochran-Roberts, 
51 cents. The effective support level of the committee bill, $3.44; 
$3.09 under Cochran-Roberts.
  On barley, the committee bill, which is before us, has a loan rate of 
$2; Cochran-Roberts has a loan rate of $1.65. The payments are 18 cents 
a bushel in the committee bill, for a total support level of $2.18. 
Cochran-Roberts has a loan rate of $1.65 and payments of 21 cents, for 
a total support level of $1.86.
  On corn, the committee bill has a loan rate of $2.08, with payments 
of 25 cents, for a total of $2.33. Cochran-Roberts has a loan rate of 
$1.89, payments of 26 cents, for a total of $2.15.
  On soybeans, the committee bill has a loan rate of $5.20, coupled 
with payments of 52 cents, for an effective support level of $5.72. 
Cochran-Roberts has a loan rate of $4.92, payments of 36 cents, and an 
effective support level of $5.28.
  On rice, the committee bill has a loan rate of $6.85, payments of 
$2.40, an effective support level of $9.25. Cochran-Roberts has a loan 
rate of $6.50, payments of $2.19, and an effective support level of 
$8.69.
  Finally, cotton. The committee bill has a loan rate of $55, payments 
of $12.81, and a total effective support level of $67.81. Cochran-
Roberts has a loan rate of $51.92, payments of $11.38, an effective 
support level of $63.30.
  On each and every commodity, the advantage goes to the underlying 
committee bill--the same amount of money, but it has been done in a 
different way in the committee bill. It gives a higher level of support 
for each of these major commodities than the amendment before us.
  Let me address one other element of Cochran-Roberts that I think is 
particularly deficient--the so-called farm accounts. There has been a 
lot of talk here about targeting of benefits of the farm bill to 
family-size farmers. But in this area, Cochran-Roberts has targeting in 
reverse. They are targeting to the best-off farmers, those who have the 
highest incomes; they are targeting to those who have the biggest 
profit margins because they have set up a circumstance of matching 
funds that requires a farmer to have $10,000 to set aside. In my State, 
a significant majority of farmers don't have $10,000 to set aside to 
qualify for the matching funds, or to fully qualify for the matching 
funds.
  So what you have here is Robin Hood in reverse. They are going to 
take from those who have the most need and give to those who have the 
most resources. I don't think that is a policy that can be sustained. I 
don't think that policy can be supported.
  Madam President, I add that the previous discussions on this proposal 
have had the program administered by the IRS that has the information 
on the money that people have to put in the program. To avoid a 
jurisdictional problem, they have decided to convert USDA into the IRS. 
They have decided to make the USDA all of a sudden administer tens of 
thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of these accounts, but they 
do not have the information upon which to make the judgment of whether 
somebody qualifies for these accounts.
  This is big government writ large. This is an invitation to a 
massive,, expansion of bureaucracy and a duplication of bureaucracy. 
These are the records that the IRS has, and all of a sudden we are 
going to duplicate these records at USDA. That is an administrative 
debacle that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
  How many tens of thousands of employees are they going to have to 
hire at USDA to administer these accounts? They do not have the 
information. They are going to have to gather the information. Can you 
imagine the potential for fraud? Talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. We 
will have everybody and their mother's uncle writing asking for their 
$10,000, and who is going to--I do not know how this ever got morphed 
into a program from IRS that has the information to administer such a 
program to one being run by USDA.
  They have 100,000 employees at IRS. We are going to have to have 
20,000 employees at USDA to run this program. We are going to have to 
hire 20,000 new Federal employees to run this program. Can you imagine 
the invitation to fraud when you say to any farmer out there if they 
put aside $10,000, they can get a matching amount from USDA and they do 
not have the information upon which to make these judgments? That alone 
ought to defeat this amendment because that is an invitation to a 
disaster. That is an invitation to an expansion of bureaucracy unlike 
one we have seen in the 15 years I have been in the Senate, and that is 
an invitation to waste and taxpayer abuse that I think in and of itself 
should defeat this amendment.
  I end as I began. Although I have been tough and direct with respect 
to my criticisms of this amendment, I do have great respect and 
affection for the authors. Senator Cochran and Senator Roberts are very 
level-headed people who have done everything they can in the light of 
their philosophical leanings to support farmers across this Nation, and 
for that I respect them and I am grateful to them. But I very much hope 
this amendment, which I think is terribly flawed, will be rejected.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I guess we are nice 
guys; it is just that the program is not worth anything.
  I want to set the record straight with regard to the payments. The 
distinguished Senator is very fond of charts, but in this particular 
case his chart is wrong. In regard to the direct payment rate for 2002, 
wheat is 76 cents. I believe the Senator indicated it was 51

[[Page 26662]]

cents or something like that. For corn, it is 43; grain sorghum, 52; 
barley, 36; for oats about 3.5; 14.9 for cotton seed; 3.39 for rice; 
and soybeans, 60 cents. That is not reflected in those charts. The 
charts are simply not accurate. Coming close to the truth is coming 
pretty close but it still is not the truth. I think we better get our 
facts and figures straight with regard to the payments.
  I also point out that if the market price gets above $3.43 in regard 
to wheat--I will use wheat because I am familiar with that--the farmer 
does not get a payment from the Daschle bill. In addition, their target 
prices do not come into effect until 2004.
  They were talking about a bridge. That is a mighty long bridge. The 
bridge is washed out, the farmer cannot swim, and the farmer cannot get 
to the other side.
  In regard to the $3 loan rate, that is just going to encourage market 
distortion, but if you are really going to use the loan rate in regard 
to income protection, why not raise it to $5 or $4? Take out all direct 
payments and just go with the loan rate. Many of the constituencies my 
friend represents would find that more in keeping.
  Yes, I know that Freedom to Farm in terms of restoring decisionmaking 
power to the producer was not as successful in regard to market prices 
worldwide, but we never passed the component parts to Freedom to Farm. 
There was a world glut of farm product. We lost our markets--the Asian 
market and the South American market. The value of the dollar hindered 
it. We did not get Presidential trade authority. We tried twice. We 
exported about $61 billion in agricultural commodities back during the 
first years of Freedom to Farm. That is down now to around $50 billion. 
Subtract the difference and that is what we have had to do with the 
emergency funding.
  Every commodity-producing country has gone through the same travail 
that our farmers are going through, but yet none of those farmers 
passed Freedom to Farm. For those on the other side of the aisle, 
Freedom to Farm is to blame for virtually everything that goes wrong in 
farm country; or if your alma mater loses a football game or if your 
daughter has a pimple on her nose, it is somehow the fault of Freedom 
to Farm with a chart to prove it.
  With regard to the safety net, our safety net is a safety net; it is 
not a hammock as indicated by the majority.
  I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Montana for 
whatever purpose he may like.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Kansas. I was 
interested in the remarks of my good friend from North Dakota. 
Yellowstone River separates us, so we are northern tier farmers. I want 
to bring up a couple points. I probably will not use my 10 minutes 
because I think the principal sponsors of this amendment have explained 
it very well.
  I also want to correct another thing that we do not want to overlook. 
If farm programs that contain target prices were going to save the 
family farm, we have 50 years of that experiment to study and still we 
are losing farmers from the land. If they were going to work in the 
last 50 years, surely we would have gone through some economic cycles 
where we would have found something that was successful for 
agriculture. Nothing more is going on in agriculture that is not going 
on in other sections of our economy.
  I have heard a lot of farmers say there is nothing wrong on the farm 
except the price. Our share of the consumer dollar that should go back 
to the farm is not getting back to the farm. We used to live on 10 
cents, 15 cents, 20 cents of the consumer dollar getting back to the 
farm. Now we are living with around 8 cents or 9 cents. Therein lies 
the problem.
  I supported and had a little to do with--not very much--putting 
together the Cochran-Roberts amendment. The real design in Freedom to 
Farm was to transfer the decisionmaking of what they want to do on 
their farms and ranches back to the farmer and the rancher and also 
give them the tools to minimize their risk.
  We failed to do two or three of those items during the life of 
Freedom to Farm. We never did get reform on crop insurance, and there 
were several other elements in this whole era when that legislation was 
in effect.
  Nobody has to say, when there are four major economists on the 
Pacific rim, it does not impact us who live in the Northwest because 
just about all of our production goes to the Pacific rim. When 
Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea, all of 
those economies went in the tank at the same time, and the value of our 
dollar went up, it tells me that was an element that was out of the 
control of anybody.
  What we finally did was reform crop insurance so it would work, so 
that the farmer and rancher could go out and protect his investment 
against those natural elements. We are in basically the third, fourth 
year of drought in our part of the world. Last year was the worst we 
have ever had.
  To give an example, we had no snowpack and that impacts our irrigated 
farmers. To give another example, the Yellowstone River, which is the 
longest river in this Nation, is unmarred by dams. That river could 
probably be crossed east of Billings to Williston, ND, and one's knees 
would never get wet.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BURNS. Yes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Montana has been going through some mighty bad weather. 
I have been to Montana with the Senator and looked at the drought 
conditions. My question is: If one does not have a crop, under their 
bill, one does not get a loan rate. And if one does not have a crop 
when they need it, the most--they do not get a target price, and the 
target price for wheat is capped anyway at $3.45. So at the time the 
farmer needs it the most--and the Senator has been through that big 
time in his State. We do that in Kansas a lot, and I know they do it in 
the Dakotas year after year--this bill does not help them. There is no 
countercyclical payment. There is no help. There is no safety payment.
  Mr. BURNS. The committee bill?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, the committee bill, the Daschle bill. So exactly 
the conditions the Senator is describing, under this bill, one would 
not have any help.
  I know what happened. The Senator from Montana knows what happened. 
They would be back to the Senate asking for emergency help, which we 
would have to provide, because the man whose job it is to feed the 
country needs to be provided for.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator for his question. That was a point I 
was going to get to, but the Senator got to it a lot quicker and maybe 
explained it a lot better than I would.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BURNS. Building on what the Senator from Kansas said, plus the 
fact we protect the integrity and improve insurance again, we add some 
more dollars to it so the farmer can deal with the risk of losing a 
crop. On the point made by the Senator from Kansas, should nothing be 
cut, nothing is gotten from the committee bill. That was not a correct 
approach.
  I am someone who wants to change the CRP, the Conservation Reserve 
Program, to make it work as it was set up to work. I have a couple of 
amendments on file now that I think would do that. Conservation reserve 
was to accomplish a couple of things. It was to set aside the 
undesirable land and the highly erodable land that should never have 
been broken by the plow in the history of the land. It should have 
never been broken up, but it was because we had high prices and farmers 
had the freedom to plant from fence row to fence row. Of course, with 
the downturn of the economy, of foreign economies, and the high dollar, 
the timing could not have been worse.
  Nonetheless, if I hear my farmers right, they still want the 
flexibility. They want to still make the decision and plant and sow for 
the market to make those decisions, especially new crops.
  When we try to write a farm bill that pertains to all of America, in 
the

