[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 706-728]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

       Daschle (for Harkin) amendment No. 2471, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
  Wellstone amendment No. 2602 (to amendment No. 2471), to insert in 
the environmental quality incentives program provisions relating to 
confined livestock feeding operations and to a payment limitation.

[[Page 707]]

  Harkin modified amendment No. 2604 (to amendment No. 2471), to apply 
the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to livestock production contracts 
and to provide parties to the contract the right to discuss the 
contract with certain individuals.
  Burns amendment No. 2607 (to amendment No. 2471), to establish a per-
farm limitation on land enrolled in the conservation reserve program.
  Burns amendment No. 2608 (to amendment No. 2471), to direct the 
Secretary of Agriculture to establish certain per-acre values for 
payments for different categories of land enrolled in the conservation 
reserve program.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the pending issue before the Senate 
on the farm bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Burns amendment No. 2608.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we are. It is now February 6, 2002. 
That comes as no shock to anyone. We are back on the farm bill--where 
we were back on December 6, 2001.
  Again, we are trying to get this bill finished before it gets too 
late in the planting season. I am hopeful that we can work out some 
arrangements to do that. The beginning of a new session always marks an 
opportunity for a renewed effort to solve the challenges before us. In 
a spirit of cooperation, I look forward to working with my colleagues 
to pass this new farm bill without further delay, in order to provide 
farm families in rural communities critically needed stability and 
insurance for this year and in the future.
  There is widespread agreement that farm families and rural 
communities are in dire need. The Senate has dealt with the farm bill 
for 12 days already. Again, I want to underscore that rural America 
cannot survive under the current Freedom to Farm bill. It will suffer 
severely if the farm bill here is further delayed. I look forward to 
working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to get the bill 
finished deliberately but quickly, and we will work our way through 
amendments. I hope that maybe even this afternoon sometime we may reach 
an agreement on a finite list of amendments, with a reasonable amount 
of time to debate them. Then we can work through that list of 
amendments and, hopefully, within 2 or 3 days, go to third reading and 
passage.
  I believe we can get the conference done in adequate time to have the 
bill enacted for this crop year. A tremendous amount is at stake in 
this farm bill, not only for farmers but for rural and agriculture-
related businesses, rural communities, conservation, trade, nutrition 
programs, and renewable energy.
  The Department of Agriculture recently predicted a 20-percent drop in 
net farm income for this year if we do not take action on this new 
legislation--20 percent. Farmers are struggling as it is. They most 
certainly cannot afford to take a fifth off their net income.
  I understand that after the farm bill the Senate will take up an 
energy bill. During debate on the energy bill there will be a lot of 
discussion about CAFE standards, and about drilling for oil in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which I am sure will be a hotly 
contested issue. Well, this farm bill has a new energy title in it. As 
it is written now, the energy title calls for an investment of half a 
billion dollars in mandatory money over 5 years to spur production of 
renewable energy.
  Even if we do drill for oil in ANWR, we will remain dependent on 
foreign oil unless we begin making significant investments in the 
production of renewable energy. Moreover, a greater emphasis on 
renewable energy in our nation's energy policy will also create new 
markets for agricultural products. We need to develop these new 
markets, and I submit that one of the biggest opportunities we will 
have to do this in the future will be in the area of renewable energy. 
It has been said that anything that can be made from a barrel of oil 
can be made from a bushel of corn, soybeans, cottonseed oil, or any 
number of other crops that we grow in this country.
  I visited a project in northern Iowa last week involving agriculture-
based industrial lubricants. It is a project sponsored and supported by 
the University of Northern Iowa. I actually visited a farm where they 
have set up equipment. They bring in raw soybeans, crush them, take out 
the oil, and they mix it and put it through another machine I can't 
describe, and they get grease, like axle grease. It looks just like 
that--the same thing you use in your grease gun when you are greasing a 
car, or an axle, or anything such as that. I understand the Norfolk 
Southern Railway has begun using this product to grease the railroad 
tracks. Trucking companies are using it for the fifth wheels on trucks, 
where they put a lot of grease.
  The beauty of this is it is all biodegradable. I understand some 
railroads, because of the grease going down the railroad track lines, 
have to put down liners underneath the tracks. This agriculture-based 
industrial lubricant is a new product that can take the place of all 
the grease we use, it is made out of soybeans and it is biodegradable. 
All the hydraulic fluid required by machinery could one day be made out 
of soybean oil.
  And then there is ethanol. We haven't even scratched the surface in 
terms of the use of ethanol. Fuel that is 80 percent ethanol--developed 
over the next 10, 15 years--can drastically reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil and help clean up our atmosphere. Again, that is 
biodegradable, and it is renewable every year, with every corn crop.
  So I think if we really want to become more energy independent and 
less dependent on the Middle East for our oil, it is not drilling in 
ANWR that will accomplish that--at least not from the data I have 
seen--it is developing new markets for agricultural products in this 
country by supporting the development of renewable fuels made from 
agricultural commodities.
  We now have over 30 buses running in Cedar Rapids, IA, on soy diesel. 
All the trucks on the nation's highways could one day be burning soy 
diesel. When one thinks about the potential market for agricultural-
based lubricants, fluids, and fuels, that market is the same as the 
market for the oil we are getting from the Middle East now. Maybe we 
cannot take up all of that market with renewable lubricants, fluids and 
fuels, but we can take up enough of it so the producers of oil in the 
Middle East will not have us by the throat any longer. We can have 
enough of that market that the Middle East will be a minor supplier, 
not a major supplier, of the energy we use in this country. There is a 
lot in this farm bill to start moving us in that direction.
  We have done our work in the Committee. We had an aggressive schedule 
of hearings on the farm bill. We had hearings here in Washington, DC, 
and in several States across the country. Then, of course, our 
timetable was set back by the terrorist attacks on September 11. 
Nonetheless, we moved ahead and started marking up the bill on October 
31, voted to report the bill out of committee on November 15, and we 
were on the Senate floor November 29. We acted expeditiously to get 
this bill done. We went from markup on October 31 to the Senate floor 
on November 29, and yet we are still here today, February 6, 2002.
  It is essential that the new farm bill be completed without further 
delay before the planting of this year's crop. Again, if we do not pass 
it in time, this year's crop will be covered by the existing Freedom to 
Farm legislation and, Mr. President, as you know, we will probably have 
to come up with another supplemental payment for this year's crops. 
That is why we need a new farm bill and not more uncertainty.
  The longer the bill is delayed, the greater the risk the $73.5 
billion in new farm bill funding will be forfeited. As I said, the 
planting season is here. The stimulus bill just went down, as I 
understand it, but this farm bill is also a

[[Page 708]]

stimulus bill a stimulus bill for rural America.
  President Bush was recently in Moline, IL, which is part of the quad-
cities area, across from Davenport and Bittendorf, IA. Of course, 
Moline is the home of John Deere. A lot of Iowans across the river work 
at that Moline plant. We also have John Deere plants in Iowa.
  President Bush visited that plant a couple weeks ago. I was with him, 
as were other Senators and Congressmen. In a meeting with the CEO of 
John Deere, it was said by him or by some of the other people in the 
management of John Deere that they have laid off a lot of people. They 
have 300 people working at the plant who are working because of 
contractual arrangements with the union, but they are not building 
anything. I asked whether there is any hope that these people can start 
building again.
  The response was: Yes, we know there are orders out there or pending 
orders for new combines, tractors, planters, and other equipment, but 
the farmers are going to the bankers to get the financing to buy the 
equipment, and the bankers are saying: What is your income going to be 
like this year? What are you counting on? And the farmer says: I don't 
know, they haven't passed the farm bill yet.
  The message came through clear to me and others and, I hope, to the 
President that we have to get this bill done. It not only helps the 
farmers, but it helps rural America and it helps the workers in that 
John Deere plant, too. It helps them get back to work. That is why we 
need to get this bill through in as short order as possible.
  I believe bipartisanship has been the hallmark in our work of 
crafting this farm bill. At the outset, Senator Lugar, the committee's 
ranking member and former chairman, and I developed a set of 
objectives. We worked in consultation with other members of the 
committee on all titles of the bill that the committee reported out, 
with the exception of the commodity title, to be honest, where we 
recognized we probably would not find any agreement.
  Other than the commodity title, all reported titles were approved by 
voice votes. Of the votes on amendments to those titles, not one was 
along party lines. We did have a recorded vote on adopting the 
commodity title, as I said, and even that was a bipartisan vote.
  We have tried to come out with as bipartisan a bill as possible, and 
I believe that is what we have done. This is a balanced, comprehensive 
bill. It is a bill that does very well by commodities but also goes 
well beyond the commodity programs to address needs in the areas of 
conservation, trade, rural development, research, energy, which I 
mentioned earlier, credit, nutrition, and forestry.
  On the commodity side, we have maintained full planting flexibility, 
and we have restored a stronger countercyclical income protection 
system. The bill continues fixed direct payments but phases them down, 
not totally out, as a new countercyclical payment system is phased in.
  Also, farmers may elect to update their program bases and payment 
yields instead of using outdated ones, but they may keep the old bases 
and yields if that is more advantageous to them. We leave that choice 
up to farmers.
  The bill continues marketing assistance loans with modestly higher 
loan rates for feed grains, wheat, and cotton. The soybean loan rate is 
reduced by 6 cents but that reduction is offset by new fixed and 
countercyclical oilseed payments which were not in the previous Freedom 
to Farm bill. Keep in mind, all of these loans are marketing assistance 
loans, so the higher loan rates will not build stocks and will, in 
fact, enhance our international competitiveness.
  When I hear arguments that somehow the higher loan rates will price 
us out of the market, I do not understand that. These are marketing 
assistance loans so that cannot be true.
  One key difference between the Senate bill and the House bill is the 
approach to farm income protection. The Senate bill puts a greater 
emphasis on countercyclical income protection. If commodity prices are 
not as high as predicted, which is usually the case, then the Senate 
bill offers the better income protection. There is a built-in price 
protection mechanism to increase payments if prices fall.
  Again, one of the biggest outcries I heard about the Freedom to Farm 
bill is that in the good years--the initial years under Freedom to Farm 
when farmers were making good money from the market--they were still 
getting Government payments. That did not seem to make sense to anyone.
  What we have done is phase those payments down, and we will have a 
countercyclical program so if prices go down, farmers will be held 
harmless.
  The majority of people in this country do not know a lick about 
agriculture but would support it. They say there are certain times when 
for certain reasons--whether it is trade, the strength of the dollar, 
or other factors--prices for agricultural commodities just go all to 
heck.
  I think most people recognize the cyclical nature of agriculture, 
that it is different from a hardware store, that it is very reliant on 
so many outside factors over which a person has no control.
  I believe most Americans would say: Yes, if these things happen and 
prices fall, you ought to support the farmers until we can get the 
prices back up. I find general acceptance of that. What I do not find 
is any support anywhere for the proposition that if farmers are doing 
well in the marketplace we ought to give them more money. I do not find 
any support for that anywhere. That is what we tried to do in this 
bill: to get off that old system and get onto a new system of 
countercyclical payments.
  Regarding international trade, the Senate bill will comply with our 
WTO commitments and will put our Nation in a strong position to 
negotiate new trade agreements.
  This bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to adjust 
support payments to make sure we do not violate WTO limits. However, 
there is only a very remote chance this authority will ever be needed. 
Under the expected market conditions for the next 10 years, the amber 
box limit ``amber box'' means that under WTO agreements we can only 
spend so much money on certain types of support--is $19.1 billion. 
Under all of the scenarios we have run on our bill, the most we can see 
is about $16 billion in amber box payments.
  Now I have heard--I will admit I have not heard it lately, but last 
December I heard a lot of talk from the administration and the 
Department of Agriculture that somehow what we had in our bill would 
bump us up against the WTO limits, and that would take us to court and 
all kinds of dire things would happen. At that time, I challenged those 
who were making such statements to come forward and give us the proof, 
give us the data, show us what they mean, how we were going to bump up 
against the $19 billion limit. Well, I have been waiting since then. I 
still do not have it.
  So I said at the time, if the administration keeps saying this, then 
I am simply going to have to call another hearing of the Agriculture 
Committee and we will have to have the Secretary of Agriculture down to 
tell us. If they have data, I would like to see it. I think the fact is 
that it is not so. Even if we do get up around $16 billion or $17 
billion, so what? That is well within our limit.
  It seems to me there is some thought we ought to be down around $10 
billion or less. I say, why? Do you think the Europeans would do that? 
Of course not. They are going to be right up to their limits under the 
WTO.
  Well, we are not even that close. We are still quite a bit under the 
limit. All I can say is, if we ever got to the point where our payments 
would bump up against that $19.1 billion, we would be in such bad shape 
that the WTO would be the least of our worries.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Iowa if he would 
yield for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I am glad to yield to our assistant majority leader.
  Mr. REID. While the two managers have been speaking, I did what they

[[Page 709]]

asked me to do, and we now have a unanimous consent agreement that will 
move us through a good part of the afternoon. I ask unanimous consent 
that there be a time limitation on the following pending amendments: 40 
minutes equally divided on both of the pending amendments by Senator 
Burns, Nos. 2608 and 2607; 40 minutes equally divided on Senator 
Wellstone's amendment No. 2602; and 30 minutes equally divided on 
Senator Harkin's amendment No. 2604.
  I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin do his amendment 
first--there has been a request that he do his amendment first and the 
others can come up later--that all times be divided in the usual form; 
that no other amendments be in order prior to disposition of the above 
listed amendments; that at the conclusion or yielding back of time on 
all of these amendments, the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation 
to each amendment, with 2 minutes for debate equally divided between 
the votes following the first vote; that the vote sequence be as 
follows: Senator Harkin be first; Senator Burns; Senator Burns; and 
then Senator Wellstone; that if any amendment is not disposed of after 
the first vote, they remain debatable and amendable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Is there objection?
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think 
the agreement is an excellent one. I simply want to raise the question 
with the distinguished Senator. After Chairman Harkin has completed his 
opening statement, I would like to make an opening statement before we 
proceed to the amendments.
  Mr. REID. I think that would be entirely appropriate. Does the 
Senator request up to half an hour?
  Mr. LUGAR. That would be adequate, yes.
  Mr. REID. I further ask unanimous consent--the only change that has 
been brought to my attention by the staff on both sides--that the 
language be that ``no other amendments be in order prior to the votes 
in relation to the above listed amendment'' rather than ``the 
disposition of the above listed amendments.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. A point of clarification: Is that 40 minutes on each of 
the Burns amendments?
  Mr. REID. Forty minutes total.
  Mr. LUGAR. I have a question for the distinguished manager. Then we 
would have four stacked votes? Members could anticipate, once we begin 
voting, there will be four votes?
  Mr. REID. Probably around 4 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is good news. I thank the assistant majority leader 
for working this out, and I thank Senator Lugar for working this out on 
all sides. That is progress. So we are going to be able to dispose of 
four amendments that have been hanging since December, and hopefully 
that indicates some progress on this farm bill. So I will wrap up my 
comments very shortly.
  I was talking about the WTO, and I will wrap it up in terms of income 
protection for farmers. I describe our bill as having four legs, which 
makes it very sturdy. We have fixed payments, countercyclical payments, 
marketing loans, and conservation payments, all of which will help 
support farming.
  Lastly, I want to talk a little bit about the conservation title. We 
have been able to accomplish a great deal on the conservation title. It 
is important in and of itself. Farmers and landowners desire to 
conserve soil, water, and other natural resources. Sound conservation 
is one of the best ways for agriculture to continue to build good will 
with the rest of America. Plus, it is also a way in which we can help 
promote better farm income. So we have funded programs like the 
Wetlands Reserve Program, the Farmland Protection Program, the Wildlife 
Habitat Incentives Program. Those three programs, I might add, are all 
out of money right now. So every day we do not pass this farm bill and 
get it through, none of those programs will be funded.
  We made a large increase for the EQIP, the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, and I think improved that substantially for 
livestock, dairy, and poultry producers.
  Our main emphasis in conservation in this bill has been on land in 
agricultural production. I believe that is where our focus should be, 
and the Senate bill reflects that. It contains the new Conservation 
Security Program, which will provide incentive payments for maintaining 
existing and adopting new conservation practices on lands that remain 
in production. Thus, it does both, promotes conservation and supports 
farm income.
  The other good thing about it is that it is fully within the WTO 
green box. So whatever we spend to help support farm income does not 
bump up against our WTO limits.
  One other thing I will mention before I yield the floor is what I 
said before, in December--I think I may have said it in committee, too: 
If this farm bill devolves into being a commodity bill, then I think we 
will do a great disservice to our farmers and to all of America because 
we will have narrowed the farm bill to a very small scope of people who 
produce storable commodities. I think the farm bill is much broader 
than that. It speaks not only to those who produce the food and fiber 
and to those who produce our livestock, but also to those who produce 
fruits and vegetables, specialty crops, orchards, many of the items we 
buy in our grocery stores that do not come from row crops.
  And it is even more than that. It is rural economic development. It 
is small towns and communities. It is making sure we have jobs and 
economic opportunity in our small towns. This bill has a very strong 
rural economic development portion to it. There are even things in the 
bill to get broadband access to our small towns and communities.
  I happened to meet a farmer this morning from northwest Iowa. I asked 
him what he was doing here. He said his wife was here on a business 
trip and he was accompanying her and sort of relaxing a little bit, 
going down to the Smithsonian and coming to watching the Senate--things 
like that.
  I asked him what kind of business his wife is in. Well, it is over my 
head, but it has something to do with computers and software. So I got 
to thinking about that and thinking, here is someone who lives in a 
small town in northwest Iowa doing a job that normally might be done in 
a large city. Now, again, the problem is getting broadband access so 
that they have all of the access to the Internet in a high-speed 
setting. We can develop those types of job opportunities for people who 
live on our farms in rural America. That is in this bill, too.
  Commodities, yes, but it is broader than that. Rural economic 
development, as I mentioned, is so important. That is why in this bill 
we have a treasury equity fund, a rural business investment program to 
support equity groups. We have a national rural cooperative and 
business equity fund to try to get equity capital to rural areas so we 
can promote the kind of business development we need. We have a 
fourfold increase in the value-added agricultural product market 
development grants. These grants help develop solid value-added 
enterprises owned by agricultural producers. The business and industry 
loan guarantee program is improved. We provide $100 million a year for 
broadband Internet access to our small town communities.
  This is a broadly based bill. I not even touched on the enhanced 
nutrition, forestry, or trade programs. We put more funds and guidance 
and direction into the foreign market development program and the 
foreign market access program. We enhance our trading abilities. For 
forestry, we have new language and new programs to provide more support 
for the private forests and renewable forestry incentives.
  There is a lot more than just commodities in this bill. That is as it 
should be. Agriculture touches everyone in America. It is more than 
just that one person on a farm. It is people all up and down the food 
chain: our processors, shippers, wholesalers, grocery stores, and 
consumers. We have

