[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 981-1023]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 RECESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m. today.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:33 p.m., recessed until 
2:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer 
(Mr. Cleland).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, at 2:50 we will provide an opportunity for 
Members to offer amendments. Members have until 3 p.m. to offer their 
amendments or there will be no more amendments than those offered. I 
ask unanimous consent, regardless of what we are involved in, there be 
a period from 2:50 until 3 p.m. that Members have the opportunity to 
offer amendments if they so choose and we would lay amendments aside to 
allow Senators to offer their amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming.


                Amendment No. 2846 to Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the current amendment 
and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2846 to amendment numbered 2471.

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

  (Purpose: To authorize the President to establish a pilot emergency 
relief program under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance 
            Act of 1954 to provide live lamb to Afghanistan)

       On page 337, strike line 11 and insert the following:

     SEC. 309. PILOT EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM TO PROVIDE LIVE LAMB 
                   TO AFGHANISTAN.

       Title II of the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1721 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 209. PILOT EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM TO PROVIDE LIVE 
                   LAMB TO AFGHANISTAN.

       ``(a) In General.--The President may establish a pilot 
     emergency relief program under this title to provide live 
     lamb to Afghanistan on behalf of the people of the United 
     States.
       ``(b) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2004, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that--
       ``(1)(A) evaluates the success of the program under 
     subsection (a); or
       ``(B) if the program has not succeeded or has not been 
     implemented, explains in detail why the program has not 
     succeeded or has not been implemented; and
       ``(2) discusses the feasibility and desirability of 
     providing assistance in the form of live animals.''.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will refrain from most of my debate until 
later. I will give a brief explanation of what the bill does.
  It is a pilot project to provide lamb to Afghanistan. Wyoming has the 
Air National Guard that has the capability of moving livestock from the 
United States to Afghanistan, and there are several other units in the 
United States. It provides the USDA, from among current funds, to 
purchase a pilot project in lamb and ship it by way of military 
transport to Afghanistan.
  We have heard the story, give a person a fish, it will feed them for 
a day; teach a person to fish, it will feed them for a lifetime. This 
is in that category. This is the opportunity to build up their herds. 
They do not have much refrigeration. They can use the herd, grow the 
herd, and the production from the herd can be used for food, and it can 
be butchered at the time they need it, so there is no refrigeration 
problem.
  We think it will solve a lot of problems. The amendment is wide open 
for how extensive the pilot project could be. It does call for a report 
in January of 2004 to explain whether it worked or did not work, 
whether it was implemented or not, and if it was not implemented, to 
explain why it was not implemented.
  The idea is very simple. We should ship live lamb to Afghanistan not 
only to assist the numerous tribes in rebuilding their flocks of sheep, 
but to provide immediate protein to their diets.
  My amendment would authorize the President to study the feasibility 
of sending live lamb to Afghanistan. My amendment requires the 
President to report to Congress on the feasibility of a pilot live lamb 
program. The report would include information on the cost and the 
logistics of the program. A favorable report could begin a series of 
shipments to Afghanistan, while an unfavorable report would lead us to 
re-evaluate how the program could succeed. Because this program only 
mandates a report, it is budget neutral.
  The continued need for food in Afghanistan is great. We are all well-
acquainted with the unique problems facing food aid to Afghanistan. The 
country's northern terrain is mountainous. Few roads traverse the area. 
The number of roads is even smaller when you consider that food, 
typically grain, is hauled in large trucks. These trucks require 
passable roads. Lastly, we have to consider the high altitude of 
Afghanistan. Much like my own State, winter in Afghanistan shuts down 
passage on all mountain roads. The only option is to consider moving 
food aid through the gentler southern landscape. After a brief glance 
at the countries on Afghanistan's southern border, we know that we 
couldn't depend on them as ports of entry to ship food aid to 
Afghanistan.
  The idea to ship live lamb to Afghanistan originated when I was 
considering the great obstacles that prevented trucks from delivering 
food aid to the interior of Afghanistan. But, if we couldn't move the 
food, why couldn't the food move itself? Live lamb was the natural 
answer.
  Lamb has been a traditional part of the diet for the people of the 
region for many years and has no religious prohibitions. Once the lamb 
arrives at the edge or in the region, it can easily be distributed to 
the needy area on foot or by truck. Sheep are well known for their 
agility and ability to adapt to mountainous regions. Once the lambs are 
distributed, the families, themselves, can decide how and when to 
slaughter the lambs or even use the lambs to build up their family 
stock.
  Now here in America, most parents wouldn't be comfortable 
slaughtering a lamb in the back yard. Most families in Afghanistan 
don't receive their meat on a styrofoam platter in Saran wrap from the 
grocery store. They are very comfortable slaughtering their own 
livestock for sustenance in very traditional ways.
  In an effort to ensure this program would be handled correctly, I did 
give USAID, United States Agency for International Development, an 
opportunity to view an earlier version of the amendment that mandated 
the program. USAID raised a few concerns to the amendment. One concern 
is that lamb would not provide the same caloric value per dollar as 
grain. In response to this and other concerns, I scaled the amendment 
back to a study. I realize the importance of getting as many calories 
as possible across the ocean and to the Afghan people today, but my 
amendment looks ahead to the future. While we address the immediate 
needs of the Afghan people, we cannot ignore the fact that the people 
need long-term assistance.
  Mr. President, this is a simple idea with a great possibility of 
benefits for the Afghan people. Congress, and all Americans, are 
working to assist the Afghan people in the development of a stronger 
and long-lasting stable government.
  As we are all too aware, the people of Afghanistan have suffered over 
two decades of turmoil, nearly 4 years of drought, and the oppressive 
rule of the Taliban regime. Even before 2001, Afghanistan had the worst 
nutrition situation in the world and the highest maternal mortality 
rate. Nearly one-fifth of Afghans depend on humanitarian aid for 
survival. In the last year, the situation has gotten even worse.
  I am pleased that the United States has been a staunch supporter of 
the Afghan people and a large contributor of humanitarian aid. In fact, 
since 1979 the United States has contributed more than $1 billion in 
humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people. The

[[Page 982]]

United States has represented about two-thirds of the total 
contribution of the international community. I believe this amendment 
continues our history of providing aid where it is needed.
  The uniqueness of sending live lamb could open the doors for other 
areas of aid as well. My amendment does not require the program to be 
carried out, nor does it put additional burdens on the budget, it 
simply calls for a study. The study of a program that could have an 
impact on so many people should be supported.
  I know my colleagues are aware of the amounts of aid we are already 
sending to Afghanistan. I am aware that there remain some concerns 
about how we can send live lamb half-way around the world. I hope my 
colleagues will support this amendment in order to explore new 
strategies of providing a long-term aid to the people of Afghanistan.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                Amendment No. 2847 to Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2847 to amendment No. 2471.

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

  (Purpose. To insert in the environmental quality incentives program 
provisions relating to confined livestock feeding operations and insert 
                         a payment limitation)