[[Page 26663]]

northern tier of States our flexibility is limited to very few crops 
because of a short growing season. In some areas, we cannot grow winter 
wheat; we must grow spring wheat. So our decisions on what to plant are 
limited because of where we are and the kind of soil we have.
  When we add up all the factors, small grain producers in the State of 
Montana will fair better under Cochran-Roberts--or Roberts-Cochran, 
whichever is preferred--than the committee bill. Plus the fact we also 
know what it is to lose a crop. We cut a lot of acres, by law. We cut a 
lot of one bushel to the acre crop this year. It is the worst I have 
ever seen.
  Of course, we have all the elements that North Dakota has also. We 
could talk about normalization of farm chemicals, the labels on farm 
chemicals. We can talk about captive shippers. I have some report 
language I would like to offer later on, depending on whatever 
survives, to deal with normalization of those labels because we have 
great challenges in our free trade agreements.
  Now the real risk is this: If the committee bill is not WTO 
compliant--one can argue about our trade agreements, our trade 
negotiations, and one might not like it, but basically we are tied to 
them by law. If we are not compliant, and we lose a WTO challenge, what 
do we do? The Secretary of Agriculture suspends the program until it is 
ironed out, and it could be suspended at a time when our agricultural 
producers need it most. That is risky, and I ask my colleagues to 
consider that.
  I thank my good friend from Kansas, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first I inquire of the Chair as to the 
amount of time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 36\1/2\ minutes. 
The Senator from Kansas has 12 minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, while I rise to oppose the Cochran-
Roberts amendment, I want to congratulate my colleagues for their 
dedication as members of the Agriculture Committee. I have great 
respect for both Senator Cochran and Senator Roberts and realize they 
come to this from their respective States and how they view the needs 
of agriculture in our country. I come from the great State of Michigan. 
We have more diversity of crops than any other State, other than 
California. It is very heartening for me to have worked on a bill 
coming out of committee that for the first time addresses a number of 
crops and concerns of Michigan farmers that have not been addressed 
before.
  Our farmers stock the kitchen tables of America and the world, as we 
know, but they have the right to put food on their own family's table 
as well. That is what we are debating, the best way to make that 
happen.
  I was a member of the House Agriculture Committee for 4 years, and 
now I am honored to be on the Senate Agriculture Committee. Every year 
I have been in the Congress, we have had to pass an emergency 
supplemental because the Freedom to Farm Act was not enough to address 
the needs of American agriculture. I think now is the time to correct 
what was not working in the past farm bill.
  In Michigan this year, we have had such an extensive drought that 82 
of the 83 counties have been declared disaster areas.
  We have seen 30 percent of our corn crop wiped out as a result of the 
drought. Everything from Christmas trees--and as a caveat, I indicate 
to my colleagues we are proud that the Capitol Christmas tree this year 
is from the Upper Peninsula in Michigan. We have had tough times for 
our Christmas tree farmers. Dry beans, potatoes, and hay all have been 
hurt by the drought. One farm official said there is no difference 
between what has happened to us and watching your house burn.
  These are pretty dramatic times. Besides the drought, Fireblight has 
killed between 350,000 and 450,000 apple trees in Michigan at a cost of 
millions of dollars. It has just not been a good time for our farmers.
  According to the Department of Agriculture, between 1992 and 1997 in 
Michigan we lost over 215,000 acres of productive farmland. As part of 
that loss, 500 family farms vanished and 2,400 full-time farmers 
literally left the fields.
  We can do better than we have done for agriculture and the farmers of 
our country. I argue that the best approach is the bill before the 
Senate, as the committee reported it out, where every title we worked 
on in committee was reported out unanimously except the commodity 
title.
  I will speak about the commodity title in a moment. For the first 
time, we address in the commodity title of the U.S. farm bill the issue 
of specialty crops through a commodity purchase. We have been able to 
put in place what I believe is a win-win situation: A commodity 
purchase every year of fresh fruits and vegetables for our School Lunch 
Program and for our other food programs. It is a win-win for our 
farmers. It supports our specialty crops, and it is a win-win for our 
children and for families and seniors who benefit by the nutritional 
programs.
  Unfortunately, this substitute wipes out all the work that we did, 
putting together this commodity purchase program for the first time, 
with $780 million in commodity purchases for specialty crops. I very 
much want to see that continued in this legislation.
  We know the bill that came out of committee is a four-pronged 
approach: Marketing loans, fixed payments, countercyclical payments, 
and conservation security payments. The Conservation Security Act, now, 
what everybody calls the innovative act of payments for all farmers on 
working lands, is another way we address specialty crops that have not 
been addressed before.
  I was pleased as a Member of the House of Representatives to help 
fashion crop insurance to begin to move it in a direction to address 
specialty crops. But it has only been moving in a very small direction. 
The Conservation Security Act is a way to provide security again and 
focus on conservation and support for our specialty crops.
  The farm program, unfortunately, under the Cochran-Roberts amendment 
does not include a countercyclical program that will help farmers in 
times of low prices. Without such a program, there is simply no way the 
program can provide an adequate safety net. That is what I believe 
ought to be the goal.
  Under the substitute, when prices are high, farmers get large 
payments. In bad times, when prices are low, farmers will suffer, since 
there will not be a mechanism to respond to those conditions. That 
makes no sense to me. Fixed payments may seem attractive and bankers 
certainly want to know exactly what to expect each year, but we ought 
to be responding to the highs and lows of the marketplace and providing 
the help when it is needed. Fixed payments are not responsive to market 
conditions. They are not budget responsive. The taxpayers should save 
money when crop prices are higher. We should be paying less when they 
are higher and more when they are lower.
  I believe the substitute is not balanced. It is weighted toward fixed 
payments. The loan rates are low and would be allowed to go even lower. 
The committee bill phases down fixed payments and phases in a 
countercyclical program that is market and budget sensitive.
  Despite overwhelming calls for reforming Freedom to Farm, this 
substitute, in my opinion, is little more than a continuation of the 
existing program of marketing loans and fixed payments. In Michigan, 
this policy has left our farmers without income protection and 
necessitated over $30 billion of supplemental payments over the past 
few years. The substitute loan rates are low, as I indicated. The 
committee bill, on the other hand, sought to help farmers by making 
modest increases in the loan rates.
  The other point I make is in the area of conservation. Conservation 
is the most significant problem with the amendment other than, in my 
mind, what is left out in terms of specialty crops which are so 
critical to Michigan. The committee bill includes the Conservation 
Security Program which is a