[[Page 710]]

put a lot in here to protect consumers, to make sure we have the safest 
and most affordable and steady food supply of any country in the world.
  That is why this bill is so important and why we have to move this 
bill. I think it does no one any good to continue a filibuster or 
delay. I am hopeful with the breakthrough we had this afternoon with 
these four amendments, we look forward tomorrow to continuing to debate 
some amendments. I hope some time, perhaps even later today, we can 
reach an agreement on a finite list of amendments, and how much time. 
Then we will know exactly when we will finish the farm bill and get to 
conference and get it to the President as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I appreciate the excellent statement by 
the distinguished chairman of our committee. I join him in attempting 
to work constructively for completion of a good piece of legislation.
  There is broad agreement among Members of the Senate Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, on the titles, aside from the 
commodity title. We have had amendments that have pertained to the 
other title and some may still be heard from Members who were not a 
part of our committee deliberations.
  Clearly, the bill before the Senate does excellent things in the area 
of conservation, possibly a credit for young farmers, rural 
development, nutrition, agricultural development, to try to get jobs in 
rural America for people not engaged in farming.
  This is why I regret that the commodity section, as it now stands, 
seems to me to be a considerable step backward. I am not going to 
engage in extravagant language about the situation. Honest Senators can 
differ as to the implications of this. One good reason the Senate chose 
not to pass legislation before Christmas was that this disagreement 
pertains to a lot of farmers and other Senators who are not farmers 
wanted to take a second and third look at this legislation.
  I want to talk during these informal remarks at the beginning of our 
session today about the prospect of some who are well informed who have 
looked at our work so we might improve it through the amendment process 
we are about to undertake. I mention, first of all, a report by the 
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, well-known to Members 
of our Agriculture Committee, and, I think, to the general public as an 
extraordinarily reputable agricultural institution at the University of 
Missouri and Iowa State University. I cite specifically their report of 
November 2001, at the time we were last deliberating on the farm bill, 
on the trade issues.
  The distinguished chairman has mentioned the attempt by the committee 
to stay clear of ceilings that might lead the United States to severe 
difficulties with the World Trade Organization and our other trading 
partners. Some Senators might say that is the tough luck of anybody 
else who happens to stand in our way; this is the United States of 
America, and if we want to spend money on our farmers, by golly, we 
ought to do that--leaving aside whether we run into conflict that is 
likely to lead to lawsuits, less exports, and blockages that are 
already considerable with foreign trading partners.
  Clearly, in most of our debates on agriculture, we are in agreement 
that if farm income is going to go up substantially in the United 
States, it will have to be through exports because we have a market in 
the United States which is often termed mature. There is only so much 
food that we can consume in the United States of America. Even though 
we must do a better job with our food pantries, with feeding programs--
and this farm bill does address those issues and they are important for 
low-income Americans and for those who are unfortunate--the fact is, 
given the productive capability of American agriculture, we have to 
move the product.
  In order to move the product, we have tried to work with other 
nations under an agreement called the World Trade Organization. That 
gives us some certainty of legal status in other countries. If they 
complain and were to take action to stop our exports, we have an action 
to get moving, to move this through arbitration or decisions of the 
World Trade Organization. Most people in the agricultural business 
understand that.
  What is in dispute is whether the Harkin-Daschle bill now before the 
Senate bumps up against the ceilings or, in fact, goes through them. 
The distinguished chairman has said in his best calculation, in fact, 
we are well below the ceiling, in a safety margin. However, if the 
FAPRI is not so assertive, and I read from page 7 of the November 2000 
report:

       Under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, the 
     United States agreed to limit spending on domestic support 
     programs that are considered trade distorting to $19.1 
     billion per year.

  We made that agreement.

       Given the structure of the proposed policy changes, we 
     calculate a 30.3 percent chance that the United States will 
     exceed this limit in the 2002 marketing year.

  This is the marketing year that will begin later this calendar year 
after the 2002 crops are harvested this fall.

       Over the projection period, price increases result in 
     smaller marketing loan expenditures, which will tend to 
     decrease this probability. But the counter-cyclical program 
     begins payments in the 2004 marketing year, essentially 
     replacing green box expenditures. . .with amber box 
     expenditures.

  Those are ones that become more dangerous in the calculations.

       This substitute increases the probability that the U.S. 
     exceeds its WTO limits.

  I mention that because clearly this can still be remedied. We are in 
the course of having a debate in which other Senators or other 
institutes may make calculations. But I am suggesting that we have a 
serious point of jeopardy here that may not be well understood by 
Senators. That is why in this opening statement I move, not to the 
rhetoric of my colleagues, but rather to an independent organization 
that is in a position to make informed comment on this.
  We have a further problem that is posed simply by the way this bill 
is structured in the payments. I cite an article by Philip Brasher of 
the Associated Press, dated today, in which he points out:

       A Democratic-backed farm bill pending in the Senate would 
     use an estimated $45 billion by the end of 2006

  This is of the $73.5 billion in new spending over a 10-year period of 
time that has been often mentioned--leaving but $28.5 billion for the 
remaining 5 years. The problem comes up that the Department of 
Agriculture has spoken, through the Secretary, Ann Veneman, who said, 
again yesterday, that the money should be distributed evenly over the 
10-year period of time.
  Secretary Veneman says:

       We feel strongly that we shouldn't front-load a farm bill.

  Let me mention that this is a fairly large sum of money. Just a quick 
division of the $73.5 billion, if one agrees that much more on top of 
the baseline ought to be spent, would mean if we were to have fairly 
level payments, our work should come out at something less than $37 
billion.
  The Daschle-Harkin bill amounts to $45 billion now. Some others have 
cited figures between $42 billion and $43 billion. It would appear to 
be $5 billion or $6 billion too rich in the first 5 years. It got that 
way through a number of compromises.
  I sympathize with the distinguished chairman of the committee who 
must entertain all sorts of suggestions from people who come in and 
have enthusiasm for doing it now, but I would point out one reason for 
not moving ahead in November or December, with the farm bill, is that, 
obviously, we have a disagreement.
  One may say the Secretary of Agriculture is entitled to her opinion 
and we may be entitled to ours. If we want to stack the $73.5 billion, 
$50 billion in the first 5 years, that is up to us. But on the other 
hand, at this point the administration has indicated the $73.5 billion 
is available, that the budget assumptions that have been made are the 
ones that have been followed through, and, indeed, the President's 
budget submission includes this.

[[Page 711]]

  But she is saying maybe enough is enough. We don't want to spend any 
more of that money in the first half because that is going to make for 
a very difficult period following that, in which the suggestions of 
Senators will be: Let's at least do what we have been doing before. At 
that point we have a much richer product over the 10-year period of 
time than the administration or the Budget Committees have agreed to. 
In any event, we will address that, I am certain, in several amendments 
that will reduce that sum of money in the first 5 years.
  A more comprehensive critique of what we have been doing appeared in 
the Washington Post this morning. It appeared earlier in Newsweek 
magazine under the byline of the noted economist Robert J. Samuelson. I 
wish to quote directly from some of the paragraphs of economist 
Samuelson's analysis.
  He starts with the proposition:

       Government programs are, for all practical purposes, 
     immortal.

  Perhaps so and perhaps not. But then he offers as evidence of this:
       Anyone who doubts this last proposition should examine the 
     farm subsidy programs, which are the classic example of how 
     unnecessary spending survives. Here is a parable for our 
     larger budget predicament. Every year the government sends 
     out checks to about 700,000 to 900,000 farmers. Since 1978, 
     federal outlays to support farmers' incomes have exceeded 
     $300 billion. How large is that? Well, the publicly held 
     federal debt (the result of past budget deficits) is about 
     $3.3 trillion. The past 23 years of farm subsidies equal 
     almost 10 percent of the debt.
       But wait: Congress is about to expand the subsidies. The 
     Congressional Budget Office estimates that new farm 
     legislation would increase costs by $65 billion over a 10-
     year period, on top of the $128.5 billion of existing 
     programs. (And these figures exclude costs for agricultural 
     research, trade and nutritional programs.) The Republican-
     controlled House has passed one version; the Democratic-
     controlled Senate is about to debate a slightly different 
     version. And the Bush administration has supported what it 
     calls the bill's ``generous'' funding levels. ``Extravagant'' 
     would be more like it.
       Government spending should reflect some ``public 
     interest.'' For farm subsidies, this is hard to find.
       Let's examine the possibilities. Do we need subsidies to 
     ensure food production? No. The subsidies go mainly for 
     wheat, corn, rice, cotton, soybean and dairy production, 
     representing about a third of U.S. farm output. The rest 
     (beef, pork, chicken, vegetables, fruits) receive no direct 
     subsidies. Has anyone noticed shortages of chicken, lettuce, 
     carrots or bacon? The idea that, without subsidies, America 
     wouldn't produce ample wheat for bread, milk for ice cream or 
     corn for animal feed is absurd. Before the 1930s no federal 
     subsidies existed, yet annual wheat production rose 77 
     percent to 887 million bushels from 1880 to 1930.
       Do subsidies ``save the small family farm''? In the 1930s, 
     or even 1950s, this argument might have been plausible. No 
     more. Mechanization and better seed varieties have promoted 
     farm consolidation. In 1935 there were 6.8 million farms. In 
     1997 there were 1.9 million and, of these, about 350,000 
     accounted for almost 90 percent of farm production. These 
     farms had at least $100,000 in sales. About 42 percent of 
     food production came from farms with $1 million or more in 
     sales. Countless newspaper stories complain that subsidies go 
     overwhelmingly to large, wealthy farmers. But given the 
     distribution of food production, they must go to large 
     farmers--unless government decides to subsidize farmers who 
     essentially don't farm.
       Do subsidies stabilize farm incomes, offsetting period of 
     low prices? Not much. There are two problems. First: When 
     crop prices drop, the subsidies promote overproduction, which 
     prolongs and deepens the price decline. Second: The value of 
     the subsidies increases the prices of agricultural land by 
     about 20 percent, according to the Agriculture Department. 
     This raises the purchase prices for new farmers or lease 
     payments for farmers who rent their fields.

  We found in the USDA report this year, 42 percent of farmers are, in 
fact, renters.

       About 45 percent of crop land is leased [according to 
     Samuelson] as opposed to the 42 percent USDA suggested. And 
     of course, there's this question: Why should government 
     stabilize farmers' incomes? It doesn't stabilize incomes of 
     plumbers, print shops or most businesses.
       Despite farm programs' nonexistent public benefits, 
     Congress routinely extends the programs for political 
     reasons. On the public-relations front, farmers are thought 
     to be hard-working and, therefore, deserving. Somehow, it 
     seems unfair to withdraw a government benefit they're 
     accustomed to receiving. And if farm programs didn't exist, 
     the congressional agriculture committees would be less 
     powerful. So would various farm lobbies and interest groups. 
     They all have an interest in perpetuating the subsidies. 
     Finally, there's control of Congress.

  At this point, Mr. Samuelson quotes me. So this quote was my own.

       ``The main factor is a concern among lawmakers of both 
     parties that power in Congress could hinge on a few races in 
     heavily subsidized agricultural regions,'' Sen. Richard 
     Lugar, Republican of Indiana, bravely wrote in The New York 
     Times. ``If either party stands in the way of this largesse, 
     they risk being labeled the `anti-farm party' and targeted 
     with sentimental imagery associated with farm failures.''

  Back to Samuelson:

       Farm subsidies are huge political bribes. Though they're 
     perfectly legal, the ethics are questionable. The trouble is 
     that hardly anyone raises the questions. The silence defines 
     Washington's self-serving and hypocritical ``morality.'' 
     Everyone in Congress is justifiably outraged these days by 
     Enron's collapse and the losses for workers and investors. 
     But the same legislators will vote for massive giveaways of 
     billions of dollars to farmers without any sense of shame or 
     outrage. There is no inkling that they might be plundering 
     the public purse and doing wrong. (The press is guilty of 
     similar hypocrisy. Farm subsidies excite casual, intermittent 
     curiosity.