       Beginning on page 217, strike line 12 and all that follows 
     through page 235, line 6 and insert the following:
       (iii) Requirement.--A comprehensive nutrient management 
     plan shall meet all Federal, State, and local water quality 
     and public health goals and regulations, and in the case of a 
     large confined livestock operation (as defined by the 
     Secretary), shall include all necessary and essential land 
     treatment practices and determined by the Secretary.
       (3) Eligible land.--The term ``eligible land'' means 
     agriculture land (including cropland, grassland, rangeland, 
     pasture, private nonindustrial forest land and other land on 
     which crops or livestock are produced), including 
     agricultural land that the Secretary determines poses a 
     serious threat to soil, water, or related resources by reason 
     of the soil types, terrain, climatic, soil, topographic, 
     flood, or saline characteristics, or other factors or natural 
     hazards.
       (4) Innovative technology.--The term ``innovative 
     technology'' means a new conservation technology that, as 
     determined by the Secretary--
       (A) maximizes environmental benefits;
       (B) complements agricultural production; and
       (C) may be adopted in a practical manner.
       (5) Land management practice.--The term ``land management 
     practice'' means a site-specific nutrient or manure 
     management, integrated pest management, irrigation 
     management, tillage or residue management, grazing 
     management, air quality management, or other land management 
     practice carried out on eligible land that the Secretary 
     determines is needed to protect from degradation, in the most 
     cost-effective manner, water, soil, or related resource.
       (6) Livestock.--The term ``livestock'' means dairy cattle, 
     beef cattle, laying hens, broilers, turkeys, swine, sheep, 
     and other such animals as are determined by the Secretary.
       (7) Managed grazing.--The term ``managed grazing'' means 
     the application of 1 or more practices that involve the 
     frequent rotation of animals on grazing land to--
       (A) enhance plant health;
       (B) limit soil erosion;
       (C) protect ground and surface water quality; or
       (D) benefit wildlife.
       (8) Maximize environmental benefits per dollar expended.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``maximize environmental benefits 
     per dollar expended'' means to maximize environmental 
     benefits to the extent the Secretary determines is 
     practicable and appropriate, taking into account the amount 
     of funding made available to carry out this chapter.
       (B) Limitation.--The term ``maximize environmental benefits 
     per dollar expended'' does not require the Secretary--
       (i) to require the adoption of the least cost practice or 
     technical assistance; or
       (ii) to require the development of a plan under section 
     1240E as part of an application for payments or technical 
     assistance.
       (9) Practice.--The term ``practice'' means 1 or more 
     structural practices, land management practices, and 
     comprehensive nutrient management planning practices.
       (10) Producer.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``producer'' means an owner, 
     operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper that--
       (i) shares in the risk of producing any crop or livestock; 
     and
       (ii) is entitled to share in the crop or livestock 
     available for marketing from a farm (or would have shared had 
     the crop or livestock been produced).
       (B) Hybrid seed growers.--In determining whether a grower 
     of hybrid seed is producer, the Secretary shall not take into 
     consideration the existence of hybrid seed contract.
       (11) Program.--The term ``program'' means the environmental 
     quality incentives program comprised of sections 1240 through 
     1240J.
       (12) Structural practice.--The term ``structural practice'' 
     means--
       (A) the establishment on eligible land of a site-specific 
     animal waste management facility, terrace, grassed waterway, 
     contour grass strip, filterstrip, tailwater pit, permanent 
     wildlife habitat, constructed wetland, or other structural 
     practice that the Secretary determines is needed to protect, 
     in the most cost effective manner, water, soil, or related 
     resources from degradation; and
       (B) the capping of abandoned wells on eligible land.

     SEC. 1240B. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--During each of the 2002 through 2006 
     fiscal years, the Secretary shall provide technical 
     assistance, cost-share payments, and incentive payments to 
     producers that enter into contracts with the Secretary under 
     the program.
       (2) Eligible practices.--
       (A) Structural practices.--A producer that implements a 
     structural practice shall be eligible for any combination of 
     technical assistance, cost-share payments, and education.
       (B) Lands management practices.--A producer that performs a 
     land management practice shall be eligible for any 
     combination of technical assistance, incentive payments, and 
     education.
       (C) Comprehensive nutrient management planning.--A producer 
     that develops a comprehensive nutrient management plan shall 
     be eligible for any combination of technical assistance, 
     incentive payments, and education.
       (3) Education.--The Secretary may provide conservation 
     education at national, State, and local levels consistent 
     with the purposes of the program to--
       (A) any producer that is eligible for assistance under the 
     program; or
       (B) any producer that is engaged in the production of an 
     agricultural commodity.
       (b) Application and Term.--With respect to practices 
     implemented under this program--
       (1) a contract between a producer and the Secretary may--
       (A) apply to 1 or more structural practices, land 
     management practices, and comprehensive nutrient management 
     planning practices; and
       (B) have a term of not less than 3, or more than 10 years, 
     as determined appropriate by the Secretary, depending on the 
     practice or practices that are the basis of the contract;
       (2) a producer may not enter into more than 1 contract for 
     structural practices involving livestock nutrient management 
     during the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2006; and
       (3) a producer that has an interest in more than 1 large 
     confined livestock operation, as defined by the Secretary, 
     may not enter into more than 1 contract 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.
       (c) Application and Evaluation.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     application and evaluation process for awarding technical 
     assistance, cost share payments and incentive payments to a 
     producer in exchange for the performance of 1 or more 
     practices that maximize environmental benefits per dollar 
     expended.
       (2) Comparable environmental value.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a process 
     for selecting applications for technical assistance, cost 
     share payments, and incentive payments in any case in which 
     there are numerous applications for assistance for practices 
     that would provide substantially the same level of 
     environmental benefits.
       (B) Criteria.--The process under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     based on--
       (i) a reasonable estimate of the projected cost of the 
     proposals described in the applications; and
       (ii) the priorities established under the program, and 
     other factors, that maximize environmental benefits per 
     dollar expended.
       (3) Consent of owner.--If the producer making an offer to 
     implement a structural practice is a tenant of the land 
     involved in

[[Page 983]]

     agricultural production, for the offer to be acceptable, the 
     producer shall obtain the consent of the owner of the land 
     with respect to the offer.
       (4) Bidding down.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     environmental values of 2 or more applications for technical 
     assistance, cost-share payments, or incentive payments are 
     comparable, the Secretary shall not assign a higher priority 
     to the application only because it would present the least 
     cost to the program established under the program.
       (d) Cost-Share Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     cost-share payments provided to a producer proposing to 
     implement 1 or more practices under the program shall be not 
     more than 75 percent of the cost of the practice, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Exceptions.--
       (A) Limited resource and beginning farmers.--The Secretary 
     may increase the amount provided to a producer under 
     paragraph (1) to not more than 90 percent if the producer is 
     a limited resource or beginning farmer or rancher, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (B) Cost-share assistance from other sources.--Except as 
     provided in paragraph (3), any cost-share payments received 
     by a producer from a State or private organization or person 
     for the implementation of 1 or more practices on eligible 
     land of the producer shall be in addition to the payments 
     provided to the producer under paragraph (1).
       (3) Other payments.--A producer shall not be eligible for 
     cost-share payments for practices on eligible land under the 
     program if the producer receives cost-share payments or other 
     benefits for the same practice on the same land under chapter 
     1 and the program.
       (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 technical assistance provided for a fiscal year.
       (4) Other authorities.--The receipt of technical assistance 
     under the program shall not affect the eligibility 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 
     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 incurred 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 producer 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;
       (6) to comply with such additional provisions as the 
     Secretary determines are necessary to carry out the program 
     plan; and
       (7) to submit a list of all confined livestock feeding 
     operations wholly or partially owned or operated by the 
     applicant.

     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

[[Page 984]]

     the plan, and in the case of confined livestock feeding 
     operations, development and implementation of a comprehensive 
     nutrient management 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.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. This amendment is a modified version of the amendment 
I offered last week to reform the EQIP program. The central argument 
against my amendment last week had to do with a size limitation. What 
this amendment does is speak to some of the concerns of my colleagues, 
but it still is very much a reform amendment.
  No. 1, it would lower the payment limits from $50,000 per year to 
$30,000 per year with the EQIP program. Right now, it is only $10,000 a 
year. This is very consistent with the vote last week on payment 
limitations.
  No. 2, it would prevent producers with an interest in more than one 
large CAFO from receiving more than one EQIP contract. This is the 
whole idea of conglomerates owning many of these CAFOs and receiving 
multiple subsidies. Again, we want to try to get support to our midsize 
producers, our family farmers.
  No. 3, it would require producers receiving the EQIP funds to have a 
comprehensive nutrient management plan, environmental plan.
  These are simple measures that I think make the EQIP program have 
more, if you will, policy integrity. I think it is very consistent with 
what we have been doing with the farm bill. The last amendment I 
introduced was a close vote. I think there are now Senators who will 
support this amendment.
  We have the support of, among different organizations, the National 
Farmers Union, the Environmental Working Group, the Land Stewardship 
Project, Center for Rural Affairs, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, U.S. PIRG, and Campaign for 
Family Farms and the Environment.
  I think this is a good reform amendment, and I will wait for further 
debate on the amendment, but I wanted to lay it down now. I ask 
unanimous consent the amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2848 To Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. I ask unanimous consent the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment by number.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Gramm, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2848 to amendment No. 2471.

  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To repeal the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and 
                        Information Act of 2000)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       (1) Title XII of H.R. 5426 of the 106th Congress, as 
     introduced on October 6, 2000 and as enacted by Public Law 
     106-387 is hereby repealed.