[[Page 26664]]

new innovative program that provides payments to farmers who make the 
effort to practice good conservation on working farmlands. It has 
received growing enthusiasm. I hope that will be included in the final 
document.
  The Cochran-Roberts amendment provides significantly less funding for 
conservation. Under the substitute, my own farmers in Michigan would 
receive $40 million less in conservation payments than under the 
committee bill.
  I believe we have reported out a balanced bill that reflects the 
diversity of American agriculture and the diversity of Michigan 
agriculture. It addresses innovative new approaches in energy. It 
encourages a number of different new options and alternative energy 
sources that are not only good for farmers but are good for all 
Americans in terms of foreign energy dependence. It addresses 
conservation and nutrition and the commodity program in a way I think 
makes the most sense.
  Despite my great respect for the authors of the amendment, and I do 
mean that sincerely, I rise to encourage my colleagues to support the 
bill reported from committee, to oppose the substitute, and to join in 
an approach that broadly supports agriculture and provides the safety 
net necessary for our farmers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield to the manager.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia who has been an absolute champion of Virginia peanuts.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my dear friend and colleague. I have done my best 
over the 23 years I have been privileged to represent the Commonwealth 
of Virginia to look out for the interests of our peanut farmers. I 
remember so well Senator Howard Heflin of Alabama. I remember Senators 
from Georgia. We got together through the years and worked out a fair 
treatment of our peanut farmers.
  The peanut program is such a small crop in the overall agricultural 
picture of the United States of America, but it is crucial to the 
economy of Virginia.
  History will reflect in the marking up of these bills in committee 
that somehow the Virginia peanut grower did not fare as well as those 
in some other States. To correct this inequity, Senator Helms and I sat 
down with our distinguished ranking member and we showed him what had 
occurred, largely through oversight. I believe this oversight occurred 
because Virginia's peanut farms are unique when compared with other 
peanut States. We have very small farms compared to other areas in the 
United States of America.
  For family farmers, oftentimes peanuts are one of their principal 
sources of income, if not their only agricultural source of income. 
They take a lot of pride as their fathers and forefathers have taken 
for many, many years. Nevertheless, the committee bill--I say this with 
all respect to my good friend and chairman, Senator Harkin, with whom I 
have worked with over these many years--somehow did not work out for 
Virginia.
  After consulting--and Senator Allen joined me every step of the way 
on this--after consulting with Senators Roberts and Cochran, they 
agreed to incorporate the best provisions we could manage into this 
substitute amendment.
  Consequently, we are ready to strongly support the Cochran-Roberts 
substitute because, for the time being, it gives us the best hope in 
Virginia to allow this industry to ride through this transition period 
of several years as the current quota program is phased out. But these 
individuals, unless they get a little bit of help, cannot survive 
through this transition. We have to help them.
  I thank my good friends, both Senator Cochran and Senator Roberts, 
for helping.
  We have achieved the following: For example, we will significantly 
raise the per ton target price. The current quota price per ton is 
$610. The House passed Farm Bill contains a target price of $480 and 
the Senate committee bill is currently $520. But under the Cochran-
Roberts substitute we were able to raise the target price from $520 up 
to $550 which will enable our peanut growers to survive this period of 
transition. This will make a big difference to Virginia peanut farmers. 
It will enable them to simply survive.
  This is not a big moneymaking business. While many people nationwide 
enjoy the specialty Virginia peanut, it is expensive to grow. These 
provisions will allow Virginians to continue to grow this peanut as 
they have for generations.
  In addition to the increased target price, there are several 
technical provisions dealing with peanuts in Cochran-Roberts. For 
instance, producers will be allowed to re-assign their base for each of 
the 5 years of the farm bill. All edible peanuts will be inspected to 
maintain quality control. And the marketing associations will now be 
allowed to build their own warehouse facilities.
  Each of these small incremental steps will enable this very small but 
crucial industry in Virginia and parts of North Carolina to survive.
  I thank Senators Cochran, Roberts, Helms, and others. I thank my 
colleague, Senator Allen, for helping me. I am hopeful that we can 
provide help to these farmers.
  I see my good friend, the chairman of the committee. I remember very 
well when he joined the Senate and came to this committee.
  All I am asking for is a little bit of help for these peanut farmers. 
All through the years--with Senator Heflin and others around here from 
the peanut States--we always got together. We didn't ask for much, only 
just enough to survive.
  I hope the distinguished Chair will allow me to yield so the chairman 
may reply.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank my friend for yielding. I say to 
my friend from Virginia that the very issues he is talking about in 
peanuts is in the committee bill. He doesn't have to vote for Cochran-
Roberts. The same provision is in our bill. It is the same thing for 
the peanut farmers of Virginia. We took care of that in our bill.
  I know my friend from Virginia is also a strong conservationist. I 
know he believes in good conservation. I think my friend from Virginia, 
if he looks at the peanut program, will see what we do in our bill. 
They just copied the same thing that we already voted on unanimously, I 
think, in committee on the peanut provisions. That is in the bill.
  I hope he will take a look at the other things that are in the 
amendment that Cochran-Roberts cut--such as conservation and some other 
things which they cut in the bill. I know my friend from Virginia is a 
strong conservationist. He is a good hunter. I know that. He believes 
in the right of hunters and sportsmen. That is what we have in our 
bill. Our bill is strongly supported by the sportsmen of America.
  There is a lot of conservation that they took out. I wish the Senator 
would look at that.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. I 
remember Herman Talmadge. When I came to the Senate, he said: Young 
man. He didn't call me Senator. He said: Young man. You just stick with 
me and you will make it work.
  So I hope your bill does reflect this higher $550 per ton and a few 
other things, including allowing the producers to be able to move their 
base.
  I thank my friend, Senator Roberts.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I will give him a couple more minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. No. I am fine. I appreciate that courtesy. I thank the 
Chair for the indulgence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 6 minutes and the 
Senator from Iowa has 25 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. If I might, Senator Crapo has asked for 5 minutes. I 
hope I might have a little time to sum up along with the distinguished 
chairman of the committee. It would take me hours to respond perhaps in 
some small