  I am hopeful that these remarks will excite both Senators and the 
press because I think we are on the threshold of a very large mistake 
in the commodity section.
  I have made these points before, but let me tick through them 
quickly.
  One problem with the farm bill that now lies before us is that it 
does increase subsidies very substantially.
  From the beginning of the debate, the suggestion has been that the 
Budget Committee set aside $73.5 billion for additional farm subsidies 
over the next 10 years. The dilemma here is that the subsidies will 
create incentives for more production. They are production based. The 
more bushels, the more dollars for the farmer who produces the bushels. 
As a result, unless El Nino, or some extraordinary weather phenomenon 
such as a comet crash, or something of that variety occurs, it is very 
predictable that production of the five basic row crops--cotton, rice, 
soybeans, corn, and wheat--will increase very substantially over the 
next 5 years. Perhaps export demand will escalate rapidly. Perhaps we 
will do the things we need to do and evade the blockages of the World 
Trade Organization and our trading partners that for the moment are 
outraged by this bill.
  Letters I have received from ambassadors from friendly trading 
countries--the Australian Ambassador, for example, or Commissioner 
Fisher of the EU, and others--point out very troubled waters ahead. But 
perhaps we will overcome that. I hope we will because there is no way 
out of the box unless we export a whole lot more to meet the production 
gains we are going to have.
  The genius of American agriculture is that the yields continue year 
by year. That is the potential salvation for feeding people all over 
the world. But between now and then, the question is, How do we get the 
product out of the country? Failure to do that will lead to oversupply 
in the country and lower prices. That will trigger higher subsidies. 
This is what countercyclical is all about. It never counters, it goes 
one way--down.
  If that were all of it, that would be bad enough. But the problem is 
that only 40 percent or fewer of American farmers are going to receive 
any of these subsidies. That is the nature of the row crop situation.
  Sixty percent--three-fifths--a majority of farmers, really have no 
interest in these subsidies at all. At least they are not going to 
receive them. That is not widely understood among farmers, quite apart 
from the public as a whole. The public as a whole, when they hear of 
that, say: How can this be? This is the way the program started in the 
1930s, and it has been perpetuated.
  That is not the half of it. Take this 40 percent. The statistics show 
in State after State over two-thirds of the money--just in this 40 
percent--goes to this 10 percent of the 40. The 4 percent is the total. 
Stated another way, we are now down to 60 percent at zero, and 10 
percent of the 40, or 4 percent, are getting about two-thirds of all 
the money. The public say, that is preposterous; how in the world can 
people in a democratic legislative body skew the payments in such a 
distorted manner

[[Page 712]]

that 4 percent of the farms get two-thirds of all the results? We are 
doing it. We have done it, and we are about to compound it.
  It is no wonder that small farmers go out of business. These bills 
guarantee it. The same Senators on the floor today who will say, What 
about the small family farmer, and what about the medium-sized family 
farmer--I am here to tell you that farmer is not going to do well under 
this bill. Land prices will continue to go up. I do not predict a 
bubble. Nevertheless, in my own farm situation, I have witnessed 
management--I have owned farms since 1956--and at least two situations 
of crash and burn. I can recall--I think most Senators who are 
following this in our committee will recall--the boom of the 1970s in 
which those of us who had land throughout that greater time saw an 
increase of two or three times the value only to see 50 or 60 percent 
of that stripped away in the early years of the 1980s.
  Why is it that we are failing by going through this history again and 
again? We do it because our programs almost mandate it. USDA's 120-page 
booklet goes through chapter and verse about how it happens. It is no 
mystery.
  The problem is, for young farmers looking into this, it is a tragedy 
in terms of entry. For 42 percent of our farmers who rent, it is a 
tragedy because their rents go up. That is a big percentage.
  Whether Members understand who the farmers are in their States or 
not, the farmers understand their predicament, and the 60 percent who 
are getting nothing understand that zero. By now, given the 
Environmental Working Group site, the rest of the farmers understand 
who the 10 percent are who are getting two-thirds of what happens in 
their States. They have them listed by name. That is new. And a good 
number of farmers are suggesting is not fair because it is an intrusion 
of Government payments. It is an intrusion because in some cases 
farmers have been receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
  I don't go into the extraordinary cases of movie stars, basketball 
players, universities, and so forth. After all, under the rules of the 
game, they own the land and they produce the stuff. Nevertheless, there 
are some anomalies here that have not been taken well.
  The predicament is that we have a farm bill as it stands before us, 
before we start amending it, that, in my judgment, almost guarantees 
lower prices, guarantees larger payments, and the payments we know go 
to very few people. They are huge.
  In November and December, I made the point--and I will make it even 
more forcefully now--that this debate occurs in almost an ``Alice in 
Wonderland'' situation in which somehow we can talk about farm policy 
as if it were totally divorced from the budget of the U.S. Government 
or from the needs of ordinary people.
  The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, 
and others on the committee have pointed out that the billions of 
dollars in deficit that we are now piling up are taken out of the 
Social Security funds. That is now clear. We are in deficit finance. We 
are not in surpluses. This is not free money. Social Security 
recipients surely understand that the $73.5 billion is coming out of 
the Social Security fund. It is money that could be spent perhaps for 
reform of Medicare, prescription drugs for the elderly, and other items 
that most of us in our campaign talked about and promised but clearly 
are not going to occur so long as our Government is running huge 
deficits.
  We are doing the deficits because we have a war on. And that is 
proper because terrorists hit our country on September the 11th. But 
that is the country in which we live. Agriculture is not divorced from 
that which is our country. It is not another world in which we deal 
with a very few farmers, maybe 4 percent of the people who are doing 
business.
  How farmers could get into such a predicament is easily predictable, 
given the types of policies we are about to formulate; albeit, telling 
the farmers: We are doing it for you and we want your support.
  If farmers ever figure this out, we will not have their support. They 
will wonder how misguided we could have been.
  We have been through these arguments several times. I appreciate the 
indulgence of my colleagues in listening to them again. But we do have 
a second chance. Thank goodness we did not adopt this legislation in 
unamended form in November or December because we will be coming into 
conference with a House bill that, in my judgment, is equally 
disastrous.
  Madam President, with these thoughts in mind, I hope we can proceed 
through the amendments in an orderly way. I promise to work with the 
distinguished chairman to make that so.
  We are now getting the ideas from all of our Senators on this side of 
the aisle. I understand that is occurring with the chairman. Hopefully, 
we will have a finite list of amendments and have an idea of a roadmap 
for a successful conclusion.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2604

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the 
business before the Senate at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment No. 2604 with a 30-
minute time limit.
  Mr. HARKIN. With a 30-minute time limit?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senators Grassley, 
Feingold, Wellstone, and Enzi. This is the livestock production 
contract amendment that I offered in December. This amendment furthers 
one of the most important goals of this farm bill, and that is to 
promote competition.
  We had a competition title in the original farm bill I introduced in 
the committee. Two other amendments have already been adopted: Senator 
Feingold's amendment prohibiting mandatory arbitration in livestock 
contracts, and Senator Johnson's amendment on packer ownership.
  My amendment will address yet one more issue in the competition 
arena, and that is livestock production contracts and the right to 
discuss contracts with close advisers.
  The amendment does two things: It closes a loophole in the Packers 
and Stockyards Act by including livestock production contracts under 
its jurisdiction; and, secondly, it provides livestock producers the 
ability to discuss terms of their contracts with certain people, such 
as their attorney, banker, landlord, and Government agencies charged 
with protecting a party to the contract.
  Livestock production contracting is an arrangement between a packer 
or another owner of livestock and a farmer. The basic contract requires 
a farmer to provide the buildings, the equipment, and the labor to 
raise the livestock; and the livestock is owned by someone else, the 
contractor.
  This type of arrangement differs from the traditional livestock 
industry structure where the farmer both owned and raised the 
livestock. In the poultry sector, production contracting is nearly 
universal and, I might add, has been covered by the Packers and 
Stockyards Act since 1935. It is becoming more prevalent in hogs, and 
is growing in the cattle industry.
  What this amendment would do is protect livestock production growers 
from unfair and deceptive acts. The same type of fairness rules are 
common in other markets where people are threatened by inequitable 
bargaining positions. For instance, Federal law affords similar 
protections to produce and vegetable growers, automobile

[[Page 713]]

dealers, gasoline franchisees, individual securities investors, and 
livestock farmers who own the livestock.
  Currently, the Packers and Stockyards Act provides protections for 
farmers who sell livestock to packers. That has been in the law since 
1921. But the act does not protect those who raise livestock, under a 
production contract, for someone else. The amendment would close this 
loophole. Current law does not fit current practice. Production 
contracts, as I said, are becoming more common.
  In 1990--just 11, 12 years ago--production contracting in the hog 
industry was almost unheard of. By the year 2000, 34 percent of hogs 
were raised under production contracts.
  So again, farmers and ranchers need this amendment because the 
consolidation and vertical integration of the markets are providing 
them an unequitable bargaining position.
  Livestock production contract growers are the ones most at risk of 
unfair conduct because, like a franchisee, they tend to make large 
investments to enter into a contract, and then they feel constrained to 
endure unfair treatment because of their large capital investments.
  Basically, the amendment would allow a producer to share his or her 
contract with their attorney, business adviser, landlord, manager, 
family, and State and Federal agencies charged with protecting parties 
to the contract.
  The amendment does not require anyone to share the contract if they 
do not want to. And it does not say the contract should be made public 
in any way. The provision even allows contracts between a contractor 
and farmer to prohibit farmers from sharing a contract with their 
neighbors or the contractor's competitors, for example.
  So, again, the amendment enjoys broad support. The American Farm 
Bureau Federation and the National Farmers' Union--the two largest 
general farm organizations--as well as dozens of other farm and 
consumer groups, support the amendment.
  It is bipartisan. As I mentioned, there is support on both sides of 
the aisle for this amendment. I am hopeful we can adopt the amendment.


 Amendment No. 2607, As Modified; Amendment No. 2608, As Modified; and 
                    Amendment No. 2602, As Modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
Nos. 2607 and 2608 be modified with the text at the desk, and that 
Wellstone amendment No. 2602 be modified with the text of amendment No. 
2631.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The amendments (No. 2607, as modified; No. 2608, as modified; and No. 
2602, as modified) are as follows:


                    amendment no. 2607, as modified

       On page 205, strike lines 8 through 11 and insert the 
     following:
       (c) Maximum Enrollment.--Section 1231(d) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), the 
     Secretary'';
       (2) by striking ``36,400,000'' and inserting 
     ``41,100,000''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Per-farm limitation.--In the case of a contract 
     entered into on or after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, or in the case of a contract entered into before 
     that date that expires on or after that date, an owner or 
     operator may enroll not more than 50 percent of the eligible 
     land (as described in subsection (b)) of an agricultural 
     operation of the owner or operator in the program under this 
     subchapter.
       ``(3) Expenditure of funds.--In carrying out this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, that the total amount of payments made under the 
     program under this subchapter does not exceed the amount made 
     available to carry out the program for the fiscal year in 
     which the payments are made.''.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 2608, as modified

       On page 212, strike lines 13 through 15 and insert the 
     following:
     reduce the amount of payments made by the Secretary for other 
     practices under the conservation reserve program.
       ``(j) Per-Acre Payment Levels.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall conduct a 
     study to determine, and promulgate regulations that establish 
     in accordance with paragraph (2), per-acre values for 
     payments for various categories of land enrolled in the 
     conservation reserve program.
       ``(2) Values.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall ensure that--
       ``(A) the per-acre value for highly erodible land or other 
     sensitive land (as determined by the Secretary) that is not 
     suitable for agricultural production; is greater than
       ``(B) the per-acre value for land that is suitable for 
     agricultural production (as determined by the Secretary).
       ``(3) Expenditure of funds.--In determining the per-acre 
     values for land under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall 
     ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the per-acre 
     values are such that the total amount of payments under the 
     program under this subchapter made in accordance with those 
     values will not exceed the amount made available to carry out 
     the program for the fiscal year in which the payments are 
     made.''.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 2602, as modified

       Beginning on page 226, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through page 235, line 6 and insert the following:
       ``(4) Large confined livestock feeding operations.--
       (A) Definition of large confined livestock feeding 
     operation.--In this paragraph:
       (i) In general.--The term `large confined livestock feeding 
     operation' means a confined livestock feeding operation' 
     means a confined livestock feeding operation designed to 
     confine 1,000 or more animal equivalent units (as defined by 
     the Secretary).
       (I) Waiver.--The Secretary may on a case by case basis 
     grant states a waiver from the requirement in (4)(A)(i), of 
     this section, in accordance with Volume 62, No. 99 of the 
     Federal Register.
       (ii) Multiple locations.--In determining the number of 
     animal unit equivalents of the operation of a producer under 
     clause (i), the animals confined by the producer in 
     confinement facilities at all locations (including the 
     producer's proportionate share in any jointly owned facility) 
     shall be counted.
       (B) New or expanded operations.--Subject to (4)(A)(i)(I) of 
     this section, a producer shall not be eligible for cost-share 
     payments for any portion of a storage or treatment facility, 
     or associated waste transport or treatment device, to manage 
     manure, process wastewater, or other animal waste generated 
     by a large confined livestock feeding operation, if the 
     operation is a confined livestock operations that--
       (i) is established as a large confined livestock operation 
     after the date of enactment of this paragraph; or
       (ii) becomes a large confined livestock operation after the 
     date of enactment of this paragraph by expanding the capacity 
     of the operation to confine livestock.
       (C) Modification of operation.--A modification of a large 
     confined livestock operation shall not be considered an 
     expansion under subparagraph (B)(ii) of this section, if as 
     determined by the Secretary, the modification involves--
       (i) adoption of a new technology;
       (ii) improved efficiency in the functioning of the 
     operation or,
       (iii) reorganization of the status of the entity; and
       (iv) the capacity of the operation to confine livestock is 
     not increased.
       (D) Multiple operations.--A producer that has an interest 
     in more than 1 large confined livestock operation shall not 
     be eligible for more than 1 contract under this section for 
     cost-share payments for a storage or treatment facility, or 
     associated waste transport or transfer device, to manage 
     manure, process wastewater, or other animal waste generated 
     by the large confined livestock feeding operation.
       (E) Flood plain sitting.--Cost-share payments shall not be 
     available for structural practices for a storage or treatment 
     facility, or associated waste transport device, to manage 
     manure process wastewater, or other animal waste generated by 
     a confined livestock operation if
       (i) the structural practices are located in a 100-year 
     flood plain; and
       (ii) the confined livestock operation is a confined 
     livestock operation that is established after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph.
       (e) Incentive Payments.--The Secretary shall make incentive 
     payments in an amount and at a rate determined by the 
     Secretary to be necessary to encourage a producer to perform 
     1 or more practices.
       (f) Technical Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall allocate funding under 
     the program for the provision of technical assistance 
     according to the purpose and projected cost for which the 
     technical assistance is provided for a fiscal year.
       (2) Amount.--The allocated amount may vary according to--
       (A) the type of expertise required;
       (B) the quantity of time involved; and
       (C) other factors as determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       (3) Limitation.--Funding for technical assistance under the 
     program shall not exceed the projected cost to the Secretary 
     of the

[[Page 714]]

     technical assistance provided for a fiscal year.
       (4) Other authorities.--The receipt of technical assistance 
     under the program shall not affect the elgibility of the 
     producer to receive technical assistance under other 
     authorities of law available to the Secretary.
       (5) Incentive payments for technical assistance.--
       (A) In general.--A producer that is eligible to receive 
     technical assistance for a practice involving the development 
     of a comprehensive nutrient management plan may obtain an 
     incentive payment that can be used to obtain technical 
     assistance associated with the development of any component 
     of the comprehensive nutrient management plan.
       (B) Purpose.--The purpose of the payment shall be to 
     provide a producer the option of obtaining technical 
     assistance for developing any component of a comprehensive a 
     nutrient management plan from a certified provider.
       (C) Payment.--The incentive payment shall be--
       (i) in addition to cost-share or incentive payments that a 
     producer would otherwise receive for structural practices and 
     land-management practices,
       (ii) used only to procure technical assistance from a 
     certified provider that is necessary to develop any component 
     of a comprehensive nutrient management plan; and
       (iii) in an amount determined appropriate by the Secretary, 
     taking into account--
       (I) the extent and complexity of the technical assistance 
     provided;
       (II) the costs that the Secretary would have manned in 
     providing the technical assistance; and
       (III) the costs incurred by the private provider in 
     providing the technical assistance.
       (D) Eligible practices.--The Secretary may determine, on a 
     case by case basis, whether the development of a 
     comprehensive nutrient management plan is eligible for an 
     incentive payment under this paragraph.
       (E) Certification by secretary.--
       (i) In general.--Only persons that have been certified by 
     the Secretary under section 1244(f)(3) shall be eligible to 
     provide technical assistance under this subsection.
       (ii) Quality assurance.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     certified providers are capable of providing technical 
     assistance regarding comprehensive nutrient management in a 
     manner that meets the specifications and guidelines of the 
     Secretary and that meets the needs of producers under the 
     program.
       (F) Advance payment.--On the determination of the Secretary 
     that the proposed comprehensive nutrient management of a 
     producer is eligible for an incentive payment, the producer 
     may receive a partial advance of the incentive payment in 
     order to procure the services of a certified provider.
       (G) Final payment.--The final installment of the incentive 
     payment shall be payable to a produce on presentation to the 
     Secretary of documentation that is satisfactory to the 
     Secretary and that demonstrates--
       (i) completion of the technical assistance; and
       (ii) the actual cost of the technical assistance.
       (g) Modification or Termination of Contracts.--
       (1) Voluntary modification or termination.--The Secretary 
     may modify or terminate a contract entered into with a 
     producer under this chapter if--
       (A) the producer agrees to the modification or termination; 
     and
       (B) the Secretary determines that the modification or 
     termination is in the public interest.
       (2) Involuntary termination.--The Secretary may terminate a 
     contract under this chapter if the Secretary determines that 
     the producer violated the contract.