  Mr. LUGAR. The purpose of this amendment is to repeal the Hass 
Avocado Promotion Research and Information Act of 2000.
  I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside so I may 
offer another amendment on behalf of Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2849 To Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. LUGAR. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Gramm, 
     proposes amendment numbered 2849 to amendment No. 2471.

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

(Purpose: To provide equity and fairness for the promotion of imported 
                             Hass avocados)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Section 1205 of the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and 
     Information Act (contained in H.R. 5426 of the 106th 
     Congress, as introduced on October 6, 2000 and as enacted by 
     Public Law 106-387) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (b)(2) by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof--
       ``(A) In general.--The order shall provide that the 
     Secretary shall appoint the members of the Board, and any 
     alternates, from among domestic producers and importers of 
     Hass avocados subject to assessments under the order to 
     reflect the proportion of domestic production and imports 
     supplying the United States market, which shall be based on 
     the Secretary's determination of the average volume of 
     domestic production of Hass avocados proportionate to the 
     average volume of imports of Hass avocados in the United 
     States over the previous three years.'';
       (2) in paragraph (b)(2)(B) by striking ``under subparagraph 
     (A)(iii) on the basis of the amount of assessments collected 
     from producers and importers over the immediately preceding 
     three-year period'' and inserting ``under subparagraph (A)'';
       (3) in paragraph (h)(1)(C)(iii) by striking everything in 
     the first sentence following ``by the importer'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``to the respective importers 
     association, or if there is no such association to the Board, 
     within such time period after the retail sale of such 
     avocados in the United States (not to exceed 60 days after 
     the end of the month in which the sale took place) as is 
     specified for domestically produced avocados.''; and
       (4) in paragraph (9) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(D) All importers of avocados from a country associated 
     with an importers association based on country-of-origin 
     activities shall be required to be members of such importers 
     association, and membership in such importers association 
     shall be open to any foreign avocado exporter or grower who 
     elects to voluntarily join.''

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to provide 
equity and fairness for the promotion of imported Hass avocados.
  I am introducing the amendments at this time in recognition of the 
fact that we have a deadline of 3 p.m. for introduction of all 
amendments. At some point, it is certainly possible that Senator Gramm 
will come to the floor and argue in behalf of his amendments, and 
others may do so also.
  For the moment, I ask the amendment be laid aside, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.

[[Page 985]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2850 To Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kyl and Senator 
Nickles, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Kyl, for 
     himself and Mr. Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 2850 
     to amendment No. 2471.

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

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PERMANENT REPEAL OF ESTATE 
                   TAXES.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 
     of 2001 provided substantial relief from federal estate and 
     gift taxes beginning this year and repealed the federal 
     estate tax for one year beginning on January 1, 2010, and
       (2) The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 
     of 2001 contains a ``sunset'' provision that reinstates the 
     federal estate tax at its 2001 level beginning on January 1, 
     2011.
       (3) Sense of the Senate.--Therefore, it is the Sense of the 
     Senate that the repeal of the estate tax should be made 
     permanent by eliminating the sunset provision's applicability 
     to the estate tax.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask the amendment be laid aside, and I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that it be 
in order for me to make my remarks seated at my desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.


                Amendment No. 2822 To Amendment No. 2471

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

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2822 to amendment No. 2471.

  Mr. HELMS. 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 exclude birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the 
 genus Mus from the definition of animal under the Animal Welfare Act)

       On page 945, strike lines 6 and 7 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1024. DEFINITION OF ANIMAL UNDER THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT.

       Section 2(g) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132(g)) 
     is amended by striking ``excludes horses not used for 
     research purposes and'' and inserting the following: 
     ``excludes birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the 
     genus Mus bred for use in research, horses not used for 
     research purposes, and''.

     SEC. 1025. PENALTIES AND FOREIGN COMMERCE PROVISIONS OF THE 
                   ANIMAL WELFARE ACT.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, my amendment will clarify once and for all 
any question about rats, mice and birds used for medical research under 
the Animal Welfare Act. Approval of this amendment will make sure that 
none of the important work taking place in the medical research 
community will be delayed, made more expensive, or be otherwise 
compromised by regulatory shenanigans on the part of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.
  Specifically, this amendment will follow Congressional intent by 
excluding rats, mice and birds from the definition of ``animal'' under 
the Animal Welfare Act. This has been the established practice of USDA 
during the more than 30 years that the Animal Welfare Act has been the 
law of the land during which time scientists and researchers have 
developed extensive protocols based on current regulatory procedures 
based on that Act.
  So, the medical research community was astonished the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, weary and browbeat into submission by numerous lawsuits 
and petitions by the so-called ``animal rights'' crowd, gave notice of 
its intent to add rats, mice, and birds under the regulatory umbrella. 
I hasten to add that 90 percent of the mice, rats, and birds used in 
animal research are already being regulated by the NIH Office of 
Laboratory Animal Welfare and the Food and Drug Administration.
  But that is not enough for the professional activists who delight in 
creating mischievous controversies like this. The problem, however, is 
that their mischief-making in this case has serious real-life 
complications for the life-saving research in laboratories all over 
America. The paperwork burden alone is extraordinary: If USDA is 
allowed to move forward with their new rules, it is estimated that the 
additional reporting requirements and paperwork will cost the 
researchers up to $280 million annually.
  So instead of searching for cures for breast cancer, cystic fibrosis, 
heart disease, and diabetes, USDA will force researchers out of the 
laboratory to spend their time filling out countless forms for yet 
another federal regulator. This unnecessary paperwork will simply 
demonstrate what the federal government already knows: that animal 
researchers already treat research animals in a professional and humane 
manner.
  A rodent could do a lot worse than live out its life span in research 
facilities. I was surprised to learn from the Wall Street Journal that 
more than 10 times as many rodents are raised and sold as food for 
reptiles than are used by the medical research community. But nobody 
raises a point about that. I wonder if anyone in the Chamber has ever 
seen a hungry python eat a mouse. If you have, then you know it is not 
a pretty picture for the mouse. Isn't it far better for the mouse to be 
fed and watered in a clean laboratory than to end up as a tiny bulge 
being digested inside an enormous snake?
  I suspect Mrs. Helms would have a word or two for me if I forgot to 
phone the exterminator upon finding evidence that a mouse has taken up 
residence in our basement. Alas, extermination remains the fate every 
year of hundreds of thousands of rodents that have not found the 
relative safety of a research laboratory.
  It is anything but a joking matter when regulatory heavy-handedness 
prevents researchers who are working diligently to find cures for 
deadly diseases. Consider the following recent medical discoveries in 
which humane animal research has played a role:
  Breast cancer researchers learned recently that laboratory rats that 
are fed high-fiber diets develop significantly fewer breast tumors than 
rats receiving little or no fiber.
  Asthma researchers recently used transgenic mice to isolate a 
specific gene that plays a key role in causing human asthma, and have 
now developed an animal model to test new asthma treatments.
  Scientists are aggressively studying rats to learn more about 
recovery of motor skills after spinal cord injuries, and are already 
reporting advances in knowledge about the relationship between motor 
functions and the nerve cells that send signals to motor neurons.
  There are dozens of other such examples of the medical advances made 
as a result of animal research, and I feel a sense of outrage, 
personally, that a Federal agency would now try to make it more 
difficult to accomplish this important work that will benefit humanity.
  So, Mr. President, I hope the Senate will resist the extremism of 
activists and deliver a richly deserved rebuke to the methods of these 
people who are protesting so mightily. It is time to definitively 
settle this matter, to end the

[[Page 986]]

debate, and to approve the pending amendment, thereby allowing 
scientists to return to the laboratory without the specter of 
burdensome new Federal regulations to hamstring their research.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At this time there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, thank you very much. I understand that the 
request for the yeas and nays will be made in my absence by the 
managers of the bill and others. I have been assured, I assume, we will 
have a rollcall vote.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                Amendment No. 2851 To Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2851 to amendment No. 2471.

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

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to make payments to 
                               producers)

       Strike section 132 and insert the following:

     SEC. 132. NATIONAL DAIRY PROGRAM.