[[Page 26665]]

way. That is why I asked the distinguished Senator from Iowa if he 
could lend 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming who is a 
member of the committee.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would be more than honored to give my friend from 
Wyoming 5 minutes off our time to speak against my own bill.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Bless your heart, sir.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from Iowa 
for sharing some of his time.
  The Agriculture bill is a very complicated matter, of course. This is 
the first year I have served on the Agriculture Committee. I have been 
involved with agriculture all my life. In fact, of course, agriculture 
in different places means different things. But I am glad we are having 
this debate.
  I hope we take enough time to really have a look at all the things 
that are involved in a farm bill. First, I think in many cases this 
bill has been pushed a little too quickly. I think it was pushed too 
hard by the committee. I have never been on a committee with a 
complicated bill such as this which was brought to the Members at 
midnight one night and expected to be voted on at 9:30 the next 
morning. We did that consistently through all the titles of this bill.
  I have a sense that is what is happening. It is being pushed by our 
minority friends on the other side of the aisle with the political 
question. I think it is too important for that. It is something that is 
going to impact all of us a great deal over a good long time. I don't 
agree with the idea that if we don't get it done this week we will 
lose. I don't agree with that. I don't think that is the case at all.
  I think if we had a chance to be here and deal with it in January and 
February, we would have the same opportunity, plus the advantage of 
knowing more about what we are doing and having a chance to go home and 
talk to our folks about how it works.
  I continue to support a bill that moves more towards market-oriented 
policy, not one that is increasingly controlled by the Government, as 
has been the case over a period of time, but one that places more 
emphasis on all of agriculture as opposed to focusing on the so-called 
program crops as it has been in the past, one that recognizes the 
importance of our WTO obligations.
  We have, of course, a great percentage of agricultural products that 
go into foreign trade. If we are not careful about how we do this, we 
may run into the so-called amber box and find problems. I think we want 
to recognize the value of keeping working lands in production and not 
setting aside land for production only to increase the production on 
that land.
  In many cases, I believe the Harkin bill takes us in the wrong 
direction. It endorses higher rates. It encourages production of U.S. 
products that are already losing in the world market and which could 
even lose more. On the other hand, I think Cochran-Roberts is a really 
good option for us to consider.
  The commodity title provides substantial support for crop producers. 
But it provides support in a non-market-distorting manner.
  I think, as in most every issue--but maybe this one more than most--
we ought to take a look at where we want agriculture to be 10 years 
from now, what directions we want agriculture to take. Do we want 
farmers to become more and more dependent on Government subsidies? Do 
we want all those decisions to be based on what the Federal Government 
is going to provide or, indeed, do we want to have a safety net so that 
we can keep family farmers in business, and help do that, but also that 
that production is reflected in the marketplace, and that those things 
that are marketable are the ones that are sold?
  I think that is very important. That is what we try to do in the 
Cochran-Roberts amendment.
  The payments are considered to be WTO ``green box'' payments, so that 
important foreign trade will be there without being impeded or 
challenged by other countries.
  The Cochran-Roberts amendment allows producers who have never 
received Government assistance to obtain support through the farm 
savings account. Producers are able to be matched by Federal funds, but 
they are able to set aside for a rainy day. That is a market-oriented, 
private-property oriented type of approach.
  The conservation title boosts programs that keep our working lands in 
production. It recognizes the value of keeping people on the land in 
operation versus land retirement. Keeping working lands in production 
benefits open space and wildlife. Those are aspects that are terribly 
important to my State where much of agriculture, of course, is 
livestock, with the idea of keeping open space. The EQIP program helps 
give technical help to conservation programs and financial assistance 
for improving environmental quality. I think those are so important.
  It provides a bonus incentive for producers who have adopted long-
term conservation programs. It creates a new program for the protection 
of Native grasslands. The loss of open space and crop land is a severe 
problem, particularly, I suppose, in the West.
  There are some important distinctions between the Harkin bill and the 
Cochran-Roberts substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. I hope my colleagues will give great consideration to the 
amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time do we have on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes.


  Mr. HARKIN. I have 18 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield myself 10 minutes, and ask the 
Chair to remind me when my 10 minutes are up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I want the talk, literally, about five 
things that I think Senators should consider before they vote on the 
pending Cochran-Roberts amendment: direct payments, loan rates, the 
issue of WTO and our trade agreements, conservation, and then I want to 
mention a little bit about total spending in the bill itself.
  There seems to be some confusion that somehow the Cochran-Roberts 
proposal is bigger in direct payments than what we have. But I would 
point to this chart which shows why looks can be deceiving.
  Under the Cochran-Roberts amendment, for example, on soybeans--I just 
used one crop; it could be any of them--the payment rate on direct 
payments is 60 cents a bushel. Actually, it is 60.68 cents per bushel. 
Under our bill, it is 55 cents a bushel. So to the casual observer, 
looking at this, you would say: Well, of course, Cochran-Roberts is 
better; it gives more in direct payments than what you do, Harkin, in 
the committee bill.
  But here is the catch. Under our bill, we pay for the whole base. We 
have 100 acres of soybeans. So we take 100 acres, and we just took an 
average of 38.25 bushels per acre, times 55 cents a bushel; that is a 
direct payment of $2,104 for that 100 acres of soybean base.
  Under Cochran-Roberts, take the same 100 acres, and they use the old 
triple base back. That is a 15-percent reduction. Actually, that came 
in the 1990 budget reconciliation bill, if I am not mistaken. It was 
that triple base rule, and they put it in there. So now it is not paid 
on 100 acres, but it is paid on 85 acres.
  They have the same 38.25 bushels an acre, just like we have--the same 
yield--and they pay on 85 acres. And then they only pay 78.4 percent of 
that. Where did that 78.4 percent come from? That is comparing the 
yield during the base period from 1981 to 1985 to the

[[Page 26666]]