     SEC. 1240C. EVALUATION OF OFFERS AND PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--In evaluating applications for technical 
     assistance, cost-share payments, and incentive payments, the 
     Secretary shall accord a higher priority to assistance and 
     payments that--
       (1) maximize environmental benefits per dollar expended; 
     and
       (2)(A) address national conservation priorities, 
     including--
       (i) meeting Federal, State, and local environmental 
     purposes focused on protecting air and water quality, 
     including assistance to production systems and practices that 
     avoid subjecting an operation to Federal, State, or local 
     environmental regulatory systems;
       (ii) applications from livestock producers using managed 
     grazing systems and other pasture and forage based systems;
       (iii) comprehensive nutrient management;
       (iv) water quality, particularly in impaired watersheds;
       (v) soil erosion;
       (vi) air quality; or
       (vii) pesticide and herbicide management or reduction;
       (B) are provided in conservation priority areas established 
     under section 1230(c);
       (C) are provided in special projects under section 
     1243(f)(4) with respect to which State or local governments 
     have provided, or will provide, financial or technical 
     assistance to producers for the same conservation or 
     environmental purposes; or
       (D) an innovative technology in connection with a 
     structural practice or land management practice.

     SEC. 1240D. DUTIES OF PRODUCERS.

       (a) To receive technical assistance, cost-share payments, 
     or incentive payments under the program, a producer shall 
     agree--
       (1) to implement an environmental quality incentives 
     program plan that describes conservation and environmental 
     purposes to be achieved through 1 or more practices that are 
     approved by the Secretary;
       (2) not to conduct any practices on the farm or ranch that 
     would tend to defeat the purposes of the program;
       (3) on the violation of a term or condition of the contract 
     at any time the producer has control of the land--
       (A) if the Secretary determines that the violation warrants 
     termination of the contract--
       (i) to forfeit all rights to receive payments under the 
     contract; and
       (ii) to refund to the Secretary all or a portion of the 
     payments received by the owner or operator under the 
     contract, including any interest on the payments, as 
     determined by the Secretary, or
       (B) if the Secretary determines that the violation does not 
     warrant termination of the contract, to refund to the 
     Secretary, or accept adjustments to, the payments provided to 
     the owner or operator, as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate;
       (4) on the transfer of the right and interest of the 
     producer in land subject to the contract, unless the 
     transferee of the right and interest agrees with the 
     Secretary to assume all obligations of the contract, to 
     refund all cost-share payments and incentive payments 
     received under the program, as determined by the Secretary;
       (5) to supply information as required by the Secretary to 
     determine compliance with the program plan and requirements 
     of the program, and
       (6) to comply with such additional provisions as the 
     Secretary determines are necessary to carry out the program 
     plan.

     SEC. 1240E. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM PLAN.

       (a) In General.--To be eligible to receive technical 
     assistance cost-share payments, or incentive payments under 
     the program, a producer of a livestock or agricultural 
     operation shall submit to the Secretary for approval a plan 
     of operations that specifies practices covered under the 
     program, and is based on such terms and conditions, as the 
     Secretary considers necessary to carry out the program, 
     including a description of the practices to be implemented 
     and the purposes to be met by the implementation of the plan, 
     and in the case of confined livestock feeding operations, 
     development and implementation of a comprehensive nutrient 
     management plan.
       (b) Avoidance of Duplication.--The Secretary shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, eliminate duplication of planning 
     activities under the program and comparable conservation 
     programs.

     SEC. 1240F. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       (a) To the extent appropriate, the Secretary shall assist a 
     producer in achieving the conservation and environmental 
     goals of a program plan by--
       (1) providing technical assistance in developing and 
     implementing the plan;
       (2) providing technical assistance, cost-share payments, or 
     incentive payments for developing and implementing 1 or more 
     practices, as appropriate;
       (3) providing the producer with information, education, and 
     training to aid in implementation of the plan; and
       (4) encouraging the producer to obtain technical 
     assistance, cost-share payments, or grants from other 
     Federal, State, local, or private sources.

     SEC. 1240G. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the total 
     amount of cost share and incentive payments paid to a 
     producer under this chapter shall not exceed--
       (1) $30,000 for any fiscal year, regardless of whether the 
     producer has more than 1 contract under this chapter for the 
     fiscal year,
       (2) $90,000 for a contract with a term of 3 years,
       (3) $120,000 for a contract with a term of 4 years, or
       (4) $150,000 for a contract with a term of more than 4 
     years.
       (b) Attribution.--An individual or entity shall not 
     receive, directly or indirectly, total payments from a single 
     or multiple contracts this chapter that exceed $30,000 for 
     any fiscal year.
       (c) Exception To Annual Limit.--The Secretary may exceed 
     the limitation on the annual amount of a payment to a 
     producer under subsection (a)(1) if the Secretary determines 
     that a larger payment is--
       (1) essential to accomplish the land management practice or 
     structural practice for which the payment is made to the 
     producer, and
       (2) consistent with the maximization of environmental 
     benefits per dollar expended and the purposes of this 
     chapter.
       (d) Verification.--The Secretary shall identify individuals 
     and entities that are eligible for a payment under the 
     program using social security numbers and taxpayer 
     identification numbers, respectively.


[[Page 715]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time does the Senator want on this amendment?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Could I have 10 minutes?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the Senator 10 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am sorry, I did not realize we were under time 
agreements.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to go back to a very 
important subject that the Senator from Indiana brought up, and that is 
whether or not the bill is compliant in the future with some of our 
World Trade Organization obligations.
  I think it is very obvious that the committee anticipated that it 
might not be compliant because on page 35 of the report there is a 
paragraph on the Secretary of Agriculture doing an adjustment to farm 
payments if that becomes a problem.
  I cannot find fault with the writers of the legislation for putting 
this in here because in the other body, in the House bill--a Republican 
bill--they saw this as a problem, too.
  On page 131 of that House bill it says: The Secretary may make 
adjustments in the amount of such expenditures during that period to 
ensure that such expenditures do not exceed but in no case be less than 
such allowable levels.
  To me, it is a very serious problem we have; albeit, you might say it 
is going to happen--if it happens at all--in a minority of the 
instances because, as the Senator referred to FAPRI of Iowa State and 
Missouri, you said you think they said it would happen 30 percent of 
the time.
  But if you are in a situation where it happens that 37 percent of the 
time and we exceed and we are retaliated against, and that would be 
legal retaliation and it would be retaliation at a time, presumably, we 
get high payments, farmers are already in trouble or they wouldn't get 
the additional payments. So you could find yourself in a situation 
where at the very time prices are going down, and we also have the 
additional problems that we can't export because we are being 
retaliated against, that just at the time farmers need the safety net, 
then that safety net has one great big hole in it.
  We need to find some way to protect the American farmer so that the 
safety net the farmer has doesn't have a big hole in it. And we ought 
to also do it because we are in the leadership of all the nations of 
the world on reducing barriers to trade, particularly through our work 
in the Cairns group of nations. We are trying to get impediments to 
agricultural trade down to zero, both from the standpoint of market 
opening and from the standpoint of tariffs. That is our goal in the 
next round of negotiations under WTO.
  If we are a nation in trade that believes in the rule of law, we have 
to follow the rule of law. We anticipate we would be in trouble on that 
because of the farm bill. It seems to me at a time that we are talking 
about a safety net for farmers, we ought to do what we can to make sure 
that hole is mended before this bill leaves the Senate. If it goes to 
the House and the House is willing to ignore it, then where are we? We 
are in a situation where down the road 5 to 10 years, depending on how 
long a farm bill we have, we have a big potential problem for the 
American family farmer. When they need help, they aren't going to get 
it. We can't go to the WTO and complain because we ourselves have 
recognized the possibility we might be in jeopardy.
  In this regard, since we are going into the negotiations in the WTO--
they start next week--I think, in the special round on agriculture that 
is going to be discussed in Geneva, for example, even the larger 
negotiations of the Doha development round, we are hoping to accomplish 
a great deal in reducing or eliminating tariff barriers and tariffs on 
agricultural products. In fact, it is such an important item, I think 
eventually we are going to start referring to this as the agricultural 
round. We are going to set an example. We have always tried to set an 
example.
  Where we are, if we pass a bill that potentially violates WTO, we are 
giving encouragement to the competitor that we most have trouble with--
Europe. Europe has about 85 percent of all of the subsidies for exports 
in the entire world. Europe has about a $400 billion common 
agricultural program.
  We want that common agricultural program reduced. I think Europe 
knows they have to reduce it. We are going to be in a situation where 
we pass this legislation and, as they are looking at their common 
agricultural program, which they are doing, they are going to put off 
the big decisions of reducing that until probably the year 2005.
  In the process of our complaining to them about they aren't doing 
enough, they are obviously going to cite not only what they believe the 
impact of our legislation is, but they are also going to cite that our 
legislation actually recognizes that as based upon this paragraph on 
page 35 and based upon the House bill.
  I don't know why we don't live in the real world and why we don't try 
to deal with this. I am not saying that in a denigrating way to the 
Senator from Indiana. I am just saying that in a commonsense approach 
because he recognizes it. I suppose for the people who write the bill, 
they don't find an easy way to get out of it other than putting this 
paragraph and this language in the respective bills of the House and 
the Senate. This isn't directed towards Democrats because Republicans 
have put us in this boat as well.
  I know that the White House sees this as a problem. They want us to 
work our way out of it. I happened to be able to have breakfast this 
morning with the person who is going to succeed Mr. Mooree as executive 
for the World Trade Organization, Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi of 
Thailand. He is a parliamentarian there. He is going to take over in 
September. He expressed this concern to me as well. And, by the way, 
his country is very much a participant in the Cairns group that wants 
to eliminate agricultural subsidies. He reminded me, even though he has 
a small country, his agricultural subsidies are $1.3 billion compared 
to Europe's $400 billion. But regardless, he says that it does not put 
the United States in a very good position going into the Doha round of 
negotiations to be able to say to the other 142 nations, in particular, 
as we address the 77 developing nations within the World Trade 
Organization that tend to be more protective about their agriculture, 
and wanting to do less in this area, it doesn't put us in a very good 
position if we are writing legislation that we recognize is a potential 
violation of the world trading organization because we are exceeding 
the $19.1 billion that is in the amber box limit.
  I have put forth some suggested amendments, a couple different 
approaches that I would have to confess maybe don't totally meet our 
requirements under the WTO, but I think tend away from heavy reliance 
upon price and heavy reliance upon production, which are the two items 
that if we tie our payments to tend to make us violate amber box 
requirements.
  I want to work with both managers of the bill and see what we can do 
about this. To repeat the two or three reasons why I want to work with 
them, because, No. 1, we brag about passing a safety net for farmers, 
that safety net should be a pretty certain safety net for the next 5 to 
10 years, the length of the legislation. At a time when it is most 
needed, it should be most predictable what would happen.
  This language tells me that the bankers, to whom we are always 
listening, have to know what the farm program is going to be so they 
can make loans to farmers. They are going to look at this and say: We 
really don't know.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. May I have 30 seconds?
  Mr. LUGAR. I am happy to yield 30 seconds of the opposition time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. No. 2, then, so that we maintain our leadership in this 
effort to reduce trade barriers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, may I ask a question of the Chair? Is there 
15

[[Page 716]]

minutes of opposition time, minus the concession to the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the legislation offered by the 
distinguished occupant of the chair contains provisions that respond, 
in my judgment, to a number of unintended consequences for the farm 
sector of our economy.
  I believe it is a matter of fact that in order for Senators to have a 
pretty good idea, at least, of how this amendment shapes up, a letter 
has come to me from a number of groups that are affected. Let me cite 
those groups. It was signed by the American Cotton Shippers 
Association; American Soybean Association; National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association; National Chicken Council; National Corn Growers 
Association; National Cotton Council; National Pork Producers Council; 
National Sunflower Association; United Egg Producers; U.S. Canola 
Association, and the Wheat Export Trade Committee.
  They have written the following letter, which responds to the 
Senator's amendment:

       The Senate Agriculture Committee may soon be considering 
     legislation as part of the Farm Bill to address the issue of 
     agricultural competition and concentration. This extremely 
     broad legislation would give the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture unprecedented authority to regulate corporate 
     relationships, commercial practices and contracts for the 
     production of agricultural commodities.
       Tough laws already exist to ensure open and fair 
     competition throughout the U.S. economy--including 
     agribusiness. The current laws should be aggressively 
     enforced. Creating new laws in an already complex regulatory 
     environment is unnecessary and could result in serious 
     unintended consequences. Legislation limiting the ability of 
     agribusiness to attract the needed capital for future 
     development could harm the constituents that this legislation 
     is intended to serve.
       Risk is an ever-present element of agriculture and 
     effectively managing risk is a fundamental goal of 
     agricultural producers. The key to effectively managing risk 
     involves the use of creative risk management tools. Farmers 
     and ranchers have worked with agribusiness firms to develop 
     creative solutions for managing risk. Implementing these 
     solutions requires capital investment, and to attract the 
     necessary capital, firms must offer attractive rates of 
     return. Statutory and regulatory burdens that focus on 
     agriculture--ignoring the broader economy--inhibit the 
     ability of agribusiness to attract the necessary capital to 
     stay competitive and provide innovative risk management 
     solutions.
       Unique marketing opportunities and new products present 
     premium opportunities for producers. Placing agriculture 
     under an isolated legal umbrella could well inhibit progress 
     and limit the ability of agricultural producers to adopt new 
     and innovative systems that increase profitability and 
     sustainability. Modifying existing laws and statutes could 
     segregate agriculture from the rest of the economy, causing 
     capital flight and hurting long-term growth, investment, 
     competitiveness and success of agribusiness and consequently 
     American agriculture.
       Several state legislatures have taken steps such as the 
     ones we are concerned about, and the results have been 
     negative not only for agribusiness, but for producers as 
     well. For instance, South Dakota and Missouri passed well-
     intentioned price discrimination legislation that resulted in 
     severe cash/spot market disruptions, and Minnesota has passed 
     legislation that has hindered the availability of some risk 
     management and quality-based production contracts.
       In this day and age, agriculture needs more capital and 
     human investment in order to remain productive for the long 
     term. The undersigned organizations will not support 
     legislation that would create unfair regulatory burdens or 
     cause scarce capital resources to be diverted away from 
     agriculture toward other sectors of the economy.
           Sincerely,
       American Cotton Shippers Association
       American Soybean Association
       National Cattlemen's Beef Association
       National Chicken Council
       National Corn Growers Association
       National Cotton Council
       National Pork Producers Council
       National Sunflower Association
       National Turkey Federation
       United Egg Producers
       U.S. Canola Association
       Wheat Export Trade Education Committee

  I find merit in what has been suggested by these groups. I regret 
that the amendment would add, in my judgment, burdens and costs, 
restrictions, and more regulations for producers. It appears to me the 
tools that have been created are, in fact, both innovative and do help 
to manage risk. I hope they will be perpetuated.
  Processors use contracting, which is a specific subject of the 
Senator's amendment, to secure stable and consistent supplies of the 
products that the market desires, as well as increasing operating 
efficiency.
  A Purdue University study of agricultural contracting conveys the 
concern that legislation prohibiting or impeding contracting in 
agriculture could spur increased coordination in agribusiness. The 
study discusses the need for a contract in order for a process or to 
guarantee a quality and consistent product to consumers. I think that 
is the heart of the argument.
  In essence, contracting is helpful in managing risk. It is helpful, 
at least to the buyer, to make certain of the quality and quantity and 
the supply of what is required for the benefit of consumers down the 
trail. Therefore, I am hopeful that the amendment will not be adopted. 
I appreciate the spirit in which it has been offered. I hope Senators 
will take seriously the arguments I have presented and, even more 
importantly, the arguments presented by the distinguished list of 
agricultural producers that authored the letter I cited.
  I yield the floor.
  (Mrs. CARNAHAN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a mild colloquy?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask the ranking member, is that the letter that came 
last fall or is it a new one? I am not familiar with that. If that is 
the one----
  Mr. LUGAR. It came in November of last year.
  Mr. HARKIN. I think that letter is just opposed to the whole 
competition title that we had in the chairman's mark of the farm bill 
last fall.
  Mr. LUGAR. I am sure the Senator is correct. There are a number of 
aspects of the competition title to which it would refer.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. That is why this amendment I have offered is much 
more limited in scope than the broad issue they were talking about.
  Mr. LUGAR. They cited contracting in that part of it specifically, 
but it covers, obviously, a much more comprehensive set of 
circumstances.
  Mr. HARKIN. I wanted to make sure this wasn't a different letter. I 
thank the ranking member.
  Madam President, when I took the chair, I had yielded some time to 
Senator Grassley from Iowa. I thought he was going to talk on this 
amendment. He wanted to talk on something else. I think my time has 
expired on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more 
minutes to respond a little bit to the letter written.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I think, again, the letter that was read addressed the 
entire competition title and it was comprehensive. This amendment is 
much more narrow. It only affects production contracts in livestock. 
The letter does not point out, nor have I heard anybody point out, any 
specific negative consequences that could occur from this very limited 
type of amendment. This provides for fairness in production 
contracting. It closes a loophole in the Packers and Stockyards Act. 
That act already covers production contracting in poultry and has since 
1935, if I am not mistaken. But at that time there was no such thing as 
production contracting in other areas, such as livestock, cattle, and 
hogs, it was not addressed. Since then, production contracting has 
become much more prevalent in livestock.
  As I pointed out, in 1990, there wasn't such a thing. Now, 30 to 35 
percent of all our hogs are raised under production contracts. If we 
will provide fairness rules for gasoline station owners, for Dairy 
Queen owners, or securities dealers, or others that are franchisees, to 
give them a little bit of fairness in their contracts, that is all we 
are trying to do with our cattle and hog producers.
  Again, this is to close the loophole in the Packers and Stockyards 
Act. I cannot imagine why our cattle producers