       The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
     (as amended by section 772(b) of Public Law 107-76) is 
     amended by inserting after section 141 (7 U.S.C. 7251) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 142. NATIONAL DAIRY PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Dairy farm.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `dairy farm' means a dairy farm 
     that is--
       ``(i) located within the United States;
       ``(ii) permitted under a license issued by State or local 
     agency or the Secretary--

       ``(I) to market milk for human consumption; or
       ``(II) to process milk into products for human consumption; 
     and

       ``(iii) operated by producers that commercially market milk 
     during the payment period.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `dairy farm' does not include a 
     farm that is operated by a successor to a producer.
       ``(2) Eligible production.--The term `eligible production' 
     means the quantity of milk that is produced and marketed on a 
     dairy farm.
       ``(3) Payment period.--The term `payment period' means--
       ``(A) the period beginning on December 1, 2001, and ending 
     on September 30, 2002; and
       ``(B) each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005.
       ``(4) Producer.--The term `producer' means the individual 
     or entity that is the holder of the license described in 
     paragraph (1)(A)(ii) for the dairy farm.
       ``(b) Program.--The Secretary shall make payments to 
     producers.
       ``(c) Amount.--Subject to subsection (h), payments to 
     producers on a dairy farm under this section shall be 
     calculated by multiplying--
       ``(1) the eligible production during the payment period; by
       ``(2) the payment rate.
       ``(d) Payment Rate.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the payment 
     rate for a payment under this subsection shall be equal to 
     $0.315 per hundredweight.
       ``(2) Adjustment.--The Secretary may adjust the payment 
     rate under paragraph (1) with respect to the last fiscal year 
     of the payment period if the Secretary determines that there 
     are insufficient funds made available under subsection (h) to 
     carry out this section for that fiscal year.
       ``(e) Application for Payment.--To be eligible for a 
     payment for a payment period under this section, the 
     producers on a dairy farm shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary in such manner as is prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(f) Timing of Payments.--Payments under this section 
     shall be made on an annual basis.
       ``(g) Adjustments.--The Secretary may provide for the 
     adjustment of eligible production of a dairy farm under this 
     section if the production of milk on the dairy farm has been 
     adversely affected by (as determined by the Secretary)--
       ``(1) damaging weather or a related condition;
       ``(2) a criminal act of a person other than the producers 
     on the dairy farm; or
       ``(3) any other act or event beyond the control of the 
     producers on the dairy farm.
       ``(h) Funding.--The Secretary shall use not more than 
     $2,000,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to carry out this section.''.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Senator Domenici proposes a different 
formula for dairy payments. I will discuss the issue for a few minutes 
before laying the amendment aside for further debate.
  Some in the Senate have decided to provide $2 billion in payments to 
dairy farmers over the next 5 years. However, there is considerable 
disparity in the way these payments will be distributed under the 
Daschle substitute.
  The Daschle substitute establishes different payment rates, different 
target prices, and different payments for a handful of States.
  The Daschle substitute would provide 25 percent of the producer 
payments to producers in States that account for only 18 percent of our 
Nation's milk.
  There is no sound policy reason for this disparity.
  Senator Domenici has asked that we look specifically at New Mexico. 
Under the current proposal, New Mexico would average about 6 cents per 
hundredweight on milk, while producers in Maine would average almost 90 
cents.
  A 1,000-cow herd in New Mexico would receive from zero, in a low 
market scenario, to $22,000. If this same farm were located in New 
York, for example, these numbers could be far higher.
  Dairy farmers work in a national market. Dairy farmers not only sell 
products nationally, but they buy supplies and services nationally.
  Dairy farmers from all over the country go to an auction in Indiana 
to buy heifers for their herds. Under the pending bill, a farmer from 
Pennsylvania will be able to pay more for heifers than a farmer from 
Indiana because of the Federal Government has given the Pennsylvania 
farmer a financial advantage in this transaction.
  Senator Domenici proposes that we distribute this $2 billion in an 
equitable manner under a program that is national in scope. Under his 
amendment, every dairy producer, regardless of where they milk, is 
treated the same.
  Under his proposal, producers in 36 States will receive more than 
what they would receive under the Daschle substitute.
  The amendment is relatively simple. It would provide producers with 
one annual payment over the next 5 years.
  Defining a target price and payment rate would also be difficult 
under the Daschle procedures. Prices are announced for different 
classes for different regions using different tests.
  To simplify payments, the Domenici amendment proposes to level out 
the payment with one rate, paid annually on all of a producer's milk. 
Estimates show 31.5 cents would cover all of the milk nationwide. The 
$2 billion cap would force the Secretary to adjust in the final year to 
make sure the amount is not exceeded.
  A fixed payment is not only more cost effective to administer, but it 
will provide predictability in a volatile price market. Producers will 
be able to plan. If it is already a ``good year,'' producers can set 
the payment aside for future years that may not be so good or pay down 
debt to better weather future economic storms.
  On behalf of Senator Domenici, I urge my colleagues to carefully 
consider the ramifications for dairy farmers in their States and to 
vote in favor of the Domenici amendment.
  Mr. President, 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. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


         Amendment No. 2832, As Modified, To Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I lay an amendment on the desk with 
modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page 987]]

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Miller], for himself and Mr. 
     Cleland, proposes an amendment numbered 2832, as modified, to 
     amendment No. 2471.

  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To modify the sections providing marketing assistance loans 
                  and quality improvement for peanuts)

       On page 112, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(6) Loan servicing agent.--If approved by a majority of 
     historical peanut producers in a State voting in a referendum 
     conducted by the Secretary, as a condition of the Secretary's 
     approval of an entity to serve as a loan servicing agent or 
     to handle or store peanuts for producers that receive any 
     marketing loan benefits in the State, the entity shall agree 
     to provide adequate storage (if available) and handling of 
     peanuts at the commercial rate to other approved loan 
     servicing agents and marketing associations.

       On page 116, strike lines 6 through 15 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(h) Area Marketing Association Costs.--If approved by a 
     majority of historical peanut producers in a State voting in 
     a referendum conducted by the Secretary, the Secretary shall 
     include in a marketing assistance loan made to an area 
     marketing association in a marketing area in the State, at 
     the option of the marketing association, such costs as the 
     area marketing association may reasonably incur in carrying 
     out the responsibilities, operations, and activities of the 
     association and Commodity Credit Corporation under this 
     section.
       ``(i) Definition of Commingle.--In this section and section 
     158H, the term `commingle', with respect to peanuts, means--
       ``(1) the mixing of peanuts produced on different farms by 
     the same or different producers; or
       ``(2) the mixing of peanuts pledged for marketing 
     assistance loans with peanuts that are not pledged for 
     marketing assistance loans, to facilitate storage.

     ``SEC. 158H. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.

       ``(a) Official Inspection.--
       ``(1) In general.--All peanuts placed under a marketing 
     assistance loan under section 158G or otherwise sold or 
     marketed shall be officially inspected and graded by a 
     Federal or State inspector.
       ``(2) Accounting for commingled peanuts.--If approved by a 
     majority of historical peanut producers in a State voting in 
     a referendum conducted by the Secretary, all peanuts stored 
     commingled with peanuts covered by a marketing assistance 
     loan in the State shall be graded and exchanged on a dollar 
     value basis, unless the Secretary determines that the 
     beneficial interest in the peanuts covered by the marketing 
     assistance loan have been transferred to other parties prior 
     to demand for delivery.

  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms 
be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the cosponsor will be 
added.
  Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, this is an amendment that we believe will help ease 
the transition from the peanut quota system to the new market-oriented 
program.
  This amendment would increase the compensation for quota holders from 
10 cents per pound to 11 cents per pound.
  This amendment that we offer to-
day--the Cleland-Miller-Helms amendment--will go a long way to help 
citizens in more than 15 States make the transition to the new peanut 
program.
  I may be back later, Mr. President, if further debate is needed on 
this amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I applaud the Senators from Georgia for 
their advocacy on behalf of some of the people who sent them here: 
those who are growers of peanuts. I tell you, the two Senators from 
Georgia--Senator Cleland and Senator Miller--have been very determined 
advocates on behalf of the farmers they represent.
  I just hope the people back home realize how much energy and effort 
the two Senators have expended to secure what is needed to help their 
people.
  Senator Miller, who is a very respected member of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, and Senator Cleland, who had a distinguished 
record of service in Washington before he ever came to the Senate and 
is respected on both sides of the aisle, have made very clear how 
important this is to their constituents.
  I salute them for their vigorous efforts.
  Mr. President, I rose to speak on another matter, and that is the 
fundamental challenge we face with this farm bill.
  I see in the press repeated indications that farm assistance is no 
longer needed. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  What these media critics seem to fail to realize is that our people 
are faced with major competition in the world.
  Our major competitors are the Europeans. They are providing over $300 
an acre of support per year to their producers. We provide $38. We are 
being outgunned nearly 10 to 1. On export support, the Europeans 
account for 84 percent of all the world's export subsidy; we account 
for 3 percent. They are outgunning us nearly 30 to 1.
  The fundamental question before this country is whether or not we are 
going to fight for our people, whether or not we are going to give them 
a fair, fighting chance.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 2:50 having arrived, debate on the 
current amendment is suspended to allow other amendments to be called 
up.
  The Senator from Vermont.