yield from 1998 to 2001. And it comes out to 78.4 percent.
  So when you get through all the convoluted workings of the Cochran-
Roberts amendment, the same 100 acres of soybeans that a farmer would 
raise next year, they would pay $1,547 for that 100 acres under 
Cochran-Roberts. We pay $2,104, even though our payment rate is 55 
cents a bushel. Theirs is more than 60 cents a bushel. But we do it 
honestly, openly. Update your base and update your yield: 100 acres 
times your yield, times 55 cents.
  They say, oh, they are paying 60 cents a bushel, but it is on 85 
acres--15 percent less than the 100 acres--times your yield, times 78.4 
percent.
  So I hope no one is going to be fooled that somehow Cochran-Roberts 
has more direct payments out there than we do. It is just not so. It 
may be higher, but it is on fewer acres, and it is on 78.4 percent of 
the yield of that field.
  So, again, when it comes to direct payments, Cochran-Roberts is 
convoluted. They go back to all these old payment acres and outdated 
yields. But we actually pay more.
  Next, I would like to cover loan rates. Under Cochran-Roberts, they 
continue current law, which establishes maximum loan rates and allows 
the Secretary to lower the loan rates according to a formula of 85 
percent of the 5-year average price for grains and oilseeds. You drop 
high and low-price years. So we can look at this. This will be the loan 
rates shown right here on this chart.
  Let's just take wheat. I know the Senator from Kansas likes wheat. It 
is a big crop in his area. It is a good crop for the country.
  Under our bill, the loan rate for wheat, right now, is $3 per bushel. 
Now, Cochran and Roberts might tell you that really their loan rate is 
going to be $2--what is it?--$2.53.
  Mr. ROBERTS. It is $2.58.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry. It is $2.58. That is what they are saying, 
$2.58 per bushel. But that is the highest they can go. It is not the 
lowest they can go. Under their loan rates, because they use this old 
formula, it can go down from $2.58 to $2.30. If we have a high stocks-
to-use ratio, which we do right now in wheat, the Secretary has the 
authority to lower that another 10 percent, down to $2.07 a bushel. So, 
again, under Cochran-Roberts, the loan rate can go to $2.07 a bushel 
for wheat. Under our bill, it can go no lower than $3 a bushel.
  On corn, it is the same thing. Under corn, Cochran-Roberts caps it at 
$1.89, as shown right here on the chart. We are at $2.08. They say: 
Hey, cap it at $1.89. That is all the higher it can go, but it can go a 
lot lower. It can go down to, I think, $1.56 a bushel, as shown on this 
chart right here.
  So don't think that this is the Cochran-Roberts loan rate, as shown 
on this chart right here, not by a minute. It is down in here 
someplace, down around in here, as shown on this chart.
  This is our loan rate: $2.08. The same is true of all the other 
grains--sorghum, barley, and oats.
  So when it comes to loan rates, Cochran-Roberts, again, is trying to 
fool you. They are trying to say: Their loan rate is less than ours, 
but it is pretty high. That is not so. Because under the formula, it 
can be reduced down, and then the Secretary has the authority to reduce 
it even lower.
  We do not give the Secretary that authority. We take that authority 
away from the Secretary. Our loan rates are honest. It is $3 for wheat. 
You cannot go a nickel lower than that. The Secretary does not have the 
authority to lower it.
  On WTO, there have been some questions raised about WTO compliance, 
whether or not we are going to be okay on the WTO. Under WTO, we have 
what is called an amber box. This is product specific, what we spend on 
our crops. Under the WTO provisions, we are allowed to spend $19.1 
billion a year. I understand some people over here have said that under 
the committee bill we might exceed that; then we will be not in 
compliance with WTO.
  Well, we used CBO estimates to determine how much we might spend. 
Right now under the current levels of spending, we are spending about 
$11 billion. We are allowed 19.1, but we are spending about 11. Under 
1731, using CBO estimates we will be spending about $13.6 billion. The 
maximum that we would spend under 1731 would be $16.6 billion, a far 
cry from $19.1 billion. Again, if we are allowed to spend $19.1 billion 
to support farm income and to support family farmers and get them a 
better price for their grains, why should we be down here at $11.1 
billion? Why don't we get closer to $19.1 billion?
  Again, even under the worst case scenario, using CBO estimates we are 
going to be almost $3 billion less than what we are allowed. Why should 
we handcuff ourselves? I ask--I hope my friend will respond--why do we 
have to be down here at such low levels? We might as well take 
advantage of what WTO has given us, $19.1 billion, and use as much as 
we can without exceeding this.
  Under the WTO rules and under our bill, if it looks as though we ever 
are going to exceed this, the Secretary has the authority to cut 
payments. So there is an escape hatch. If the worst possible case 
scenario happened--worst case happened--it would have to be about like 
it was in 1985. If we had a year like 1985, we might get close to 19.1. 
But that was 16 years ago. We haven't had a year like that since, and I 
don't think it is likely we ever will. Again, under WTO we are in full 
compliance. That is a red herring.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself another 5 minutes.
  If anybody tells you we are going to violate WTO, that is nonsense; 
absolute, utter poppycock.
  Then under the amber box, we also have nonproduct specific. This is 
what we spend on crop insurance and conservation, things such as that. 
Under this nonproduct specific, right now, I believe, again, we are 
allowed $10 billion. This is 5 percent. We are allowed 5 percent of the 
value of our total agricultural production that we can use here for 
things such as for countercyclical and for crop insurance, we are 
allowed to spend 5 percent. We are right now, I believe, at about $7 
billion. Under 1731, we will be even lower than that. We will never 
even get close to that 5 percent, or $10 billion cap.
  I also draw your attention to the green box. This is conservation, 
rural development. We are allowed to spend anything we want, anything 
without violating WTO. So what does Cochran-Roberts do? They take money 
out of this. They cut funding for conservation. They cut funding for 
rural development. They even cut some money out of research, when we 
have no limits on how much we can spend there. So don't let anybody 
fool you to think that somehow we are not compliant with WTO. We are.
  The last thing I will discuss--and this is not specific--is to show 
what they were cutting in conservation. Under the wildlife incentives 
program, wildlife habitat, we put in $1.25 billion. They put in only 
$350 million. This is for 5 years. Under the farmland protection 
program, where we buy up farmland and keep it from going into urban 
development, we put in $1.75 billion. They only put in $432 million. 
The conservation security program, $387 million, we put in 5 years; 
they zeroed it out.
  The Secretary of Agriculture earlier put out a book. It is called 
``Food and Agriculture Policy, Taking Stock for the New Century.'' Here 
it is on page 10, conservation and the environment. They say, the 
principles for conservation: Sustained past environmental gains.
  Then on page 81--if I remember this book right, on page 81 it says 
``the new approach.'' They are talking about incentives for stewardship 
on working farmlands.

       The new approach is broader. It may be the best option for 
     compensating farmers for the environmental amenities they 
     provide as well as recognizing the past efforts of ``good 
     actors'' who already practice enhanced stewardship. The 
     Department of Agriculture and the administration have 
     supported conservation on working lands, helping farmers who 
     have been good stewards in the past.

  That is what we do. We put the money in there, $387 million, just 
what the administration said they wanted.

[[Page 26667]]

Cochran-Roberts zeroes it out. And guess what. I am told the 
administration supports Cochran-Roberts. They zero it out.
  Something is not adding up here. Something is not adding up here on 
this because the administration now is saying they support Cochran-
Roberts. I don't know if they do. Does the administration support your 
amendment?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.
  Mr. HARKIN. The administration is supporting the Cochran-Roberts 
amendment even though earlier this year they wanted money in a program 
like this to pay farmers on working lands. They zero it out. I guess 
this administration doesn't give a hoot about conservation. That is 
exactly it. They want to talk about it. They want to put it in a nice, 
fancy book. But they don't want to pay for it. They don't want to pay 
farmers for being good conservationists. They want to support Cochran-
Roberts.
  This is why I talked about conservation, maintaining and paying 
farmers for what they are already doing.
  This is the one chart on which I think even Mr. Roberts will agree 
with me. Last week we had an editorial in the newspaper saying this is 
a piggy farm bill, we are spending too much money. I mentioned this 
last Friday. I asked my staff to make up a chart.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes remaining in total.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thought I had 7 minutes. I can't squeeze 1 more minute 
out of--didn't we say 7 minutes before we got into the colloquy on 
Senator Harkin's time, the distinguished Senator from Virginia who was 
extolling great virtue and compliments to the distinguished Senator on 
his time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would like to give wide latitude to 
the Senator from Kansas, but the Senator from Virginia exceeded his 
time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thought the Senator from Iowa had yielded his time to 
hear all the accolades directed toward his personage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That part of the Senator's statement was 
charged to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. ROBERTS. So then I have 7 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes, and not counting the time just 
used by the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I was just making an inquiry to the Chair about the 
timing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Understood. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I am delighted to yield to the Senator from Idaho who 
has been a champion for State water rights in an amendment introduced 
on the committee bill. There is an option there for the State to opt 
out. This is a very important issue to the entire West--for that 
matter, any State. I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the leader with 
regard to this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CAPO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
proposed by Senators Cochran and Roberts, not only because of the 
reasons that have been discussed already but because of important 
provisions contained in the underlying bill that are unnecessary.
  We have already spent a tremendous amount of time in this Chamber 
debating the dairy provisions that were not removed from the 
legislation. For that reason alone, we ought to substitute the Cochran-
Roberts provisions.
  Moreover, as Senator Roberts has indicated, the underlying bill 
contains very dangerous provisions relating to water rights that 
represent a new intrusion of the Federal Government into the domain of 
State-controlled sovereignty over water rights. We will be debating 
that later if we are not successful at this point in substituting the 
Cochran-Roberts amendment. For those two reasons alone, we ought to 
substitute the Cochran-Roberts provisions for the amendments in the 
underlying legislation to prevent unfortunate and inappropriate farm 
policy from proceeding in the Senate farm bill.
  I also congratulate Senator Roberts and Senator Cochran on their 
innovative farm countercyclical payments account. This farm savings 
account allows farmers to deposit money into an account and receive a 
match from the Federal Government. This assistance is nonmarket 
distorting and, importantly, available to all agricultural producers, 
including specialty crops and ranchers.
  I also thank our Senators for not weakening the planting restrictions 
in their proposal. These, too, help specialty crop farmers in America. 
I realize our time is short, so I will cut short my remarks.
  I will conclude on this point. Comment has been made that the 
Cochran-Roberts amendment is not sufficient in the area of 
conservation. I differ with that. I commend Senators Roberts and 
Cochran for the strong commitment in their provision to protect 
conservation. Our farm bill, as many people in America don't realize, 
is one of the strongest protections of the environment that we have and 
that we consider in Congress on a regular basis. The provisions in the 
Cochran-Roberts proposal are strong commitments to continuing and 
strengthening our conservation programs across this country.
  Some of the charts show differences in numbers that look dramatic. 
But one must remember that there is a numbers game being played. The 
numbers used in the Cochran-Roberts proposal utilize the farm budget 
over a 10-year cycle, which is the way that our budget is established 
to appropriate it. The numbers utilized in the underlying bill squeeze 
all of that into 5 years and say nothing about what happens in the 
outlying 5 years, appearing that they are spending more money when, in 
reality, they are squeezing it into a front-loaded proposal. We have to 
compare apples and apples. When we do, we will see that the Cochran-
Roberts proposal has strong protections for farmers and commodity 
dealers, and protections and improvements in our conservation programs, 
and it doesn't contain the unfortunate attacks on State water 
sovereignty and unfortunate dairy provisions that the underlying 
provision contains.
  For those reasons, I strongly encourage the Senate to support the 
Cochran-Roberts proposal.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today for two purposes: first, 
to support the amendment from my friend and colleague from Kansas, and 
second to briefly discuss an important priority of mine, carbon 
sequestration.
  Shortly, we will vote on the Cochran-Roberts amendment, which is in 
essence, a substitute farm bill, with the main difference lying in the 
commodity title. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment for a 
variety of reasons: this proposal helps farmers during hard times by 
retaining loan rates and increasing the fixed, decoupled payments that 
farmers now get, but in place of the target price programs, Cochran-
Roberts adds a farm savings account. These savings accounts will be 
available to all producers to help with the risks of production and 
market risks. These savings accounts give farmers the tools they need 
to manage their finances and provides up to $1.2 billion in matching 
funds annually.
  The Cochran-Roberts proposal provides market-oriented loan rates and 
promotes dependable policy. This proposal provides farmers a 
consistent, predictable income safety net and maintains flexibility in 
market-oriented planting.
  The current Marketing Loan Program is continued for traditional 
program crops under this legislation. Overproduction is minimized by 
ensuring more market-oriented loan rates. In times of low prices 
farmers are protected through counter-cyclical income protection.