[[Page 717]]

or any organization that represents them would be opposed to that. Who 
are they representing? What organization is going to tell my farmers 
they can't have protections under the Packers and Stockyards Act like 
our poultry producers do?
  The packers, of course, want unlimited power. All we are trying to do 
is put in some fairness, and this amendment does that.
  I thank the Chair for yielding this additional time.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, today I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by Senator Harkin. This amendment puts ranchers with production 
contracts under the same umbrella of protections the Packers and 
Stockyards Act provides to other livestock producers. Producers with 
production contracts, excluding those that raise poultry, are not 
included in the Packers and Stockyards Act. They are not protected from 
unfair and deceptive practices as other livestock producers are.
  In a production contract, a producer provides the labor and materials 
to raise livestock owned by another individual, the contractor. Until 
recently, the contractor could be a packer or another person. On 
December 13, 2001, this body passed an amendment to the farm bill that 
prevents packers from owning, feeding, or controlling livestock more 
than 14 days before slaughter. This means that packers can no longer 
directly enter into production contracts because they would own the 
livestock more than 14 days before slaughter. However, the amendment we 
passed in December does not prevent other individuals from production 
contracting with producers. These producers with production contracts 
need the same protections other producers receive against unfair and 
deceptive practices.
  We should not be fooled into thinking that this ban of packer 
ownership we passed in December will completely shrink packer influence 
over the market. This bill must still go to conference and the ban will 
face incredible scrutiny. The ban will probably go the way many similar 
amendments have gone in the past. Amendments that reduce the choke hold 
of the packers have routinely disappeared in conference. It took years 
of work to get mandatory price reporting into law. However, we all know 
the packers are still withholding a fair amount of pricing information 
from producers.
  Many of you may be wondering why these producers need protection from 
their contractors. A production contract entails a large capital 
investment to feed, shelter, and care for the livestock that the 
producer does not own. Many producers have suffered through unfair 
treatment because their contract was too large to risk contending with 
the unfair practices. This great pressure from the contractor was also 
the reason the second part of the amendment was included.
  The second portion of the amendment guarantees that the producers 
have the right to discuss the contract with their business advisors, 
landlord, managers, family, and State and Federal agencies charged with 
protecting parties to the contract. In States where producers already 
have this right, the pressure and intimidation from contractors is so 
extreme producers forego sharing the contents of their contracts. They 
fear retribution. Other producers are given contracts with secrecy 
clauses that prevent them from discussing the contract terms with 
individuals that could help protect their interests.
  This amendment offers an overlooked group of livestock producers the 
same protections others in their industry already have. They would be 
protected from unfair and deceptive acts and given the right to discuss 
their contracts with certain individuals. I urge my colleagues to throw 
your support behind this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I appreciate the arguments made by the 
distinguished Senator. It would appear to this Senator, however, that 
the objectives of the Harkin amendment are already met on the statute 
books. The reason I have suggested that the amendment creates confusion 
is that it might subject the current law to reinterpretation. To that 
extent, it seems to me that this amendment is not productive, except of 
potential confusion and difficulty. Very clearly, current statutes are 
against fraud, unjust practices, and abusive activity in contracting.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, the groups I cited, that at least a 
good number of members who are subject to the competition section, as 
the distinguished Senator from Iowa has pointed out, and this part of 
it in particular, object for good reason and cite this is going to be 
disruptive at least in terms of their operations and capital flow in 
what they are doing.
  For those reasons, I do not perceive the necessity for the amendment 
and ask Members to vote in opposition.
  Madam President, unless there is further need of debate by my 
distinguished colleague, I yield back my time on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Under the 
unanimous consent agreement entered into some time ago, what is the 
next order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is 40 minutes of 
debate on the two amendments by the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand the Senator from Montana will be in the 
Chamber very shortly. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


  Amendment No. 2607, As Modified, and Amendment No. 2608, As Modified

  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I thank my ranking Member. I assume my 
two amendments are in order.
  Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct. I yield to the Senator 20 minutes 
of the 40 minutes allocated for debate on the amendments for his 
control.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my good friend from Indiana. I do not think I will 
take that much time because these amendments were pretty well discussed 
prior to the holiday break.
  There was some question about a budgetary point of order. I have 
since modified these amendments, and they are in concert with the 
budget and ready for consideration because it is a change in policy on 
how we handle CRP, the Conservation Reserve Program.
  One of the amendments limits the number of acres--these will be the 
new acres coming into the system or any acres that are renewed--a 
farmer can enroll in the CRP.
  What we are seeing in rural America is that instead of selling the 
farm or the ranch to a younger farmer or putting the acres into 
production, those acres are enrolled in the CRP and they do not produce 
anything. In other words, the farmer who enrolls them takes the check 
and it is like going to Arizona--he is still getting the paycheck and 
still paying for the farm.
  I think this is wrong. Those acres are enrolled for a good purpose. 
The original intent of CRP was to put marginal acres in the CRP and 
leave the good acres to production. What happened? The trend has 
reversed, and farmers are putting in some good land. It forced some of 
the fellows who needed to raise their production into breaking up some 
land that was marginal for grain production.
  This one amendment calls for a limitation on the number of acres a 
farmer can put in the CRP. It is not the total acres of a county or a 
State but for each farmer.
  The other amendment deals with the form of payment. As I said, we had 
one payment for everything. It was designed to take those marginal 
acres, highly erodable acres, out of production for a conservation 
reason--wildlife habitat. It worked. Land was set aside. The population 
of upland birds, sporting birds, and wildlife returned to those areas.

[[Page 718]]

  Then, because payment for the acres increased, good land was being 
put into the CRP. That was not the intent of the Conservation Reserve 
Program.
  What my second amendment says is we will pay higher prices for those 
acres that are highly erodable and should not be farmed and should be 
set aside for conservation purposes--in other words, it is just good 
conservation--and a lower price for the highly productive land because 
that is the land that should be in production.
  I do not know how many people have gone through our rural areas, but 
CRP has not been a great thing for our smaller towns. One does not see 
dealerships. Machinery dealerships have gone away, and feed and wheat 
houses have gone away because good land was put into the CRP and taken 
out of production, and nothing happens on that land. That is not what 
the original intent of CRP was about.
  As I stated to the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, these 
issues have been pretty well aired. The purpose, as far as I can see, 
is good conservation. It also is good business practice.
  If there are questions, I will certainly entertain some conversation 
on these amendments. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, in conversations with my friend from 
Montana and with the staff, I understand there is a budget score on 
these amendments that may be a problem. In discussions with the Senator 
from Montana, he has obviously raised some good points. Part of the 
bill addresses some of the problems already. I refer to page 213 of the 
bill, section 212. We provide for a study on economic effects regarding 
the Conservation Reserve Program.
  Our staffs are going to work together to develop further language, as 
I understand, that could be added to this section to call for 
additional studies in the area that the Senator from Montana is 
concerned about, but that would not have a budget scoring implication. 
We will work together with the staff of the Senator to try to develop 
that language.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I thank my friend from Iowa. I don't 
think we have any other route until we complete this study. Maybe we 
can enlighten our friends down at the CBO. They came up with 
unbelievable numbers. We changed our language, on their recommendation. 
There was a point of order raised when we first offered the amendments; 
they were wrong then. Then they suggested the language. Now they say 
the language is not good enough. So here we go again.
  I take issue with their numbers. However, I will not take issue with 
the recommendation made from the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture. We need to complete some sort of a comprehensive study of 
rural areas and the impact that CRP, specifically this program, has had 
on rural communities, when you take good land out of production or you 
pay the same for highly erodable land and highly productive land. I 
think we can work on some language.
  We would like to see what happened. Maybe they will put some little 
fellow somewhere to work, give him a job for the next 2 or 3 months and 
maybe we can come back and change some of this.
  It defies common sense. They say that is about all the sense I have--
pretty common--but it defies common sense that this would have an 
impact on the budget or outlays of money when we talk about the 
enrollment of acres into a conservation program, designed for a good 
reason, but that has gone astray. We are trying to fix that. That is 
all we are trying to do. If it requires a study and we have to go back 
and visit with those people, that is what we will have to do.
  I thank my friend and his staff for that recommendation. I think it 
is a good recommendation.


 Amendment No. 2607, As Modified, and Amendment No. 2608, As Modified, 
                               Withdrawn

  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I will withdraw these amendments.
  If the manager of the bill will permit me a hold somewhere in there, 
say, if we get the language worked out, then we can reoffer these 
amendments, referring to the section that he recommended in his opening 
statement.
  I appreciate the help of my good friend from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 2607 and 2608, as modified) were withdrawn.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Montana, we will work together to 
try to get this language modified. I guarantee the Senator he will have 
the opportunity to offer that at some point before we finish this bill.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2602

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2602.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President and colleagues, this is a simple 
reform amendment. We have done a lot of good in the farm bill--I thank 
the chairman, Senator Harkin--which I really think represents a reform 
measure. The energy section of the bill is very important, economic 
development, and the Conservation Security Act, and the list goes on.
  I think the amendment Senator Johnson offered--I was proud to offer 
it with him--on captive supply is extremely important. The country-of-
origin label is really important. Later in this debate, we will 
consider a payment limitation amendment that I am in favor of which 
would stop subsidizing the megafarms that have driven independent 
producers out of business.
  Part of the problem right now in the food industry is a few 
conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table exercising 
their raw economic and political power over independent producers, over 
taxpayers, and over consumers.
  This debate has made me a true conservative. I am interested in 
putting more free enterprise into the free enterprise system. I want 
more competition in the food industry and more competition in 
agriculture.
  If you support a payment limitation, you should certainly be in 
support of this amendment. This amendment is about stopping the flow of 
benefits to these large livestock conglomerates that over the years 
have been squeezing out the independent producers and that have also 
all too often represented an assault on the environment.
  The amendment is simple. It says we in the Congress should and will 
work to help alleviate the environmental and public health threat posed 
by existing large-scale animal factories. However, Congress should not 
be subsidizing the expansion of these large animal confinement 
operations.
  My colleagues should know that this amendment has broad support from 
both the farm and environmental community with groups such as the 
National Farmers Union, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense, 
Environmental Working Group, the Humane Society, the National Wildlife 
Federation, National Resources Defense Council, and the Sustainable Ag 
Coalition.
  Problem: Current law limits payments under the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program--we call it EQIP--to small- and medium-sized 
operations. Any operation with over 1,000 animal units is not now 
eligible for EQIP farms. Again, any operation with over 1,000 animal 
units is not now eligible for EQIP funds.
  For colleagues who are not from agricultural States, what does 1,000 
animal units mean? It means 1,143 cattle, 714

[[Page 719]]

dairy cows, 5,400 hogs, 454,545 boilers, and 66,667 turkeys.
  Unfortunately, the farm bill of the House of Representatives removes 
the 1,000 animal unit cap, opening millions of dollars to factory farms 
for managing their livestock waste. The House bill also raises the 
current payment limitation to $50,000 a year. The Senate Agriculture 
Committee's farm bill also eliminates the 1,000 animal unit cap and 
raises current payment limits to $50,000 per year.
  Over the last decade, there is little doubt and little debate that we 
have seen these large-scale animal factories proliferate across the 
Nation. These big operations have grown with little regard for 
environmental damage and public health threats rising from the huge 
amounts of animal waste generated by these operations. Many rural 
communities have seen drinking water supplies and recreational waters 
degraded. In some cases, neighboring property owners, including those 
who have lived in their communities for generations, have been driven 
from their homes as a result of the animal waste. Farmers and ranchers 
have joined with others in bringing legal action against these 
factories for the unbearable stench from millions of gallons of liquid 
animal feces and urine or tons of poultry waste for the degradation of 
surface and ground water.
  This is an environmental amendment, but it is more than that. 
Additionally, the expansion of these factory farms has, in large part, 
led to the disruption of family farms. Across America you see this 
concentration of livestock production into fewer and larger industrial 
operations taking over, driving out the small businesses.
  I am saying that these large operations can right now get technical 
assistance. They can receive EQIP money with no problem whatsoever.
  But what I am saying is they want to expand. Later in the Chamber we 
are going to be talking about this again. If they want to expand, they 
will be receiving more Government money. The Government ought not be in 
the business of promoting this expansion by giving money to these large 
conglomerates which quite often are destructive of the environment and 
destructive of what is good for consumers and are driving independent 
producers out of business.
  Again, Senators, I will repeat what I said earlier. There is going to 
be a payment limitation amendment on the floor. Anyone who is for that 
certainly ought to be supportive of this amendment.
  It is very simple. My amendment is simple. It says new or expanding 
large-scale animal factories shall not be eligible to receive cost-
share funds under the EQIP program for animal waste structures. 
Existing large animal operations would continue to be eligible.
  That is a very important point for EQIP assistance. Let me be crystal 
clear about that. Let me also say that there has been language added in 
consultation with both the majority and the minority committee staff to 
my amendment to clarify the point that adoption of new technologies 
does not, absent expansion of capacity, trigger new or expanding 
provisions. You can always add technology. It is not a problem. We are 
not talking about new technology. We are talking about the actual 
expansion of these operations.
  Another point: What you have going on with these CAFOs is some of 
these big conglomerates don't own just one but there is multiple 
ownership.
  What I am simply saying is to let us do something but let us do 
something for the family farmers. Let us not oversubsidize corporate 
operations that own multiple CAFOs around the country. Some of the 
biggest hog producers in the United States are these large corporations 
that own 10, 15, or 20 CAFOs.
  My amendment says if you own more than one CAFO, you don't get any 
taxpayer subsidy. I am sick and tired of this taxpayer subsidy in 
inverse relationship to need in agriculture. By the way, so are 
consumers, so are taxpayers, and so are the citizens we represent.
  Finally, this amendment also disqualifies funds for construction of 
new livestock waste facilities located in a 100-year floodplain. That 
is a no-brainer. I don't I think even need to explain it.
  But I do want to point out that this revised amendment would allow 
livestock operations to expand up to 1,000 animal units, even if they 
are in a 100-year floodplain, but would retain the restriction on 
establishing new facilities in the floodplain.
  Colleagues, I have already made it clear that the payment goes not 
from 10 to 50 but 10 to 30. So we increase the payment.
  I have also made the case that for those who say we ought to be 
targeting the assistance, we ought not to have this largess going out 
to the largest conglomerates, we ought not be using taxpayer money for 
subsidizing environmental degradation, we ought to be getting this to 
the independent producers, this amendment is a dream for you.
  If we do not pass this amendment, you are going to have editorials, 
and I am sure there will be a Web site somewhere that is going to track 
these CAFO payments and reveal just how these integrators and 
corporations are receiving them. Frankly, the reason for that is 
Congress just gave it away.
  This is a reform amendment. I urge my colleagues not to go down this 
road again. I urge my colleagues to retain some degree of 
reasonableness on the payment limit issue.
  For those who support reform on the crop side, we should support this 
measure. If we don't pass this amendment, we will see the same abuses 
in the EQIP program as we have seen under the commodity programs with 
all of the money going to the very biggest of the operators. Let us 
make sure that the small and midsize producers are the ones that get 
the help. Let's make sure they have access to environmental quality 
incentive payments. Let's not open the floodgates wide to take care of 
the full costs of any operation no matter how large it is and no matter 
its environmental degradation.
  I simply say the limits in my amendment are triple the size in 
current law and nearly 10 times larger than the current average 
payments. It is reasonable. I urge your support.
  This is a reform amendment for agriculture. It should be adopted.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time does the Senator from 
Minnesota have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask the Senator if he will yield me a 
couple minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, absolutely. I am very proud to have 
the support of the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, during the 1996 farm bill debate, I 
successfully offered an amendment to limit cost-share funding under 
EQIP for large confined animal feeding operations, which is present 
law.
  I offered that amendment because of the special environmental 
concerns associated with these large operations. Again, let's keep in 
mind, as the Senator from Minnesota said, these are large CAFOs, 
operations larger than 1,000 animal units. That is 4,000 head of veal, 
or 5,400 head of swine, with an average weight of 185 pounds. So, 
again, we are talking about pretty large operations.
  I believe we need to help producers comply or avoid the need for 
regulations. I believe we should provide cost-share funds to these 
CAFOs to build structures that will contain waste to protect and 
improve water quality, and to protect the quality of the environment.
  However, as the Senator from Minnesota has said, EQIP was never 
designed to subsidize expansion of livestock operations.
  The underlying bill allows for the use of cost-share funds for 
existing and expanding CAFOs. This amendment, as I understand it, does 
not prevent the use of funds for existing CAFOs but prohibits cost-
share funding for new or expanding CAFOs; that is, operations