                Amendment No. 2834 To Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to offer 
amendment No. 2834 which I believe is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2834 to amendment No. 2471.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
authorize the establishment of a new voluntary organic research and 
promotion program. Just over a year ago we finalized the National 
Organic Program Rule. As this rule is implemented, it will provide 
assurance to the American public that the organic food they buy is 
subject to strict and consistent regulation. In addition, this rule 
will assist organic producers who want to export their products and 
will ensure that imported organic agricultural commodities meet 
standards on par with those of the United States.
  In the decade that this rule was under development, the organic 
industry has experienced tremendous growth rates of more than 20 
percent annually--it was estimated that in 2001 sales topped $9 
billion.
  As this industry continues to develop, it is important to adapt 
existing programs to support and enhance organic agriculture, as well 
as provide equitable benefits to organic producers. Currently, organic 
farmers are required to pay into existing mandatory research and 
promotion programs for various commodities. Many organic farmers object 
to this because they believe insufficient checkoff program funds are 
devoted to promoting or assisting in the development of organic 
agriculture. While they would prefer to be exempt from those 
assessments entirely, my amendment offers a viable and fair 
alternative.
  My amendment authorizes a new voluntary organic research and 
promotion checkoff program, which will only be established if it is 
proposed and approved by a majority of certified organic producers and 
handlers.
  What distinguishes this from existing checkoff programs is that any 
assessments under the order would be voluntary, not mandatory--
individual farmers will have the flexibility to opt-in or opt-out of 
this research and promotion program.
  To avoid double taxation, producers who choose to contribute to the 
organic order would be entitled to a credit against assessments under 
another order--which is similar to the credit producers are entitled to 
under existing checkoff programs if they contribute to a state or 
regional order covering the same commodity.
  Additional provisions in the amendment address concerns raised about 
existing checkoff programs--representatives on the board must reflect 
both

[[Page 988]]

the regional distribution and differing scales of organic production 
and, at least once every four years, a referendum on the continuance of 
the order must be held.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, which simply 
gives organic farmers the opportunity to choose how their research and 
promotion dollars are spent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Leahy amendment.


                Amendment No. 2852 To Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that 
amendment be set aside so I may offer two other amendments. The first 
amendment I send to the desk on behalf of Senator Kerry and Senator 
Snowe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Kerry, for 
     himself and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment numbered 2852 to 
     amendment No. 2471.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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 provide emergency disaster assistance for the commercial 
   fishery failure with respect to Northeast multispecies fisheries)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . COMMERCIAL FISHERIES FAILURE.

       (a) In General.--In addition to amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act, there are appropriated 
     to the Department of Agriculture $10,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2002, which shall be transferred to the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation to provide, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Commerce, emergency disaster assistance for the commercial 
     fishery failure under section 308(b)(1) of the 
     Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 
     4107(b)(1) with respect to Northeast multispecies fisheries.
       (b) Program Requirements.--Amounts made available under 
     this section shall be used to support a voluntary fishing 
     capacity reduction program in the Northeast multispecies 
     fishery that--
       (1) is certified by the Secretary of Commerce to be 
     consistent with section 312(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b)); 
     and
       (2) permanently revokes multispecies limited access fishing 
     permits so as to obtain the maximum sustained reduction in 
     fishing capability at the least cost and in the minimum 
     period of time and to prevent the replacement of fishing 
     capacity removed by the program.
       (c) Application of Interim Final Rule.--The program shall 
     be carried out in accordance with the Interim Final Rule 
     under part 648 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, or 
     any corresponding regulation or rule promulgated thereunder.
       (d) Sunset.--The authority provided by subsection (a) shall 
     terminate 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act and 
     no amount may be made available under this section 
     thereafter.


                Amendment No. 2853 To Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to S. 1731 
on my own behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside, and the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2853 to amendment No. 2471.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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 modify the limits on the types of communities in which 
            Rural Business Investment Companies may invest)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Amend Section 602 by adding after the word ``concern'' at 
     the end of subsection 384I(c)(3)(C) the words ``and not more 
     than 10 percent of the investments shall be made in an area 
     containing a city of over 100,000 in the last decennial 
     Census and the Census Bureau defined urbanized area 
     containing or adjacent to that city''.

  Mr. HARKIN. As I understand the floor situation--I will consult with 
my ranking member--with the hour of 3 rapidly approaching, under the 
unanimous consent agreement previously entered into, all amendments to 
the pending S. 1731 have to be offered prior to 3 o'clock this 
afternoon.
  Mr. LEAHY. I respond to my colleague that that is our understanding. 
Hopefully, this colloquy will serve as an announcement to all of our 
colleagues who may be listening to the debate, wherever they may be, 
that they should proceed rapidly to the floor. Three o'clock is the 
cutoff time for the introduction of amendments. On our side of the 
aisle, we have attempted to make that known in many ways. I am hopeful 
that at least no one will be under any other illusion. At 3, we will 
have an opportunity to survey the amendments that have in fact been 
placed before us to try to determine, as I understand, either time 
agreements or the ability to accept on both sides of the aisle some of 
these amendments.
  I see, having said that, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has 
arrived just in time.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CLELAND. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. CLELAND. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. I only have 3 minutes to get under the deadline to offer 
an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                Amendment No. 2825 to Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2825 to S. 1731 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me explain the amendment very briefly. 
I apologize to the Senator from Georgia.
  All this does is take the peanut program, which is a dramatically 
changed program, and delay its implementation for a period of 1 year. 
Here is the problem we have. If we don't do that, we will have the 
farmers not knowing, when they go to the bank, what kind of program is 
going to be adopted right in the middle of their planting season. By 
doing this, I am sure you will be accommodating the farmers as well as 
saving some money in this particular year on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2825 to amendment No. 2471.

  Mr. INHOFE. 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 require the Secretary of Agriculture to provide marketing 
  assistance loans and loan deficiency payments for each of the 2003 
                     through 2007 crop of peanuts)

       On page 111, lines 14 and 15, strike ``2002 through 2006'' 
     and insert ``2003 through 2007''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CLELAND. If I may continue, I would like to recognize the hard 
work of my colleague, Senator Miller, for his amazing transition to an 
agriculture policy wizard in less than 2 years. His hard work in the 
Agriculture Committee on this farm bill is a testament to his 
dedication to Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have need to interrupt the distinguished 
Senator. We are under this limit in this final 10 minutes to offer 
amendments. If I may have his forbearance, I would like to offer an 
amendment at this point.
  Mr. CLELAND. Very well.


                Amendment No. 2854 to Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McConnell, I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. McConnell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2854 to amendment No. 2471.