[[Page 26668]]

  The reason these changes are so important is that we must guard 
against locking into place policies that guarantee overproduction and 
low prices while also providing adequate protection against market 
lows. This is a very difficult balance to achieve, but it is curious 
that the same opponents of freedom to farm, who chided the policy as 
guaranteeing overproduction, are now advocating policies which will do 
far more to increase overproduction because they distort the market 
forces that would otherwise instruct farmers to pull back.
  I understand the desire to complete action on a farm bill before the 
end of this year, of the concern that there won't be as much money 
available in next year's farm bill. But I say to my colleagues, this 
bill is too important to rush through and do poorly merely for the sake 
of time.
  I am pleased to join my colleague from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, in 
supporting this legislation. This is responsible farm legislation that 
will help the hard working farmers of my State. The President and 
Secretary Veneman have stated their support for this legislation and I 
encourage my colleagues in Senate to pass this responsible farm 
legislation.
  Last week, this body adopted an amendment from Senator Wyden and my 
self to establish a carbon trading pilot program through farmer owned 
cooperatives. This will allow our farmers an opportunity to explore the 
market realities of this promising process that reduces carbon dioxide, 
a greenhouse gas linked to climate change, while also improving water 
and soil quality. Co-ops will now be able to aggregate sequestered soil 
carbon into tons and market it to utilities and other industries eager 
to offset their emissions. This is all still an experimental idea, 
which is exactly why we need to pilot program to explore the numerous 
questions surrounding this issue. This pilot program will help us 
measure both the environmental gain and the economic potential for a 
carbon market farmers can participate in.
  Although I have concerns about much of the existing farm bill, I 
applaud the leadership of Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar on the 
subject of conservation in this farm bill and specifically, the 
research and grant money for carbon sequestration contained in their 
bill. This is a critically important new market opportunity for farmers 
and the energy title of Senator Harkin's bill moves us to great deal 
forward on a number of important fronts.
  I am pleased that the Cochran-Roberts amendment recognizes this 
strength and keeps this title largely in tact.
  In closing, I urge my colleague to vote for the Cochran-Roberts 
amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to speak on behalf of the 
farm bill legislation and, specifically, the substitute being offered 
by Senators Cochran and Roberts. This is important legislation. Farm 
policy is always important, not only to farmers but to America. This 
legislation is also important to the State of Colorado because farming 
is important to the State of Colorado.
  As a member of the House Agriculture Committee I participated in the 
drafting of the current farm legislation and, as a member of the Senate 
Agricultural Committee, I participated in the drafting of the farm bill 
we are about to consider. The drafting of farm policy is an interesting 
procedure and I am happy that I have twice had the opportunity to be a 
part of it.
  Many of the provisions in the Committee-passed version of the farm 
bill were bipartisan and have remained virtually the same in the 
Cochran-Roberts substitute. The provisions in the Nutrition, Rural 
Development, Credit, Energy, Research and Forestry titles have remained 
largely unchanged. There are, however, some provisions in Cochran-
Roberts that I believe will be very helpful to our farmers.
  This bill allows for the implementation of a farm savings account 
program. Farmers can, in good times, contribute their own funds, which 
can be matched dollar-for-dollar up to certain amounts, by the USDA. I 
think that this is a wonderful way to help our farmers help themselves. 
It is not unlike the Thrift Savings Plan that we offer our own staffers 
here in the Senate. By putting back their own money for harder years of 
improvements like new farm equipment farmers can begin to set 
themselves back on their own feet and decrease their reliance on the 
U.S. Government.
  Cochran-Roberts also maintains the integrity of the crop insurance 
program reforms. Specifically this legislation provides farmers with 
essential risk management if there is a crop failure. And, according to 
an analysis by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute the 
Cochran-Roberts bill will result in higher market prices for farmers 
than the committee-passed version. This is because the high loan rates 
in the committee-passed bill will provide incentives for over-
production of crops. This, obviously, will result in lower market 
prices and increase the need for additional agricultural assistance. 
That is not what we want for America's farms.
  Cochran-Roberts will also provide for reasonable conservation 
funding. Under this legislation, funding for conservation programs 
would increase. Let me give you a few examples. Funding for EQIP, the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, would ramp up to $1.65 
billion by 2006. The conservation on Working Lands program is a new 
program that is included in EQIP and would receive funding in the 
amount of $100 million in 2002. This funding would increase to $300 
million by 2006. EQIP is a program which I strongly support. The 
essence of this program came from legislation I introduced while in the 
House and serving on the House Agriculture Committee to provide money 
for cost share practices to reduce soil erosion and protect water 
quality. It is an important program that has tremendous environmental 
benefits in rural and urban areas. The acreage cap in the Wetlands 
Reserve Program would be increased so that up to 250,000 acres could be 
enrolled annually. Funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program 
would increase from $50 million in 2002 to $100 million in 2006.
  I want to spend a little time on the Farmland Protection Program. 
When this program was established in the 1996 farm bill, funding was 
limited to $35 million over the life of the bill. Now, due to the 
immense popularity and success of the program we are funding at its 
highest level ever, $435 million over the course of the bill. The 
funding for the program ramps up from $65 million in fiscal year 02 to 
$100 million in fiscal year 06. This voluntary program provides funds 
to help purchase development rights to keep productive farmland in 
agricultural uses. In Colorado, the program has been successfully used 
to leverage additional State and private funding to help farmers and 
ranchers stay on the land. In addition, Farmland Protection Program 
would be clarified to provide that agricultural lands include ranch-
lands and allows participation by non-profits and would require 
conservation plans for lands under easement.
  Forty million dollars would also be provided for conservation on 
private grazing lands and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
would be funded to provide coordinated technical, educational and other 
related assistance programs to conserve and enhance private grazing 
land resources, and related benefits, to all citizens of the United 
States.
  In addition to providing increased funding to many conservation 
programs this legislation would establish a new program, the Grasslands 
Reserve program, that would aid in preserving native grasslands. 
Enrollment in this program would be 30-year, permanent easements and 
total enrollment would be capped at 2 million acres. Technical 
assistance and cost-sharing would be provided for the restoration of 
grasslands.
  I would also like to point out that this bill sticks to the trade 
obligations that we have made. I believe it is very important that we 
provide responsible assistance to our farmers. However, I believe it is 
equally important that we adhere to the responsibilities that we have 
as a result of WTO agreements. In addition, this Farm Bill substitute 
comes in under the budget allocation of

[[Page 26669]]