[[Page 720]]

over 1,000 animal units, but with several exceptions like for 
operations that expand using innovative technologies.
  So this amendment still allows cost-share funding for existing and 
smaller facilities but does not subsidize growth of the very largest 
livestock operations that are not yet in existence. Remember, it 
grandfathers the ones that are already large. That is, the existing 
CAFOs are not limited or excluded.
  I believe this amendment is consistent with the underlying bill. It 
still helps all livestock producers now in operation. But, as the 
Senator said, we should not be in the business of subsidizing for 
further expansion. I do support the amendment and hope that it is 
adopted.
  I thank the Senator for yielding me time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cleland). Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally to both 
sides.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is informed we are 
not in a quorum call.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes of the opposition's time.
  Mr. President, I will not, in fact, oppose the Wellstone amendment 
because it appears to me to be consistent with the legislation that is 
before us with some modification with regard to expansion. But I want 
to take this time to try to indicate the logic for my views on this in 
view of an amendment I will be offering tomorrow that is obviously a 
great deal more restrictive than the Wellstone amendment today or, in 
fact, payment limitation amendments that will be offered by 
distinguished colleagues.
  Essentially, tomorrow, I am going to offer an amendment that would 
displace the entire commodities section of the bill and substitute for 
that a system of payments to farmers in this country that has basic, 
fairly simple elements, unlike the present system in which 60 percent 
of farmers do not receive subsidies, which includes, in most cases, 
farmers who are purely in the livestock business, as well as those who 
are involved in vegetables and fruits and various other agricultural 
products that do not have row crop situations.
  In the current situation, 40 percent of farmers receive money, and in 
that group about two-thirds of the money goes to 10 percent of the 
farmers. As I have mentioned earlier today, using arithmetic, this 
reduces to 4 percent the number of farmers--principally, those in the 
five row crops: cotton, rice, soybeans, corn, and wheat--receiving two-
thirds of the money.
  I want to end all of that and, as a matter of fact, now consider 
every farm in America that has $20,000 of revenue. I select that figure 
because that at least denotes, in much agricultural literature, a farm 
that is a serious farming effort as opposed to a hobby farm or someone 
who is involved in incidental planting.
  In America, there are about 800,000 farms that have $20,000 of 
income--farm entities that would meet that criteria. In some of these 
cases, these farms have an owner and those who are doing the farming 
and they share the risk. So both of those would count for a farm entity 
provided the amount of revenue coming into the farm meets my criteria.
  Essentially, under my plan, each of these 800,000-plus farm entities 
in the country would receive $7,000 a year for the 4 years starting 
with fiscal year 2003. That means 100 percent of farms--not 40 
percent--would receive money. That would be the safety net, the 
cashflow, the money that we have often talked about as saving the small 
family farmer and keeping everybody alive.
  But it also means farmers who are now receiving hundreds of thousands 
of dollars a year would, in fact, receive $7,000. We would finally come 
back to market economics in terms of what we plant. We would come back 
to a situation which is clearly competitive in the world trade 
situation without danger of running into retaliation for trade 
practices which I believe the legislation in front of us now brings us 
to.
  We would end the bubble effect of agricultural land being priced 
beyond that which the young farmer has any hope of meeting.
  We would meet the situation of 42 percent of farmers who rent as 
opposed to own and do not benefit from our farm program that escalates 
land values artificially.
  In short, we turn around a bill which I believe has very unfortunate 
implications for the future in agriculture to one of equity. And we do 
so for tens of billions of dollars less than the moneys that are now 
talked about in this farm bill.
  That, I believe, is important for each one of us who wants to reduce 
deficits, who wants to take less money from the Social Security 
account, who wants to at least make possible some type of forum in 
which we might talk about medical reform and other issues that are 
important to the American people.
  For that reason, because I am going to present that kind of an idea, 
I do not plan to oppose the Wellstone amendment which in fact does have 
some modest limitations in the livestock area. My amendment and others 
that deal with payment limitation really pertain principally to the CCC 
payment, commodity payments. It would be inconsistent to support that 
kind of limitation and to find that it occurred, only to find that in 
another part of agriculture people were able to proceed without 
restraint and sometimes in ways which the Senator from Minnesota has 
pointed out are environmentally destructive.
  For these reasons, my own view is that the legislation that we now 
have before us in this area is in fact reform and is important. And the 
distinctions made by the Senator from Minnesota are there, but they are 
not large. Therefore, I do not plan to oppose the legislation, but I 
did want to explain why I took that point of view and at least the 
logic of my own position in view of an amendment which will be before 
Senators tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the other side wants to yield back 
time, I will.
  I thank the Senator from Indiana for his intellectual integrity. The 
argument he made, if I understood--and I do not want to at all 
misconstrue his point--was that he will not oppose this amendment 
because that would be inconsistent with his very strong focus on 
payment limitation. I am thrilled because I very much want to pass this 
amendment. I think it is the right thing to do.
  If the other side wants to yield back its time, I will as well. We 
can move forward.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I know of no other Senator who wishes to 
speak in opposition. And having called for such and not finding the 
same, I am prepared to yield back. Let me ask, however, for just a 
moment to make sure, as we check our cloakroom, that there is not 
someone who wants to speak and who will be precluded from doing so. For 
that reason, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes of the opposition 
time to the distinguished Senator from Iowa and 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota. I certainly 
commend the Senator's role of reversing the trend towards larger farms 
and greater concentration in agriculture. I have been pleased to work 
with Senator

[[Page 721]]

Wellstone to address a number of concerns related to concentration and 
consolidation in the agricultural industry. Most recently we worked 
together to secure passage of the bipartisan amendment to address 
vertical integration by limiting packer control over livestock.
  While the Senator from Minnesota and I share the goal of reversing 
that, I am concerned that this amendment would fall short of that goal. 
In short, Senator Wellstone's amendment would have the detrimental 
effect on many midsize family farmers who are struggling to comply with 
stringent new environmental regulations by slashing the amount of 
funding available to make responsible environmental improvements in 
rural areas.
  The reason I take some caution in addressing opposition to his 
amendment is that I complimented the Senator from Minnesota, as we were 
debating this bill in December, that he was going to offer this 
amendment. But when I held meetings in my State of Iowa during the 
month of January--I held several town meetings just on the farm bill-- 
I had this concern from people who are strictly family farmers who came 
to my meetings. They were very concerned about the CAFO regulations 
that they have to meet and the fact that if they have to meet those, 
they may not be able to stay in livestock. They did find EQIP 
provisions in the original farm bill to be helpful to meet those 
requirements so they could stay in agriculture.
  So I changed my mind, I need to tell the Senator from Minnesota. I 
say it apologetically, in the sense that I had encouraged him in the 
first instance. I think these stringent, new regulations proposed by 
EPA are meant to get help from the provisions of this farm bill in 
addressing water pollution from livestock operations. According to 
EPA's own estimate, the new regulations could cost producers from 
$280,000 to $2.4 million over 10 years.
  While the goals of the new regulations are certainly commendable, we 
obviously have to take the financial costs of the regulations into 
consideration. I drew the conclusion, after my meetings in January, 
that it was too much for many family farmers to absorb.
  Recognizing the dire situation of these farmers, last year the Senate 
supported the amendment I offered to the budget resolution to increase 
EQIP funding by $350 million in each of the next 10 years. This 
important funding will provide cost-sharing assistance to family 
farmers to help them comply with the new CAFO regulations.
  The Wellstone amendment would significantly reduce the level of EQIP 
funding available to family farmers. According to EPA estimates, over 
1,000 livestock operations in Iowa would be ineligible for EQIP funds.
  Mr. President, again, I am in opposition to the amendment offered by 
my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota. Let me first say that I 
certainly commend the Senator's goal of reversing the trend toward 
larger farms and greater concentration in agriculture. I have been 
pleased to work with Senator Wellstone to address a number of concerns 
related to concentration and consolidation in the agriculture industry. 
Most recently, we worked together to secure passage of a bipartisan 
amendment to address vertical integration by limiting packer control 
over livestock.
  While the Senator from Minnesota and I share the goal of reversing 
concentration, I am concerned that this amendment falls far short of 
that goal. In short, the Senator's amendment would have a detrimental 
effect on many of my state's mid-sized family farmers who are 
struggling to comply with stringent new environmental regulations by 
slashing the amount of funding available to make responsible 
environmental improvements in rural areas.
  Mr. President, the future prosperity of Iowa's family farmers, and 
farmers across this nation, is currently threatened by stringent new 
regulations proposed by the EPA aimed at addressing water pollution 
from livestock operations. According to EPA's own estimates, the new 
regulations could cost producers from $280,000 to $2.4 million over the 
next ten years.
  While the goals of the new regulations are certainly commendable, the 
financial costs of these regulations will simply be too much for many 
family farmers to absorb.
  Recognizing the dire situation of these farmers, last year the Senate 
supported an amendment that I offered to the budget resolution to 
increase EQIP funding by $350 million in each of the next ten years. 
This important funding will provide cost-sharing assistance to family 
farmers to help them comply with these new regulations.
  The Wellstone amendment, however, would significantly reduce the 
level of EQIP funding available to family farmers. According to EPA 
estimates, over 1,000 livestock operations in Iowa would be ineligible 
for EQIP funds. Another 500 to 1,000 could be ineligible if they expand 
in order to remain competitive or to comply with the new rules by 
building new structures with new technologies.
  The bottom line is that if these family farmers are denied EQIP 
assistance, the result will be poorer management systems and practices, 
and the environment will suffer.
  The farm bill reported by the Agriculture Committee makes reasonable 
changes to the rules of the EQIP program by limiting eligibility by a 
simple and reasonable payment limit--not by the size of the operation. 
A payment limit puts livestock and poultry operations on an even 
footing with the program limits for row-crops.
  Without the technical and cost-sharing assistance provided by EQIP, 
many family farmers in my state will be forced out of business--leaving 
only the largest farms who can absorb the costs--and leading to even 
greater concentration in the industry. In this farm bill, we have made 
great strides toward reducing the level of concentration and vertical 
integration in agriculture. Unfortunately, this amendment would be a 
step backwards.
  Over 80 percent of Iowa's farms are individually or family-owned. 
It's these producers I have always sought to help. These are the people 
who produce our food and keep main streets in rural America in 
business. These are the farmers who depend on the assistance from the 
EQIP program. It is for these farmers that I will oppose this amendment 
and support a strong EQIP.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I inquire, Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I 
think what we really have to do, as in the case of other kinds of 
issues, is look at what it is we are seeking to do. If the purpose of 
this EQIP program--which, by the way, is used thoroughly in my State 
with a lot of good success--is to limit the environmental impact, or if 
it is to help with the technical information necessary for operators to 
do something about the impact of the CAFO regulations or those kinds of 
things--if you want to try to find a way to limit the size of farms and 
redistribute income, those are two different things.
  The purpose here is to find the most efficient way we can to deal 
with the most livestock out there putting the environment at risk, so 
we can do something about it, and to then provide it to those people 
who can have the most impact on doing something about the environment. 
That is what it is all about. It is not about trying to keep farmers 
smaller or having to do with size. There is a limitation under the law 
on how much money can go to any operator during the period of the life 
of the farm bill, over the 6-year period. So I think we may want to, 
obviously, do something about payments, total payments. That is a 
different question.
  The question here is, how do you best utilize the resources in an 
effort to help farmers and ranchers deal with the question of 
environment and, more particularly, to deal with the regulations that 
have been put in place for

[[Page 722]]

nonpoint source pollution, and the idea of having lots and corrals and 
feedlots along water supply sources. I think it is very important that 
we look at it in a broader sense. If EQIP cost-sharing assistance is 
not made available to operations with a thousand animal units or more, 
EQIP would fail to meet the needs of the producers managing more than 
half the livestock in the country.
  If you are trying to do something about the pollution problems and 
give help to people who are seeking to limit the livestock's 
involvement in pollution of water and nonpoint source waters, then I 
think this kind of a limitation is not in keeping with that purpose and 
indeed hinders that purpose. Like my friend from Iowa, I joined with 
the Senator from Minnesota on several amendments, and I certainly want 
to continue to do that. I just don't believe this amendment helps to 
accomplish the goals out there for the EQIP program. So I hope people 
will vote against this amendment so we can move on to accomplishing 
environmental solutions.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the farm bill before us recognizes the 
importance of environmental conservation in agriculture and provides 
funding for programs that support those measures. California livestock 
operations come in all sizes, but many of them are large operations 
requiring substantial environmental management activities. Access to 
programs that support environmental improvements is key to ensuring 
that the best environmental practices are undertaken on these farms.
  Senator Wellstone's amendment, which would limit access to 
conservation funding based on factors like the size of the farm, falls 
disproportionately hard on California farmers and would ultimately slow 
down environmental improvements. Limitations on these payments will not 
eliminate those farms, it will only limit support for conservation 
efforts that are so critically important in these operations. For those 
reasons, I must vote against the Wellstone amendment and support 
conservation funding for California farmers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, both my colleagues and good friends, 
the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Wyoming, break my heart. 
First of all, actually with this amendment, under current law, if you 
are over a thousand animal units, you don't get any EQIP money 
whatsoever. Under my amendment, if you are over a thousand animal 
units, you can get the money. We go from $10,000 to $30,000 a year. If 
you are over a thousand units, you can get money. You can't right now.
  We are saying that if you are under a thousand units and you want to 
expand to over a thousand, or you are over and you want to expand even 
further and you want to get bigger and bigger, at that point the 
Government ought not to be subsidizing this expansion.
  This is a reform amendment. This is consistent with those who are in 
support of payment limitations. This is ranked by the environmental 
community as a key environmental amendment because it is crazy for the 
Federal Government to be subsidizing this environmental destruction.
  I say to my colleague from Iowa, we are going to provide the money. 
Right now, under current law, if you are over a thousand animal units, 
you can't get EQIP money. Under this amendment, you can. If you want to 
expand it more and get bigger, at that point it is not appropriate for 
the Government to provide the payments. That is exactly what the 
Grassley amendment is going to say when it comes to payment 
limitations. It is exactly the same philosophy.
  This is a reform amendment. It is an environmental amendment. It is 
an amendment that is for our independent producers. If you look in your 
State and at your producers, the vast majority of them are helped by 
this amendment, as opposed to current law. The only thing this 
amendment says is, if you want to get bigger and expand even more, at 
that point, you are not going to get any more Government money. This is 
a reform amendment. It deserves support.
  I yield the floor, and if my colleagues want to yield back the 
remainder of their time, I will do so also.
  Mr. LUGAR. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen seconds.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. We are prepared to yield back that 
time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Thompson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from 
New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Biden
     Byrd
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--52

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Domenici
     Jeffords
     McCain
     Thompson
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 2604 to Amendment No. 2471