[[Page 989]]

  Mr. LUGAR. 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 conserve global bear populations by prohibiting the 
  importation, exportation, and interstate trade of bear viscera and 
items, products, or substances containing, or labeled or advertised as 
           containing, bear viscera, and for other purposes)

       On page 984, line 2, strike the period at the end and 
     insert a period and the following:

     SEC. 10__. BEAR PROTECTION.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Bear 
     Protection Act of 2002''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) all 8 extant species of bear--Asian black bear, brown 
     bear, polar bear, American black bear, spectacled bear, giant 
     panda, sun bear, and sloth bear--are listed on Appendix I or 
     II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
     Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249);
       (2)(A) Article XIV of CITES provides that Parties to CITES 
     may adopt stricter domestic measures regarding the conditions 
     for trade, taking, possession, or transport of species listed 
     on Appendix I or II; and
       (B) the Parties to CITES adopted a resolution in 1997 
     (Conf. 10.8) urging the Parties to take immediate action to 
     demonstrably reduce the illegal trade in bear parts;
       (3)(A) thousands of bears in Asia are cruelly confined in 
     small cages to be milked for their bile; and
       (B) the wild Asian bear population has declined 
     significantly in recent years as a result of habitat loss and 
     poaching due to a strong demand for bear viscera used in 
     traditional medicines and cosmetics;
       (4) Federal and State undercover operations have revealed 
     that American bears have been poached for their viscera;
       (5) while most American black bear populations are 
     generally stable or increasing, commercial trade could 
     stimulate poaching and threaten certain populations if the 
     demand for bear viscera increases; and
       (6) prohibitions against the importation into the United 
     States and exportation from the United States, as well as 
     prohibitions against the interstate trade, of bear viscera 
     and products containing, or labeled or advertised as 
     containing, bear viscera will assist in ensuring that the 
     United States does not contribute to the decline of any bear 
     population as a result of the commercial trade in bear 
     viscera.
       (c) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure the 
     long-term viability of the world's 8 bear species by--
       (1) prohibiting interstate and international trade in bear 
     viscera and products containing, or labeled or advertised as 
     containing, bear viscera;
       (2) encouraging bilateral and multilateral efforts to 
     eliminate such trade; and
       (3) ensuring that adequate Federal legislation exists with 
     respect to domestic trade in bear viscera and products 
     containing, or labeled or advertised as containing, bear 
     viscera.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Bear viscera.--The term ``bear viscera'' means the body 
     fluids or internal organs, including the gallbladder and its 
     contents but not including the blood or brains, of a species 
     of bear.
       (2) CITES.--The term ``CITES'' means the Convention on 
     International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 
     Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249).
       (3) Import.--The term ``import'' means to land on, bring 
     into, or introduce into any place subject to the jurisdiction 
     of the United States, regardless of whether the landing, 
     bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation within 
     the meaning of the customs laws of the United States.
       (4) Person.--The term ``person'' means--
       (A) an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, 
     association, or other private entity;
       (B) an officer, employee, agent, department, or 
     instrumentality of--
       (i) the Federal Government;
       (ii) any State or political subdivision of a State; or
       (iii) any foreign government; and
       (C) any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means a State, the District 
     of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, American Samoa, and any other territory, 
     commonwealth, or possession of the United States.
       (7) Transport.--The term ``transport'' means to move, 
     convey, carry, or ship by any means, or to deliver or receive 
     for the purpose of movement, conveyance, carriage, or 
     shipment.
       (e) Prohibited Acts.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     person shall not--
       (A) import into, or export from, the United States bear 
     viscera or any product, item, or substance containing, or 
     labeled or advertised as containing, bear viscera; or
       (B) sell or barter, offer to sell or barter, purchase, 
     possess, transport, deliver, or receive, in interstate or 
     foreign commerce, bear viscera or any product, item, or 
     substance containing, or labeled or advertised as containing, 
     bear viscera.
       (2) Exception for wildlife law enforcement purposes.--A 
     person described in subsection (d)(4)(B) may import into, or 
     export from, the United States, or transport between States, 
     bear viscera or any product, item, or substance containing, 
     or labeled or advertised as containing, bear viscera if the 
     importation, exportation, or transportation--
       (A) is solely for the purpose of enforcing laws relating to 
     the protection of wildlife; and
       (B) is authorized by a valid permit issued under Appendix I 
     or II of CITES, in any case in which such a permit is 
     required under CITES.
       (f) Penalties and Enforcement.--
       (1) Criminal penalties.--A person that knowingly violates 
     subsection (e) shall be fined under title 18, United States 
     Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       (2) Civil penalties.--
       (A) Amount.--A person that knowingly violates subsection 
     (e) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of not 
     more than $25,000 for each violation.
       (B) Manner of assessment and collection.--A civil penalty 
     under this paragraph shall be assessed, and may be collected, 
     in the manner in which a civil penalty under the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 may be assessed and collected under 
     section 11(a) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1540(a)).
       (3) Seizure and forfeiture.--Any bear viscera or any 
     product, item, or substance imported, exported, sold, 
     bartered, attempted to be imported, exported, sold, or 
     bartered, offered for sale or barter, purchased, possessed, 
     transported, delivered, or received in violation of this 
     subsection (including any regulation issued under this 
     subsection) shall be seized and forfeited to the United 
     States.
       (4) Regulations.--After consultation with the Secretary of 
     the Treasury and the United States Trade Representative, the 
     Secretary shall issue such regulations as are necessary to 
     carry out this subsection.
       (5) Enforcement.--The Secretary, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, and the Secretary of the department in which the 
     Coast Guard is operating shall enforce this subsection in the 
     manner in which the Secretaries carry out enforcement 
     activities under section 11(e) of the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1540(e)).
       (6) Use of penalty amounts.--Amounts received as penalties, 
     fines, or forfeiture of property under this subsection shall 
     be used in accordance with section 6(d) of the Lacey Act 
     Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3375(d)).
       (g) Discussions Concerning Bear Conservation and the Bear 
     Parts Trade.--In order to seek to establish coordinated 
     efforts with other countries to protect bears, the Secretary 
     shall continue discussions concerning trade in bear viscera 
     with--
       (1) the appropriate representatives of Parties to CITES; 
     and
       (2) the appropriate representatives of countries that are 
     not parties to CITES and that are determined by the Secretary 
     and the United States Trade Representative to be the leading 
     importers, exporters, or consumers of bear viscera.
       (h) Certain Rights Not Affected.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (e), nothing in this section affects--
       (1) the regulation by any State of the bear population of 
     the State; or
       (2) any hunting of bears that is lawful under applicable 
     State law (including regulations).

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be 
laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.


                           amendment no. 2832

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am fortunate to hold the seat of one of 
this Chamber's giants, Senator Richard B. Russell. Senator Russell 
understood the importance of strong agriculture policy and he once 
observed: ``when we strengthen American agriculture, we strengthen 
America.'' The failure of the Senate to complete a farm bill in 2001 
was very disappointment to me. But the good news is that I believe we 
will pass a strong farm bill this week.
  One of the hottest issues in the farm bill for Georgia is the change 
in the current peanut program. Because there are not enough votes to 
sustain the quota program in Congress and because trade agreements have 
weakened quotas, I reluctantly agree with my colleagues that the system 
will be changed.
  I visited south Georgia this past weekend where the debate over the 
ending the quota program is big news. The proposed peanut program that 
originated in the House, bases the new program on acres determined by 
peanut producers, rather than by the

[[Page 990]]

landowning quota-holders. This shift in the peanut program, from the 
landowner to the producer, has caused a split among neighbors in south 
Georgia not seen in many years. Despite this split, I think we should 
make note of a fact that Senator Miller has mentioned more than once on 
this floor: The anti-peanut program forces have not been out in force 
this year. You may know that in 1996, the peanut program survived in 
the Senate by only three votes.
  I have concerns about small quota-owners, such as widows, veterans, 
and minority farmers who depend on quotas for their income. They should 
not be forgotten in the rush for a new farm bill. For that reason, I 
offer this amendment with Senator Miller to increase the quota buyout 
to 12 cents a pound, each year, for 5 years. This is up from the House 
buyout of 10 cents per pound and will help ease the transition for 
thousands of retired peanut farmers who invested in peanut quota as, in 
effect, their pension plan.
  I will work to keep the Senate level of support for producers which 
is $400 million over the House bill for marketing loan rates and 
countercyclical payments. Also, the Senate farm bill contains language 
that I have sponsored for years to label the country-of-origin for 
peanuts. Because consumers should know where their peanuts are grown.
  All in all I believe we will pass a strong farm bill that makes sense 
and substantial progress in meeting the needs of family farmers and our 
rural communities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to both Senator Lugar and 
Senator Harkin, the two managers of the bill. It has been cleared. I 
ask unanimous consent that at 3:05 p.m. today, the Senate resume 
consideration of the Feinstein amendment No. 2829; that the time until 
3:35, a half hour, be equally divided and controlled by Senators 
Feinstein and Breaux, or their designees; that at 3:35, Senator Breaux 
be recognized to offer a motion to table, and that no second-degree 
amendment be in order prior to the vote in relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 2855 to Amendment No. 2842