$73.5 billion that was agreed to in the budget resolution. While many 
think that we can buy our way out of hard times, as a member of the 
Budget Committee, I believe that it is very important that we stick to 
the numbers outlined for in the budget resolution.
  Finally, equally important to getting a farm bill passed, is passing 
a farm bill that can be signed into law. Secretary Veneman and the 
administration are behind this bill. Secretary Veneman sent a letter 
indicating her strong support for this legislation and the White House 
has also expressed their support for the provisions contained in 
Cochran-Roberts.
  Now I would like to talk to something that is very important to me. I 
think that it is very important we focus on in the farm bill is 
research. As a veterinarian, this is an area that I believe in 
strongly. In order for our nation to continue to have one of the most 
abundant and safest food supplies in the world we must continue funding 
our research priorities. Our world is one that has continued to become 
more integrated. We can no longer assume that because a disease does 
not occur naturally in our country we need not worry about it. We must 
also be aware of the potential impact of diseases that are not 
naturally occurring.
  To this end, I worked to include several provisions in the research 
and forestry titles. The first allows for research and extension grants 
on infectious animal diseases. This will assist in developing programs 
for prevention and control methodologies for infectious animal diseases 
that impact trade, including vesicular stomatitis, bovine tuberculosis, 
transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, brucellosis and E. coli 
0157:H7 infection, which is the pathogenic form of E. coli infections. 
It also set aside laboratory tests for quicker detection of infected 
animals and the presence of diseases among herds; and prevention 
strategies, including vaccination programs.
  The second research provision that I included in the Research Title 
establishes research and extension grants for beef cattle genetics 
evaluation research. It provides that the USDA shall give priority to 
proposals to establish and coordinate priorities for the genetic 
evaluation of domestic beef cattle. It consolidates research efforts in 
order to reduce duplication of efforts and maximize the return to the 
beef industry and streamlines the process between the development and 
adoption of new genetic evaluation methodologies by the industries. The 
research will also identify new traits and technologies for inclusion 
in genetic programs in order to reduce the cost of beef production and 
provide consumers with a healthy and affordable protein source.
  The Forestry Title includes a provision which I sponsored to 
establish Forest Fire Research Centers. There is an increasing threat 
to fire in millions of acres of forestlands and rangelands throughout 
the United States. This threat is especially great in the interior 
States of the western United States, where the Forest Service estimates 
that 39,000,000 acres of National Forest System lands are at high risk 
of catastrophic wildfire.
  Today's forestlands and rangelands are the consequences of land 
management practices that emphasized the control and prevention of 
fires, and such practices disrupted the occurrence of frequent low-
intensity fires that had periodically removed flammable undergrowth. As 
a result of these management practices, forestlands and rangelands in 
the United States are no longer naturally functioning ecosystems, and 
drought cycles and the invasion of insects and disease have resulted in 
vast areas of dead or dying trees, overstocked stands and the invasion 
of undesirable species.
  Population movement into wildland/urban interface areas exacerbate 
the fire danger, and the increasing number of larger, more intense 
fires pose grave hazards to human health, safety, property and 
infrastructure in these areas. In addition smoke from wildfires, which 
contain fine particulate matter and other hazardous pollutants, pose 
substantial health risks to people living in the wildland/urban 
interface.
  The budgets and resources of local, State, and Federal entities 
supporting firefighting efforts have been stretched to their limits. In 
addition, diminishing Federal resources (including personnel) have 
limited the ability of Federal fire researchers to respond to 
management needs, and to utilize technological advancements for 
analyzing fire management costs.
  This legislation will require the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
establish at least two forest fire research centers at institutions of 
higher education that have expertise in natural resource development 
and are located in close proximity to other Federal natural resource, 
forest management and land management agencies. The two forest fire 
research centers shall be located in--A. California, Idaho, Montana, 
Oregon, or Washington and B. Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, or 
Wyoming.
  The purpose of the Research Center is to conduct integrative, 
interdisciplinary research into the ecological, socio-economic, and 
environmental impacts of fire control and use managing ecosystems and 
landscapes; and develop mechanisms to rapidly transfer new fire control 
and management technologies to fire and land managers.
  Lastly, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Interior, shall establish an advisory committee composed 
of fire and land managers and fire researchers to determine the areas 
of emphasis and establish priorities for research projects conducted at 
forest fire research centers.
  Again, I believe that research of all kinds is fundamental. Which is 
why I am pleased that the committee-passed legislation also contains 
several provisions that allow for the enhancement and expansion of 
research in the area of renewable energy. A number of grants were 
created to help increase the use of renewable resources. These grants 
will provide funds for biorefineries to convert biomass into fuel and 
assistance for rural electric co-ops to develop renewable energy 
sources to help serve their area's energy needs. These grants will also 
provide education and technical assistance to help farmers develop and 
market renewable energy resources and programs to educate the public 
about the benefits of biodiesel fuel use.
  Before I close I want to talk again about the need for the inclusion 
of the language that would include fighting birds in the interstate 
shipment ban that exists in the Animal Welfare Act. I would like to 
point out that the need for this stems largely from the need to give 
individual states the ability to enforce their laws. When a state 
legislature passes a law they expect to be able to enforce it. But when 
a loophole in Federal law allows for that law to be ``ducked'' there is 
a problem. The current provisions in the interstate shipment section of 
the Animal Welfare Act provides just such a loophole. Because live 
birds are specifically excluded from inclusion in the interstate 
transport ban they are the only animal that can legally be taken across 
state lines for the purpose of fighting. There is absolutely no need 
for this exclusion. When a person is caught in a State where 
cockfighting is illegal they can simply claim that they are 
transporting the birds to one of the 3 States where cockfighting is 
legal. And, law enforcement has to let them go. There is no way for law 
enforcement officers to determine if they really are transporting the 
birds or if the cockfight will be held right down the road. States 
should not have to trip over Federal law in the pursuit of enforcing 
their own laws.
  As I and many of my colleagues have previously stated, this is an 
important issue and I hope that we can do what makes the most sense, 
and will be best for, all of America's farmers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes 13 seconds for the Senator 
from Kansas, and 2 minutes 39 seconds for the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will let the Senator from Kansas, my 
good friend, close. It is his amendment.

[[Page 26670]]

  Senator Roberts is a great friend of mine. We have worked together 
for many years. We have a different philosophy and a different policy 
on agriculture. Senator Roberts believes very strongly in Freedom to 
Farm. I understand and respect that. Quite frankly, there were some 
good things I said earlier in committee that shocked him to death about 
Freedom to Farm. Planning flexibility, for example, we keep that in 
there.
  But what I have heard from my farmers in Iowa, and all over this 
country, is that we need to modify Freedom to Farm. We don't need to 
throw it all out the window, but we need to modify it because what has 
been lacking is a decent income farm safety net. That is why we are 
here every year, year after year, with billions of dollars to help bail 
out farmers.
  So what we have done in our bill is kept the best of the old Freedom 
to Farm, but we put in a good safety net. We have four legs to our 
chair, or stool, of support: Direct payments, good loan rates, 
conservation payments, and a countercyclical payment when prices are 
low. Cochran-Roberts has two legs; that is all. They have direct 
payments, and they have some modest lower loan rates, and that is all.
  Our farmers are saying they need a better safety net. That is what we 
did. We modified Freedom to Farm. Farmers want more conservation. We 
have the money for conservation in that, which Cochran-Roberts takes 
out.
  Energy: We put in a new title on energy. Our farmers are saying that 
is the market for the future. They say: We are going to make ethanol, 
soy diesel, and we will create biomass energy. That is going to be our 
market for the future.
  Mr. President, they gut that program.
  Rural development: Every farmer I have ever spoken to says: It 
doesn't do anything good if you save my farm and our small towns go 
down the drain. We need better job opportunities in rural communities.
  That is what we have in our bill. That is what Cochran-Roberts takes 
away. If all you want to do is continue what we have been doing for the 
past 5 years on Freedom to Farm, then you will want to support Cochran-
Roberts. But if you want to modify Freedom to Farm, not throw it all 
out, but have a good safety net, good conservation programs, and energy 
programs so we will have more ethanol in the country and develop more 
soy diesel and other things, and if you want a strong rural development 
program that will provide for jobs and economic opportunity for off-
farm income in rural America, that is in the committee bill.
  That is why Cochran-Roberts should be defeated. We don't need to 
continue down the road just with Freedom to Farm as we have in the past 
5 years. Let's modify it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, there are several basic reasons I urge 
colleagues to support the Cochran-Roberts amendment.
  No. 1, there has been a great deal of discussion about which bill 
serves small farmers versus big farmers--most especially from the 
Senator from North Dakota. Under Cochran-Roberts, the payment 
limitation is $165,000 total for direct payments for the farm accounts 
that are in the bill, and then also the loan deficiency payments.
  Second, truth in budgeting: The committee bill spends $46 billion 
over the first 5 years, allotted over a 10-year part of the bill, only 
leaving $28 billion. We are robbing the future to pay for the current 
bill.
  Then we have the issue of the guaranteed payments. Again, again, and 
again I say if the farmer loses a crop, he is not eligible for the loan 
rate at the target price. The target price is capped. It only goes to 
about $3.45. There is more protection under our bill. Under the WTO, 
let me quote from the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute:

       Given the structure of the changes, we calculate a 30 
     percent chance that the U.S. will exceed this limit in the 
     2000 marketing year.