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2 
minutes evenly divided prior to the vote on the Harkin amendment.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment closes a loophole in the 
Packers and Stockyards Act by including livestock production contracts 
under its jurisdiction. It also provides livestock producers the 
ability to discuss the terms of the contract with certain people, such 
as their attorney, banker, landlord, and government agency charged with 
protecting a party to the contract. It does not say they have to but 
they are so allowed.
  Basically, since 1935, poultry producers have uncovered production 
contracts under the Packers and Stockyard Act but other livestock were 
not--for example, swine and cattle were not. But production contracts 
are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the establishment. Yet they 
are not covered under the Packers and Stockyards Act.
  The two largest farm organizations, the American Farm Bureau 
Federation and the National Farmers Unions, as well as dozens of other 
farm groups, support this amendment. It does not create any regulatory 
burden.
  As I said, we have had this provision under the Packers and 
Stockyards Act since 1935. If we can help Dairy Queen franchisees and 
gasoline franchisees, and if the poultry people have lived under this 
since 1935, I think it is time we give the cattle producers and the

[[Page 723]]

pork producers in this country the same kind of protections under the 
Packers and Stockyards Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I oppose the Harkin amendment on the basis 
that it is likely to confuse interpretation of the contract issue. It 
is a narrow issue we are discussing. The amendment offered by the 
distinguished chairman of the committee is a narrow issue. On balance, 
it appears to me to be unnecessary and redundant.
  It is opposed by a host of livestock and poultry organizations for 
those reasons. I cited a letter from many of them with regard to a 
number of competitive issues that are in the bill, and this one in 
particular.
  For these reasons, I suggest a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for all Members, this will be the last vote 
of the day. We have an agreement tentatively worked out that is being 
cleared by both sides that there will be debate on an amendment offered 
by Senator Durbin tonight. There will be a second-degree amendment 
offered by Senator Gramm of Texas on that amendment tonight or in the 
morning. I think Members can expect a rollcall vote around 10 or 10:30 
in the morning, after which there will be two amendments that will take 
approximately 4 hours. There will be a vote after each one of those. So 
we have until 3 or so tomorrow afternoon already tentatively worked out 
on this bill.
  We also are going to try to work out a finite list of amendments. The 
minority and majority staffs are now working to whittle that down. It 
is down now, even as we speak, to a fairly small number of amendments. 
So hopefully there is some end in sight for this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
No. 2604, as modified. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Thompson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from 
New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

                                YEAS--82

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--14

     Allen
     Biden
     Campbell
     Carper
     Cochran
     Craig
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Domenici
     Jeffords
     McCain
     Thompson
  The amendment (No. 2604), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: For the benefit of 
all Senators, what is next on the agenda under the unanimous consent 
agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That particular unanimous consent agreement 
has run its course.
  Mr. REID. I did not hear the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That particular unanimous consent agreement 
has run its course. The pending question is now the Harkin substitute.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin 
be recognized now to offer a Durbin-Lugar amendment, as modified, 
regarding cropping history and nutrition, with 60 minutes for debate in 
relation to the amendment this evening, equally divided in the usual 
form, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the 
amendment; further, that when the Senate resumes consideration of the 
farm bill at 10 a.m., on Thursday, there be 5 minutes for closing 
debate in relation to the Durbin-Lugar amendment, followed by a vote in 
relation to the amendment; further, that following the vote, regardless 
of the outcome, Senator Dorgan, for himself and Senator Grassley, be 
recognized to offer an amendment regarding payment limitation; that 
there be 105 minutes for debate in relation to this amendment, equally 
divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, 
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Dorgan-Grassley 
amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote; 
further, that following the vote, regardless of the outcome, Senator 
Lugar be recognized to offer an amendment regarding payment mechanism, 
that there be 2 hours for debate, equally divided in the usual form, 
with no second-degree amendments in order prior to a vote on the Lugar 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Record should be clear that on the Lugar 
amendment, the unanimous consent agreement should read: ``On or in 
relation to the Lugar amendment,'' rather than ``on the Lugar 
amendment.'' I ask unanimous consent for that modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I advise all Members, we are trying to work on a finite 
list of amendments. We are whittling ours down significantly. The staff 
is going to exchange those shortly. Maybe tonight we can enter into an 
agreement as to a finite list of amendments on both sides.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for his unanimous consent request he 
propounded. I do not believe I am going to use the 30 minutes allotted 
to me, but I would like to have the opportunity to yield, during the 
course of that time, to the Senator from Michigan, who has asked for a 
brief period of time to speak.
  If there is no objection, I would like to have that included in the 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. REID. It is certainly appropriate. The Senator has been waiting 
all afternoon to make this statement. She can do so whenever it is 
appropriate.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, it is my understanding that 
Senators Durbin and Lugar have worked out their modification on this 
amendment.
  Is that right?
  Mr. DURBIN. Responding to the Senator from Nevada, Senator Gramm is 
working on language which is coming during the course of this debate. I 
have

[[Page 724]]

agreed to accept his second-degree amendment, and I will speak to it 
during the course of my remarks.
  Mr. REID. If, for some reason, you cannot work this out, we would 
have to come back later and revisit this.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is correct.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, may I respond briefly to the leader's 
comment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. My understanding, as Senator Durbin has represented it, is 
that Senator Gramm has offered language that has been accepted. The 
language is being written even as we speak. The presumption is that it 
will be acceptable. In the event, for some reason, it should not be, 
then, at that point--I suppose tomorrow morning--we would have to deal 
with a second-degree amendment. But, obviously, we hope we have dealt 
with it this evening. And I believe we have.
  On a second point, I understand staff will be working--even as we 
debate this amendment--on the overall list. There has not been 
agreement, as I understand it, but, nevertheless, constructive work has 
occurred in defining the issues that still remain.
  Mr. REID. I am confident that Senator Gramm of Texas and Senator 
Durbin will work this out. They have already agreed. You always have to 
be careful when people start putting things in writing; there could be 
a problem.
  I say to the distinguished manager of the bill, the senior Senator 
from Indiana, in his usual, deliberate manner, with the background of 
being a Rhodes scholar, he has explained it better than I did.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Indiana yield?
  Since I have not seen the language from Senator Gramm, and I want to 
have a chance to reflect on it this evening, could we leave open the 
possibility, if there is any disagreement--I want to make it clear on 
the floor, I will protect Senator Gramm's right to offer and debate the 
second-degree amendment without any objection-- then I would have a 
chance, after his second-degree amendment has been considered, to offer 
my amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. That is our understanding.
  Mr. DURBIN. Any disagreement would have to be reflected on the 
contents.


                           Amendment No. 2821

  Mr. DURBIN. 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 Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr. 
     Lugar, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Graham, Mr. Wellstone, 
     Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Smith of Oregon, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2821.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To restrict commodity and crop insurance payments to land 
that has a cropping history and to restore food stamp benefits to legal 
  immigrants who have lived in the United States for 5 years or more)

       On page 128, line 8, strike the period at the end and 
     insert a period and the following:

     SEC. 166. RESTRICTION OF COMMODITY AND CROP INSURANCE 
                   PAYMENTS, LOANS, AND BENEFITS TO PREVIOUSLY 
                   CROPPED LAND; FOOD STAMP PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 
                   QUALIFIED ALIENS.

       (a) Restriction of Commodity and Crop Insurance Payments, 
     Loans, and Benefits to Previously Cropped Land.--Section 194 
     of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
     (Public Law 104-127; 110 Stat. 945) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 194. RESTRICTION OF COMMODITY AND CROP INSURANCE 
                   PAYMENTS, LOANS, AND BENEFITS TO PREVIOUSLY 
                   CROPPED LAND.

       ``(a) Definition of Agricultural Commodity.--In this 
     section:
       ``(1) In general.--The term `agricultural commodity' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 102 of the Agricultural 
     Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602).
       ``(2) Exclusions.--The term `agricultural commodity' does 
     not include forage, livestock, timber, forest products, or 
     hay.
       ``(b) Commodities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall not provide a crop payment, crop loan, or 
     other crop benefit under this title to an owner or producer, 
     with respect to an agricultural commodity produced on land 
     during a crop year unless the land has been planted, 
     considered planted, or devoted to an agricultural commodity 
     during --
       ``(A) at least 1 of the 5 crop years preceding the 2002 
     crop year; or
       ``(B) at least 3 of the 10 crop years preceding the 2002 
     crop year.
       ``(2) Crop rotation.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an 
     owner or producer, with respect to any agricultural commodity 
     planted or considered planted, on land if the land--
       ``(A) has been planted, considered planted, or devoted to 
     an agricultural commodity during at least 1 of the 20 crop 
     years preceding the 2002 crop year; and
       ``(B) has been maintained, and will continue to be 
     maintained, using long-term crop rotation practices, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Crop Insurance.--Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Corporation shall not pay premium 
     subsidies or administrative costs of a reinsured company for 
     insurance regarding a crop insurance policy of a producer 
     under that Act unless the land that is covered by the 
     insurance policy for an agricultural commodity--
       ``(1) has been planted, considered planted, or devoted to 
     an agricultural commodity during--
       ``(A) at least 1 of the 5 crop years preceding the 2002 
     crop year; or
       ``(B) at least 3 of the 10 crop years preceding the 2002 
     crop year; or
       ``(2)(A) has been planted, considered planted, or devoted 
     to an agricultural commodity during at least 1 of the 20 crop 
     years preceding the 2002 crop year; and
       ``(B) has been maintained, and will continue to be 
     maintained, using long-term crop rotation practices, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(d) Conservation Reserve Land.--For purposes of this 
     section, land that is enrolled in the conservation reserve 
     program established under subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C.3831 et seq.) shall be considered planted to an 
     agricultural commodity.
       ``(e) Land Under the Jurisdiction of an Indian Tribe.--For 
     purposes of this section, land that is under the jurisdiction 
     of an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b)) shall be considered planted to an agricultural 
     commodity if--
       ``(1) the land is planted to an agricultural commodity 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection as part of an 
     irrigation project that--
       ``(A) is authorized by the Bureau of Reclamation or the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
       ``(B) is under construction prior to the date of enactment 
     of this subsection; or
       ``(2) the land becomes available for planting because of a 
     settlement or statutory authorization of a water rights claim 
     by an Indian tribe after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Partial Restoration of Benefits to Legal Immigrants.--
     Section 403(c)(2)(L) of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1613(c)(2)(L)) (as amended by section 452(a)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by inserting ``provided to individuals under the age 
     of 18'' after ``benefits''.
       (c) Food Stamp Exception for Certain Qualified Aliens.--
       (1) In general.--Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) (as amended by section 452(c)(2)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(M) Food stamp exception for certain qualified aliens.--
     With respect to eligibility for benefits for the specified 
     Federal program described in paragraph (3)(B), paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to any individual who has continuously 
     resided in the United States as a qualified alien for a 
     period of 5 years or more beginning on the date on which the 
     qualified alien entered the United States.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     takes effect on April 1, 2003.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who are cosponsoring 
this amendment, Senators Harkin and Lugar, who come to this floor in 
their capacities as chair and ranking member of the Agriculture 
Committee, both of whom have joined me in cosponsorship of this 
amendment, together with several of my other colleagues.
  What we are trying to do in this amendment is twofold. In the first 
instance, we are trying to avoid overproduction on farmland in America 
that would be encouraged by the farm bill--not by the market, not by 
any other consideration. We don't want to create a farm bill which 
pushes farmers into overproduction, bringing prices

[[Page 725]]

down. What we are trying to do is to increase production but only in a 
way that is at a price level, a cost level so that a farmer can make a 
fair living. And so we are trying with this amendment to protect from 
that possibility.
  The second part of the amendment sounds so totally unrelated, people 
may wonder why it is in the farm bill. The second part relates to the 
Food Stamp Program. If my colleagues are aware of the Department of 
Agriculture, they know that it administers the Food Stamp Program. A 
decision was made some years ago--I will address it in my remarks--that 
those who are legal immigrants to the United States would not qualify 
for food stamps. On reflection, we have seen that the victims of that 
policy have primarily been poor children in America. I am heartened by 
the fact that President Bush, in his budget message, has decided to 
change this policy. He has said that we will allow legal immigrants to 
receive food stamps. That is the right and humane thing to do. It is 
the right thing to do to make certain children are healthy. If we are 
going to have a strong Nation, we need healthy kids. So the second part 
of my amendment addresses the restoration of eligibility for food 
stamps for legal immigrants.
  Senator Gramm of Texas has his own opinion as to what we should 
include in the food stamp portion of the amendment. He is preparing 
that now. We have discussed it briefly. I will repeat what I said 
earlier: If the second-degree amendment that he has proposed ends up 
being something I cannot personally accept, I promise that I will 
protect his right to offer and debate that amendment and bring it to a 
vote before there is a vote on my amendment. So there will be no 
disadvantage to Senator Gramm, even if there is some disagreement in 
terms of the content of his amendment.
  Let me speak briefly to what my overall amendment does. This 
amendment has one basic purpose, and that is to provide a safety net 
for farmers without distorting the marketplace. Everybody in this 
debate on the farm bill wants to protect farmers. I hope we can agree 
that we don't want to do it at the expense of the supply and demand 
laws which govern our economy.
  This amendment will help to meet both goals. It simply states: Crop 
support payments will not be made for crops that are grown on land that 
is not already being used for agricultural production. It only applies 
to land that has not been cropped even 1 year in the past 5 years or 3 
years in the past 10. So if I am a farmer in downstate Illinois and I 
have acreage that has not been used for agricultural production, even 1 
year out of the last 5 or 3 out of the last 10, I cannot bring that 
into the program and say: Now that you have a farm bill that may 
compensate me, I am going to produce on this land and I am going to get 
payments from the Federal Government.
  That land was taken out of production for market reasons or other 
reasons. And we believe that no farm bill should drag it back into 
production.
  If I am a farmer, though, and want to produce on the land, that is my 
right; I own the land. But I can't go to the Federal Government, having 
made that decision, if I haven't put a crop on that land for 1 out of 5 
years, 3 out of 10 to support this effort.
  I yield to the Senator from Michigan.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Stabenow are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. DURBIN. My goal is to make certain that farmers make decisions 
based on the marketplace, not based on the farm bill, particularly when 
it comes to that land that has not been in production. That is what 
this amendment seeks to achieve.
  It is in no way a restriction on a farmer's freedom. A farmer is 
still free to plant any new ground he wishes. What we are talking about 
is eligibility for Federal payments. The amendment uses an extremely 
broad definition of agricultural commodity. Farmers can switch crops on 
land and, despite that switching of crops, not lose eligibility under 
this amendment. That is only fair because in many good farming 
practices, that is done on a regular basis. It allows long-term crop 
rotation, permits an exception for that. There are some lands primarily 
used for hay but that may be cropped 1 or 2 years between hay 
plantings. This amendment would not deny support payments to the crops 
during that period. However, it is intended to be a narrow amendment, 
only for those who can demonstrate that they have both established and 
are maintaining such long-term rotation.
  The amendment does not interfere with the CRP program in any way. The 
Conservation Reserve Program is an important program. It conserves 
America's natural resources. This amendment simply provides that when 
farmers decide to plant on new ground, they will do it because of the 
market, not because of Government subsidy.
  Prior to the 1996 farm bill, the farm policy of our country 
recognized that our support programs could drive up supply. So for 
decades, farm policy attempted to limit subsidies in one form or 
another.
  This was done through various definitions of base acres. I remember 
as a Member of Congress for many years in the House, and now in the 
Senate, dealing with farmers who were trying to establish their base 
acreage and qualifications eligibility for Government payment. In 1996, 
Congress did away with all these rules on the theory that it was going 
to phase out support payments.
  We now know that, at least today, we can't phase out support payments 
without jeopardizing our farms. However, we need to be careful that we 
don't inadvertently encourage farming of new land when market 
conditions don't warrant it.
  In essence, under prior farm policy, support payments had a foot on 
the pedal driving new production, but also with a foot on the brake. 
New policy, as currently envisioned, fails to add in the brake. That is 
what this amendment does.
  This amendment will not reinstate it completely, but it will ease up 
on the pedal. The farmers can still drive themselves into new cropland, 
but the Government would no longer drive them there.
  What is the environmental impact of this amendment? The facts show 
that this amendment is needed. According to the USDA, the United States 
lost 22 million acres of grassland between 1982 and 1997. The vast 
majority of that became new croplands.
  This occurred even while the Federal Government was laying out 
roughly $30 billion over the same period to take more than 30 million 
acres of cropland from production through the Conservation Reserve 
Program, the twofold purpose of which was to increase conservation 
efforts and limit supplies so as to boost prices.
  What this means is that while our Government was trying to limit 
supplies in order to boost prices on the one hand, it was effectively 
encouraging farmers to convert new land into cropland on the other. 
This has undoubtedly contributed to the current situation in which 
farmers have faced record low prices in recent years.
  This loss of grassland as an environmental impact throughout the 
country contributed to the decline of many bird species that nest in 
grasslands. Grassland birds as a whole are the most threatened category 
of birds in our country. This amendment makes environmental sense as 
well as economic sense.
  This amendment has the added benefit of saving money. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Durbin amendment would 
reduce crop overproduction which will result in $1.4 billion in savings 
over the next 10 years.
  Let me tell you that the second half of the amendment takes the 
savings and uses it for the Food Stamp Program. The savings generated 
by this bill will further strengthen the nutrition title of this same 
farm bill. This is really a farm and nutrition bill. I think addressing 
the Food Stamp Program along with the farm program is appropriate 
because both are under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
Agriculture.
  Food stamps are a part of our Nation's first line of defense in 
America