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kyl, I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Kyl, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2855.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure that the water conservation program is implemented 
                in accordance with all applicable laws)

       On page 8, line 19, insert the following:
       ``(12) Implementation.--In carrying out the program, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the 
     program does not undermine the implementation of any law in 
     effect as of the date of enactment of this chapter that 
     concerns the transfer or acquisition of water or water rights 
     on a permanent basis;
       ``(B) implement the program in accordance with the purposes 
     of such laws described in subparagraph (A) as are applicable; 
     and
       ``(C) comply with--
       ``(i) all interstate compacts, court decrees, and Federal 
     or State laws (including regulations) that may affect water 
     or water rights; and
       ``(ii) all procedural and substantive State water law.
       On page 8, line 19, strike ``(12)'' and insert ``(13)''.
       On page 9, line 16, strike ``(13)'' and insert ``(14)''.
       On page 17, line 20, insert the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section--
       On page 17, line 21, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(A)''.
       On page 17, line 22, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(B)''.
       On page 18, line 1, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       On page 18, line 5, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(D)''.
       On page 18, line 7, insert the following:
       ``(2) Implementation.--In carrying out the program, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the 
     program does not undermine the implementation of any law in 
     effect as of the date of enactment of this chapter that 
     concerns the transfer or acquisition of water or water rights 
     on a permanent basis;
       ``(B) implement the program in accordance with the purposes 
     of such laws described in subparagraph (A) as are applicable; 
     and
       ``(C) comply with--
       ``(i) all interstate compacts, court decrees, and Federal 
     or State laws (including regulations) that may affect water 
     or water rights; and
       ``(ii) all procedural and substantive State water law.

  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I will not 
object, but there comes a point where we say 3 p.m.--well, is it 3 p.m. 
or 3:02 or 3:05? I hope we don't have a rush of amendments on either 
side coming in.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the comment of my colleague. 
He is correct, obviously. I hope there may be some dispensation in that 
this request arrived a few seconds after the 3 p.m. time. We have been 
attempting to accommodate Senators.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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 that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, because of some confusion, I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Feinstein's time start at 3:10 instead of 3:05.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. It will go until 3:40. She gets 15 minutes and Senator 
Breaux gets 15 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 2829

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank Senator Reid, and I thank Senators Harkin and 
Lugar as well.
  On Friday, I offered an amendment to the sugar program, which really 
is a minor amendment, with one exception. It seems anything that has 
anything to do with the sugar program is frozen and can't be changed. 
As I noted 6 years ago when I came here, the sugar program works to the 
great detriment of America's domestic sugar refineries.
  The largest of those domestic sugar refineries happens to be in 
California. It is C&H Sugar. C&H got most of its sugar from Hawaii, and 
they used to have ads as I grew up: C&H pure cane sugar from Hawaii. It 
is a plant that can employ about 1,300 people. It can refine about 
800,000 pounds of sugar. It is a union plant. It is the only source of 
employment, the major source of employment, in a small town in the East 
Bay known as Crockett. You drive over the Carquinez Bridge and you see 
this big old plant, and that is from where this wonderful sugar comes.
  The problem has been, year after year, C&H cannot buy enough sugar to 
refine. Why? Because the allotments in the sugar program were more than 
two decades ago. They do not adequately reflect who is buying and who 
is selling sugar at the time.
  The amendment I have offered would simply reallocate the unfilled 
portion of a country's quota when that country does not fulfill its 
quota. That is all it does. This is less than 3 percent of the sugar. 
About 3 percent of the sugar on the world market that is provided for 
in the allocation quota does not get allocated. So on a first-come-
first-served basis, a company that wanted to buy sugar would be able to 
because the unused allocation of one country would go to another 
country that is exporting sugar, and on a first-come-first-served basis 
the refineries of our country would have an opportunity to buy their 
sugar.
  This amendment is supported by C&H Sugar; Colonial Sugar Gramercy, 
LA; Savannah Foods in Port Wentworth, GA; and Imperial Sugar in Sugar 
Land, TX.
  I ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed in the Record in 
support of the amendment, one from the Coalition for Sugar Reform and 
the other from Citizens Against Government Waste.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 991]]




                                   Coalition for Sugar Reform,

                                 Washington, DC, February 6, 2002.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Coalition for Sugar Reform, 
     I urge you to vote for an amendment that Sen. Dianne 
     Feinstein will offer to ensure that when the United States 
     announces an import quota for sugar, we actually import all 
     that quota.
       Each year, a few countries fail to fully utilize, or fill, 
     their quotas to sell sugar to the United States. Generally, 
     these amounts go unused: Because of the highly restrictive 
     import policy that the United States maintains for sugar, 
     other sugar-producing countries have no opportunity to 
     satisfy the unmet market need represented by the unfilled 
     quota. The Feinstein amendment will require that by June 1 
     each year, any unused quota be reallocated among qualified 
     supplying countries on a first-come, first-served basis.
       This amendment does not increase import quotas. It merely 
     says that when we announce an import quota, we will allow the 
     full amount of that quota to be imported.
       This amendment honors our multilateral trade commitments by 
     allowing the full import quota to enter the United States. By 
     setting an example of more efficient and transparent TRQ 
     administration, the amendment advances explicit trade policy 
     goals of the United States. Please support and vote for the 
     Feinstein amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                               Lawrence T. Graham,
     Steering Committee Coordinator.
                                  ____

                                              Council for Citizens


                                     Against Government Waste,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2002.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Feinstein: On behalf of the more than one 
     million members and supporters of the Council for Citizens 
     Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I am writing to inform you 
     of our support for your amendment to S. 1731, the Farm Bill, 
     which would ensure that when the United States announces an 
     import quota for sugar, all of that quota will actually be 
     imported.
       When countries fail to fully utilize their quotas to sell 
     sugar to the United States, those quotas usually end up being 
     unused. Other sugar-producing countries have no opportunity 
     to satisfy the unmet market need represented by the unfilled 
     quota, as a result of the highly restricted import policy 
     that the United States maintains for sugar.
       It is our understanding that your amendment will require 
     that by June 1 of each year, any unused quota be reallocated 
     among qualified supplying countries on a first-come first-
     served basis. While we also understand that your amendment 
     does not increase import quotas, it will at least ensure that 
     the full amount of the quota be imported.
       Athough CCAGW would still prefer the complete elimination 
     of the archaic sugar program, we believe your amendment will 
     at least provide for modest improvement of one of its glaring 
     deficiencies. Thus, CCAGW will consider a vote on your 
     amendment in the 2002 Congressional Ratings.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Tom Schatz,
                                                        President.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The fact of the matter is, this has been done. The 
Secretary can do this. As a matter of fact, in 1995 I implored 
Secretary Glickman to do just this, and he did it. The problem, I say 
to those opposed to this amendment, is that every year you have to go 
and lobby; every year you have to try to see that this company and 
others similar to it are able to get enough sugar. That is not right. 
Sugar programs should not operate this way.
  Awhile ago, we asked GAO to take a look at the sugar program. The GAO 
came up with exactly what we are proposing today. Let me read a couple 
of things. Some of the 40 designated countries have been provided an 
export allocation when they no longer export sugar. According to the 
GAO, on average, from 1993 to 1998, 10 out of the 40 countries were net 
importers of sugar. These countries are not exporting sugar because 
clearly they are importing sugar.
  Some countries have similar allocations under the quota despite 
dramatically different levels of sugar exports. For example, Brazil and 
the Philippines are both allowed to export around 14 percent of the 
total quota, but Brazil exports 21 times more sugar than the 
Philippines worldwide.
  In my view, it is unacceptable that sugar quota allocations have not 
been revised for two decades, despite dramatic changes in the ability 
of many countries to produce and export sugar.
  Is there a way to update the sugar export amounts allowed into the 
United States without adversely impacting domestic growers? I believe 
there is, and the amendment I have offered would provide this change.
  Incidentally, I would like the Record to reflect that Senator Gregg 
is a cosponsor of this amendment, if I may.
  The United States has imported on average, as I said, about 3 percent 
less sugar than the quota allowed from 1996 through 1998 because some 
countries did not fill their allocations.
  Now the question was asked in the caucus today by the distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana, What would happen to price if this amendment 
were passed?
  Let me again quote the GAO:

       USTR's current process for allocating the sugar tariff-rate 
     quota does not ensure that all of the sugar allowed under the 
     quota reaches the U.S. market.
       The current allocation has resulted in fewer sugar imports 
     than allowed under the tariff-rate quota. From 1996 through 
     1998, US raw sugar imports averaged about 75,000 tons less 
     annually than the amount USDA allowed USTR to allocate under 
     the tariff-rate quota.