  And they also go ahead and say:

       The countercyclical program begins payments in the 2004 
     marketing year essentially replacing green box expenditures 
     with amber box expenditures.

  I think it is too dangerous a road to go down. The President and the 
administration support this amendment, and we can conference it more 
quickly with the House. This is not a stalling bill. This is an 
amendment to get this farm bill done.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I assume all time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to table the Cochran-Roberts 
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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 374 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Akaka
     Gramm
     Helms
     Lott
     Murkowski
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was 
agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are making progress. We had a good 
debate on the Cochran-Roberts amendment. Two good friends and two very 
valuable members of the Agriculture Committee have had a good debate on 
this. It was the substantive vote on whether or not we were going to 
stick with the committee bill. There are other amendments that will be 
offered that might change things on the edges, but this was the 
substantive vote on whether or not we would go with the committee bill.
  I hope now that we can begin to dispose of some amendments in a 
timely fashion. Right now, if I am not mistaken, one of the underlying 
amendments is the amendment offered by Senator Smith, and there was a 
second degree offered by Senator Torricelli. I would like to move to 
table that amendment, but obviously they want to speak a little bit 
longer on it. I checked with them and Senator Smith and Senator 
Torricelli and Senator Dorgan agreed on 3 minutes each on that.
  I ask unanimous consent the author of the amendment, Senator Smith, 
be

[[Page 26671]]

allowed to speak for 3 minutes; following him, Senator Torricelli for 3 
minutes, and Senator Dorgan for 3 minutes, and at the end of that time, 
all time end and I be recognized for a motion to table the underlying 
Smith amendment.
  I call for the regular order.


                           Amendment No. 2596

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Smith amendment numbered 2596 is now 
pending.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New 
Hampshire be allowed to speak for 3 minutes, Senator Torricelli for 3 
minutes, and Senator Dorgan for 3 minutes, and at the end of that time 
I be recognized to move to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, 
Senator Torricelli, for his cooperation in working together on two 
amendments which are slightly different but share the same goals. I am 
pleased to work with him.
  Cuba is currently one of the nations listed by the State Department 
as a state sponsor of terrorism. They are in good company: Iraq, North 
Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, and the Sudan.
  Until the State Department removes Cuba from this list of state 
sponsors of terrorism, the U.S. Government should not permit the 
private financing of agricultural sales to prop up that regime. That is 
essentially what Senator Torricelli and I are talking about.
  The administration is opposed to the language in the bill and Senator 
Torricelli and I modify that language. If the President certifies that 
Cuba has stopped sponsoring terrorism or that American fugitives who 
are hiding in Cuba who committed atrocious crimes--some of the crimes 
in the home State of Senator Torricelli from New Jersey--they ought to 
be returned.
  That is the gist of the amendments. I remind my colleagues what 
President Bush said: Every nation in every region has a decision to 
make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this 
day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism 
will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
  It seems to me reasonable that if there are murderers who Fidel 
Castro is hiding in Cuba, he could easily return them so they could be 
prosecuted in New Jersey or other States where they committed the 
terrible crimes. If Cuba is on the State Department list of terrorist 
nations, it seems reasonable they ought to be removed before we give 
them help. I rest my case.
  I hope my colleagues will support the Torricelli-Smith amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous consent request, the 
Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank Senators Smith, Helms, Ensign, Graham, and 
Nelson for being part of this effort.
  The administration supports these amendments and opposes the 
provision in the bill. It would be shocking if the President of the 
United States did not support us. President Bush has made very clear, 
in this world, you are with us in the fight against terrorism or you 
are against us.
  We are in the middle of a worldwide fight against terrorism and 
almost unbelievably in this Senate this bill contains a provision that 
the United States would allow private banks, guaranteed by the U.S. 
Government, to sell products to Fidel Castro's Cuba while the State 
Department has listed Cuba as harboring terrorists--not one terrorist 
group but four terrorist groups.
  Further, it is amending the bill to say to Fidel Castro: If you want 
the privilege of our finance, get yourself off the terrorist list; if 
you want the privilege of our finance, return the 77 fugitives living 
in Cuba wanted for murder, hijacking, and terrorist activities.
  I ask my colleagues to think about what we are doing, what kind of a 
message we are sending. We send troops halfway around the world to 
fight terrorists. But now on the floor of the Senate, before our troops 
even come home, we are authorizing the financing of exports to a 
country we have identified as harboring terrorists. It doesn't make 
sense. Of course, the President is opposed to it. Of course, we should 
be opposed to it. But it will be argued that we need this for business, 
that we need this to help our farmers. I don't believe there is a 
farmer in America who wants to make a buck selling products to people 
who harbor fugitives from justice. But even if they did, what kind of a 
business proposition is this?
  Fidel Castro owes $11 billion to financial institutions, he has not 
paid it back; $20 billion to former Soviet Union; he hasn't paid it 
back. His current account deficit is $700 million. He can't meet the 
bills. Even if you loaned him the money, he couldn't pay it back.
  Don't let anybody tell you that in doing this we are not being a 
generous people. Fidel Castro can buy American food. He has to pay for 
it. The United States has given more food and medicine to Cuba in the 
last 10 years than any one nation has given to any other nation in 
modern history. He is getting donations. He can buy our food. We just 
should not finance it because he can't bay it back and he doesn't 
deserve it.
  Consistency in America foreign policy; financing sales to a nation on 
our terrorist list, never.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, does anyone in the Senate Chamber think 
Fidel Castro has ever missed a meal because for 40 years we have said 
to family farmers in America: You can't sell food to Cuba? What meal 
has he missed? You know and I know this 40-year failed policy is a 
policy that takes a swing at Fidel Castro and it hits poor people, and 
sick people, and hungry people in Cuba. And it hurts American farmers 
here at home. We know that.
  Let me ask the question about consistency. We hear these discussions 
about Cuba. Is there a sanction against private financing to send food 
to Communist China? No, there is not. Is there a prohibition against 
private financing to send food to Vietnam, which is a Communist 
country? No, there is not. Is there a prohibition against sending food 
to North Korea, a Communist country? No. Is there a prohibition of 
private financing to send food to Libya or Iran? The answer is no. No.
  So we are told that somehow there needs to be a sanction, or a 
continued sanction for the past 40 years, to prohibit private financing 
to send food to Cuba. It is a foolish failed public policy, and 
everyone knows it.
  How long does it take to understand that a policy doesn't work? Ten 
years? Twenty years? With Cuba, it has been 40 years.
  American farmers are told they should pay the price for this foreign 
policy. What is the price? The price is your Canadian neighbors can 
sell food to Cuba. The French can sell, the English can sell, and all 
of the European countries can sell. It is just the United States 
farmers who are told: You can't sell food to Cuba.
  That is a foolish public policy. It is time to stop it, this notion 
about a Communist country. This is the only country in the world which 
employs this policy, and it doesn't work.
  As I said when I started, Fidel Castro has not missed a meal because 
of this policy. But hungry people, sick people, and poor people have 
been severely disadvantaged for a long while. That is not what this 
country ought to be doing in foreign policy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to table the Smith 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.

[[Page 26672]]

Helms), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Lott), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich), and the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 375 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--33

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Corzine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Frist
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (FL)
     Reid
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Akaka
     Gramm
     Helms
     Lott
     Murkowski
     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.

                          ____________________