[[Page 726]]

to protect families in a recession. Now, as we reauthorize the Food 
Stamp Program, we should make sure to effectively put into place 
protections against economic downturns.
  This farm bill passed by the Agriculture Committee makes some 
important changes in the Food Stamp program. I join in thanking the 
committee's ranking Republican for the hard work he has put into this 
section of the bill.
  Here is what my amendment does. It restores eligibility for the Food 
Stamp Program to legal immigrants who have lived in the United States 
for 5 years or longer. I will repeat, it restores eligibility for legal 
immigrants living in the United States for 5 years or longer.
  This amendment will be an addition to the immigrant restoration 
provisions already in the farm bill, including the immediate 
restoration of eligibility to all poor children. I salute Senators 
Lugar and Harkin for that provision. I will not go into a long story 
about how important immigrants have been to the United States. Suffice 
it to say that my mother was an immigrant to this country. I am proud 
of that fact, and I am happy to be a first-generation American and to 
have this chance to serve as a Senator from the State of Illinois. I 
keep in my office, very near my desk, the framed copy of my mother's 
naturalization certificate. I am very proud of it. I look at it every 
day as a reminder of my family and a reminder of from where I came. I 
think it is a reminder to all of America how many of us are close to 
new immigrants in this country.
  At the turn of the century, many of our relatives arrived from all 
over the world. They were poor and didn't speak the language, and they 
came looking for a better life. At that time, survival meant sending 
all members of the family to work. Young children worked in factories 
and sweatshops instead of going to school.
  Eventually, we realized that families should not have to send their 
7-year-old to work just to be able to put food on the table. Jane 
Addams of Illinois, quite a well-known figure in Chicago with her 
settlement houses, was one of the great American social reformers. She 
inspired us to lobby for child labor laws because of her experiences 
with the working men, women, and children in the immigrant 
neighborhoods of the city of Chicago.
  Those arriving in the United States today are no different than our 
great grandparents. And we continue to rely on immigrants to fill jobs 
at all levels of the workforce.
  Legal immigrants here not only work, they pay taxes. The National 
Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council conducted studies 
that show that, overall, immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in 
government benefits.
  Allow me to digress and tell you that a little over 2 weeks ago I was 
at an air base near Kabul in Afghanistan. I ran into a soldier from 
Illinois. He told me of his high school in the suburbs of the city of 
Chicago, and he said: When I get through with my Army experience here, 
can I come to your office and will you help me to apply to become a 
citizen? He is a member of the U.S. Army, a soldier risking his life 
fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, but he is from Panama. He is legal 
here, and he volunteered to serve this Nation, but he is not a citizen. 
I said of course I would help him. He is a legal immigrant to America 
who would be denied, under many circumstances, food stamps. Yet he has 
volunteered and is serving our Nation in uniform. How do you make any 
sense out of that kind of policy? This amendment tries to do that. It 
says immigrant families with children, who tend to have lower income 
levels than native-born families with children, need a helping hand 
with food stamps.
  Most low-income children of immigrants live in working families with 
two parents who are married. The vast majority of legal immigrants are 
not permitted to receive food stamp benefits.
  In 1996, as a result of changes in the law, the Physicians for Human 
Rights interviewed 700 legal immigrant families and found that adults 
in one out of three households had skipped meals in the previous 6 
months. One in ten recalled missing a meal, not being able to eat for 
at least a whole day. One in four reported cutting the size of a 
child's meals due to inadequate resources.
  The Urban Institute reports that, nationwide, 37 percent of all 
children of immigrants live in families that worry about providing food 
for the table. In California, Illinois, and Texas, legal immigrants' 
food insecurity rates were seven times worse than the general 
population in our country.
  These harsh eligibility rules today translate into future citizens 
not getting the benefits for which they are eligible. The vast majority 
of immigrant families are mixed-status families that include at least 
one U.S. citizen. That citizen is typically a child. When legal 
immigrant parents are not aware that their children are eligible for 
food stamps, the kids don't get enough to eat.
  Participation in the Food Stamp Program among children with legal 
permanent resident parents dropped 40 percent from 1994 to 1999, 
without a corresponding decrease in need.
  Can America be a better place if these children who are legally in 
the United States don't receive the proper nutrition? If they suffer 
disease and illness, if they are not prepared to learn, and if they 
come to a classroom and can't stay awake and are listless because of 
not having enough to eat, how can we be a better Nation?
  Since 1996, many States have worked to pick up the slack. Seventeen 
States, including mine, provide State-funded food stamps to some or all 
legal immigrants who are ineligible for the Food Stamp Program--because 
of the changes in the law. In most of the States, eligibility is 
limited to very narrow categories of immigrants.
  On Monday, President Bush released his fiscal year 2003 budget 
proposal. I am certain there will be many items I will disagree with in 
that proposal. But I congratulate him for including a restoration of 
benefits for legal immigrants identical to that in my amendment.
  When this provision was first made public in January, a senior 
administration official was quoted as saying:

       We believe this will go a long way to meeting the needs of 
     children and adults who need additional benefits. It will 
     allow them to have access to nutritious food and will improve 
     their well-being.

  Applause to the President and to the White House. Congratulations for 
a good idea, a bipartisan idea.
  The author of this idea of limiting food stamps to legal immigrants 
was the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who was also the 
author of the Contract with America. He said this in the New York Times 
last month about that decision in 1996:

       In a law that reduced welfare by more than 50 percent, this 
     is one of the provisions that went too far. In retrospect, it 
     was wrong.

  Even Speaker Gingrich can have this epiphany and realize that a 
mistake was made. I acknowledge and congratulate him for publicly 
saying this and saying why this amendment is so important.
  What we have learned from the 1996 cuts is that making food stamp 
benefits available to legal immigrants doesn't open the floodgates at 
our borders. The average food stamp benefit is $74 a person monthly--
not exactly a fortune. It is difficult to imagine families flocking to 
the United States because they could be eligible for food stamps if 
they just wait legally for 5 years.
  Food stamps do not bring families to the United States who would not 
otherwise come here. It is a vital support for low-income families.
  This amendment is a bipartisan opportunity to support farmers 
throughout America with a sensible limitation so there will not be 
overproduction, and to take the savings from that limitation to provide 
food for needy children of legal immigrant families.
  This is a bipartisan amendment. It is one that does the right thing. 
I am pleased my colleagues, Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin, and 
President Bush have joined in supporting this concept. I hope all my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote in favor of this 
amendment.

[[Page 727]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Senator from Illinois if he has 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am honored to be a cosponsor of the 
Durbin amendment which makes legal immigrants who have lived in this 
country 5 years eligible for food stamps.
  My colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, has been a strong advocate 
as well, and a number of Senators voted for Senator Lugar's amendments 
which work to improve the nutrition programs.
  First a disclaimer. On this whole question of illegal immigrants, we 
are all products of our personal experience. I remember during the 
debate on the welfare bill in 1996, one of the things I said was that 
to vote for the bill would be to me like cutting off my hand because I 
am a son of immigrants. I am first-generation American. My father fled 
persecution from Ukraine and Russia.
  The Senator from Illinois mentioned the former Speaker saying we went 
too far, and I felt that way. I had a number of objections; I never 
understood what we were doing. I thought it was too harsh, too 
punitive.
  Then in 1998, Congress restored some of the benefits to categories of 
immigrants. It was children, elderly, and disabled, but only if they 
were here prior to 1996.
  The Food Stamp Program is a critical safety net program and, by the 
way, an astounding success. This is a program that has made a huge 
difference.
  One of the problems is, even if the children are eligible and the 
parent or parents are not eligible, it does not work. Quite frankly, it 
does not work. One of the reasons we have seen this huge decline, which 
should concern us--since the bill passed, there has been maybe a 25- to 
35-percent decline in food stamp participation--is because of these 
cuts. Even when the children are supposed to be helped, if the parents 
are not eligible, they do not know about it, they do not know where to 
go, and they are not able to help their kids.
  This amendment is about helping a lot of people. Altogether, 360,000 
legal immigrants would be helped--men, women, some elderly, some middle 
aged, some children. It is the right thing to do. It corrects a huge 
injustice.
  I also give credit to the White House for taking a strong lead on 
this. I give credit to my colleagues, Senator Durbin and Senator Lugar, 
and I know Senator Harkin supports this effort. There is bipartisan, 
strong support.
  I wish to say one other thing which is a little bit different, and it 
is not inconsistent with what I just said but is interesting to me. 
This is a social justice amendment. I thank Senator Durbin for it. It 
is the right thing to do. It is extremely important to get this 
assistance to families who need this assistance.
  The other thing that has happened, as opposed to 1996--and I think of 
Minnesota--is in a way we have new politics in Minnesota and new 
politics in the country. The immigrant populations--my mother, father, 
and grandparents did this as well--are finding a voice. They are 
becoming active in their communities. They are becoming their own 
leaders. They are speaking for themselves. They are becoming a 
political force, and there is much more recognition of who they are, 
what their needs are, and how we can support them.
  There are so many activities going on in the country right now that 
are so important and positive for these immigrant communities.
  Unfortunately, in my opinion, these cuts were not the only harsh 
feature of the welfare bill, but this was one of them. This amendment 
improves on the Agriculture Committee's work. That work in the 
committee vastly improved on the mistakes we made in 1996. This is a 
hugely important amendment, and I am very proud to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, although I will speak in favor of the 
Durbin amendment, I note there are no Senators present who are prepared 
to speak in opposition to it. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be able to yield myself 30 minutes from the opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield myself as much time as I may require.
  Mr. President, I appreciate very much the advocacy of Senator Durbin 
in bringing forward this amendment. I believe he has rescued a 
situation that has been well described by my colleague, Senator 
Wellstone, a valued member of the Agriculture Committee, and Senator 
Harkin, our chairman.
  We worked together to try to provide a much stronger safety net for 
nutrition in this country. As it turned out, in some of our 
deliberations--and the distinguished Presiding Officer was there for 
those--there were many Senators who during that period of time 
questioned when we were going to get to the commodity section and what 
money would be left at the end of the trail as we dealt with very vital 
issues of community development, research, loans for young farmers--
many issues that have been resolved in a very strong bipartisan 
fashion.
  As a result, the amendments I offered at that time were a bridge too 
far. I have been rescued by Senator Durbin and by the President of the 
United States in a bipartisan way because as it now turns out, it may 
be possible through this amendment to find resources that, in fact, 
restore us to a situation we might have attained during our 
deliberations.
  Let me follow through on many of the arguments the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois has made. Simply, the amendment generally 
prohibits taxpayer-provided crop insurance and farm program benefits on 
acreage which has not been cropped at least once in the last 5 years or 
3 of the last 10 years from the time of the enactment of the farm bill.
  Exceptions to this general prohibition are made for acreage idle in 
the Conservation Reserve Program. That has been a major objective of 
the committee and the Senate and for long-term crop rotations as 
determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.
  The amendment does not change the structure of farm commodity 
programs as they have been designed in the underlying bill.
  The bill would still have higher marketing loan rates, a new 
commodity-specific countercyclical payment program for major crops, and 
all the other commodity provisions we previously discussed.
  As I mentioned earlier in the debate this afternoon, I will be 
offering an amendment tomorrow that will radically change the whole 
commodity payment system, but this amendment does not. It is benign 
with regard to everything that has preceded and should be debated on 
its own merits.
  In this respect, the Durbin amendment offers much less commodity 
title reform than I would like, and I admitted as much as a preview of 
what may be coming. Nevertheless, it makes an attempt to lessen the 
overproduction problem that will surely only worsen if we approve the 
underlying farm bill without change.
  The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Durbin amendment as 
saving $1.4 billion over 10 years in the commodity title of the 
underlying farm bill, and that is not an immodest saving. I appreciate 
and support my colleague's proposal to improve the Food Stamp Program 
with the savings, and his allocation of that, it seems to me, is highly 
merited.
  With the amendment, the Senate farm bill will now incorporate 
proposals I made originally and President Bush's budget proposal. It 
does both. The President and I are grateful to have found this 
partnership with Senator Durbin and with our distinguished

[[Page 728]]

chairman, Senator Harkin, as Senator Durbin mentioned. These new rules 
restore the extension of regular food stamp eligibility criteria to 
legal immigrants, and Senator Durbin has stressed that, as I do.
  A question has been raised in previous debates on food stamp 
eligibility, and let me be unambiguous. We are talking about legal 
immigrants who meet either a 5-year U.S. residency or 4-year work 
requirement. Those are fairly strong thresholds. Combining these with 
Senator Harkin's proposal to extend eligibility to all immigrant 
children will improve the Food Stamp Program's capacity to serve the 
vulnerable, but we do not offer a free ride. The criteria I have 
illustrated again, as Senator Durbin has, are substantial.
  Currently, most legal aliens are ineligible for food stamp benefits 
even if they meet that program's strict asset and income criteria. An 
estimated 500,000 legal immigrants who meet the financial rules remain 
categorically ineligible under current law. In addition, these rules 
have had the unintended effect on citizen children living in immigrant 
families. Because of confusion, fear, or a combination of these 
factors, there has been a 70-percent decline in food stamp 
participation among this group of children. That is an awesome change 
as to children who clearly were eligible.
  Although immigrant restrictions apply to participation in other 
Federal assistance programs, the Food Stamp Program has particularly 
strict rules. For example, in Medicaid and cash assistance, also known 
as TANF, legal immigrants in the United States before August 22, 1996, 
are eligible, at State option, under the same rules that apply to all 
others.
  In contrast, most adult legal immigrants here before that date are 
categorically ineligible for food stamps until they meet the 10-year 
work requirement. Further, children who emigrated after 1996 remain 
ineligible until their parents meet the work requirements or become 
citizens.
  Considering the fact many legal immigrants work in low-paying service 
jobs, they are among the first affected during economic downturns such 
as the one we are now enduring. The current immigrant work requirement 
thus penalizes those who have little or no control over their 
employment situation. The food stamp immigrant provisions that would 
result from the Durbin amendment do not open the door to those who come 
to the United States looking for a handout. Rather, they help children 
who are unable to support themselves, individuals who came to escape 
persecution in their native countries, and adults who have a documented 
work history or support from their U.S. sponsors.
  There is genuine need among this population. Studies of both local 
and national scope indicate serious food insecurity and hunger occur. 
For example, the Physicians for Human Rights reported that among 700 
immigrant families, adults in one-third of them skip meals; one-fourth 
cut meal size due to inadequate resources; one-tenth reported not 
eating for an entire day at least once in the last 6 months.
  States are vocal about the problems created by current eligibility 
restrictions for immigrants. Sixteen of them provide food stamp 
replacement benefits with their own funds. Many others, according to 
the National Conference of State Legislatures, have appropriated 
additional resources for food banks and a variety of charitable 
programs serving the immigrant population.
  The Food Stamp Program is the foundation of our country's nutrition 
safety net for vulnerable people. Until 1996, eligibility was based 
only on a family's financial need. Many, including President Bush, now 
voice the opinion that the food stamp immigrant policies legislated at 
that time were too harsh. I congratulate the President for his advocacy 
and the publicity that has surrounded that. It was a high-profile 
advocacy.
  I ask that each of us in the Senate endorse the Bush administration's 
food stamp policy by voting for Senator Durbin's amendment, which the 
Senator has pointed out encompasses exactly the same goals. It is our 
opportunity, in a bipartisan way, hopefully in a unanimous way, to 
improve the capacity of the Food Stamp Program to operate as a genuine 
nutrition safety net for our country.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________