  The final quote from the GAO is this:

       Because the shortfalls in the tariff-rate quota reduced US 
     sugar supplies by less than 1 percent, they had a minimal 
     effect on the domestic price of sugar.

  So what I am saying is you can have a system that allows domestic 
refineries to buy sugar that they need from countries that are not 
using their allocated quota, and this will have a very slight, if any, 
mark on the domestic price of sugar. What is dreadfully unfair is to 
have a situation where domestic refineries, hiring men and women who 
live in this country, that want to refine sugar are prevented from 
doing so by a bill where the allocations and the quotas have not been 
revised in two decades.
  So I am asking the Senate to please permit this small change in the 
sugar program.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Louisiana for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me assure my colleagues who might be 
listening to this rather arcane and complicated debate, I have the 
utmost respect for the Senator from California to the point of 
disagreeing with her on the fact that this is a minor amendment. I 
think that nothing my colleague from California does is minor. It is 
always a major effort, and she is to be commended for what she is 
attempting to do for one refinery in California.
  I point out that over the last 10 years, in my own State of 
Louisiana, we have lost 24 sugar mills. We did not try to change the 
sugar program to accommodate each one of those mills but, rather, tried 
to work in a cooperative fashion to have a national program.
  The Senator is absolutely correct that about 40 countries around the 
world have allocations to be able to export approximately 1.25 million 
tons of sugar into the United States to make sure we have enough sugar 
for domestic consumption. If a country does not use all of their 
allocation, it can be reallocated by the Secretary. It does not have to 
be. The Secretary makes a determination on what amount of sugar we need 
to fulfill the mandates of the program. If we do need more sugar, and 
countries have not used their allocation, the Secretary can give to a 
country an additional allocation.
  The difference at this point between what the Senator from California 
wants to do and the existing program is that they have to reallocate it 
and bring it into the United States under the terms of the program. It 
cannot be said to one country that they are going to be the only 
country in the world that is going to be able to bring sugar into the 
United States with an allocation that does not comply with the terms of 
the sugar program. All of the 40 countries that send sugar to the 
United States have to come in under the terms of the program, and that 
is at a price that equals about 18 cents a pound. If there is 50 pounds 
of unallocated sugar and it is said to any country in the world, come 
in and bid for the right to send that sugar to the United States, they 
can bid the price

[[Page 992]]

down to a point that would have a substantial effect on the market.
  This amendment, if it went into effect, and large amounts of sugar 
were brought in outside of the program, could ultimately result in a 
large cost to the taxpayer. If it drives down the average price of 
sugar below the market loan rate, sugar will be forfeited to the 
Federal Government and taxpayers will be picking up sugar--because the 
price has gone below the marketing loan--at about 18 cents a pound.
  I don't think I have any problem giving the Secretary the right to 
reallocate sugar, which they now have when there is a shortfall, but 
not to do it outside of the program. Not to say to all of the countries 
that participate, you have to do it one way, but other countries, when 
we reallocate, you can do it without having to meet the terms of the 
loan itself. The Department does not have to reallocate; they do it if 
there is a need for the sugar.
  The amendment of the Senator from California mandates they 
reallocate, although it is not required in order to meet our domestic 
needs. In addition, she would mandate they allow it come in outside the 
program.
  We cannot design a national program for one refinery. I point out the 
refineries that make sugar are very divided on this issue. For those 
who do support our amendment, there is an equal number or more who do 
not. The Domino Sugar refinery in New York opposes it; the Domino 
refinery in Brooklyn, NY, opposes it; the Domino refinery in Baltimore, 
MD, opposes it, as well as the refinery in Chalmette, LA.
  The problem is there is a national program. The reason one refinery 
in one State does not have enough sugar is because their principal 
market has been Hawaii. As the Senator has correctly said, Hawaii is 
moving out of the sugar program. They have reduced their production of 
sugar, and that refinery does not find itself with a sufficient amount 
of sugar. But you cannot redesign the entire national program for one 
particular refinery and say we are going to let sugar come in to this 
one refinery outside of the program, with no price protection whatever, 
and put the entire program in jeopardy, with potential costs to the 
U.S. taxpayers. If it has the effect of driving the price below the 
loan level, sugar will be forfeited.
  It is very important to note that the program is operated at no cost 
to the taxpayer. We have no forfeited sugar. We do not want to be in a 
position of forfeiting sugar. If this amendment were to pass and we 
mandated that the Secretary reallocate sugar imported into this country 
outside the program, which is what it does, on a first-come-first-
served basis, would not have to meet the terms of the program. So a 
company could bid and bring in sugar at 5 cents a pound if they wanted 
to dump in this market. That is what the amendment allows.
  I don't mind having it come in under the terms of the program, but to 
allow sugar to come in and be reallocated outside the terms of the 
program with regard to price potentially destroys the program and would 
be at a cost to the American taxpayer.
  At the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to table the 
amendment. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. Our intent in drafting the 
amendment was that the sugar that comes in is within the program, not 
outside the program. But only 40 countries now covered by the program 
are eligible to participate. If there is an inadvertent error, we will 
be happy to correct it.
  The intent is that it be within the program. Then, from a country 
that is in the program but is not using its allocation, and sold on a 
first-come-first-served basis, so if the price is going to be changed, 
there will not be a buyer for the sugar.
  Mr. BREAUX. Let me respond to the Senator. When she uses the term 
``comes in on a first-come-first-served basis,'' that is a legal term, 
a term of art that clearly indicates that it can come in out of the 
program at a price below the market loan level of 18 cents a pound.
  That is the No. 2 problem with the amendment. It would come in 
outside the terms of the program. It can come in at a price much lower 
than the 18-cent loan level, which runs the risk of reducing the price 
of sugar throughout the United States. That is the No. 1 problem.
  The second problem is that it mandates it be done. In the past it has 
always been at the discretion of the Secretary. As the Senator has 
said, the Secretaries in the past, when they saw a need, have, in fact, 
allowed it to be reallocated. They can still continue to do that, but 
it can only be done within the terms of the program.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask the distinguished Senator a question. Would the 
Senator support the amendment if we amended it to make it clear, in 
simple English, that the proposal is within the confines of the 
existing sugar program?
  Mr. BREAUX. I respond to the Senator's question by saying that the 
two things I have a problem with, and I think most of the people who 
support the program have a problem with, are, No. 1, it is mandatory. 
The second point is that it would allow on a first-come-first-served 
basis the sugar to come to the country outside of the program at a 
price below the loan level.
  If that part were corrected, I am fine, but I cannot support it being 
mandatory. We ought to have the flexibility to allow it, and it has to 
be brought in under the terms of the program.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Provided we could produce those amendments, would the 
Senator then support that?
  Mr. BREAUX. I think more work certainly needs to be done. I think 
certainly an appropriate and proper discussion--and I have had this 
discussion with the distinguished chairman--could be during the 
conference.
  I make very clear the two problems I have: No. 1, it is mandatory on 
the reallocation; and No. 2, that allocation could allow the sugar to 
come in outside the program, the sugar program at below the marketing 
loan level which I think would destroy the program. Those are the two 
concerns that I think most Members have.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, is it appropriate to set aside this 
amendment to see if we cannot work out some language with Senator 
Breaux?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will take unanimous consent to vitiate the 
current agreement.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Senator Breaux mentioned two things which were our 
intent, in any event, that would cause him to withdraw his disapproval 
of the language. I ask it be set aside for a few moments or we suggest 
the absence of a quorum to work out the differences and add the 
necessary words.
  Mr. BREAUX. I cannot control this, but I am certainly willing to work 
with the Senator from California. I have stated the two problems.
  I am always willing to talk to see if we can work something out.
  Mr. REID. The vote is not scheduled for 12 minutes. How about 12 
minutes?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I take it.
  Mr. REID. 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, for the information of Senators, Senators 
Feinstein and Breaux are in the process of working on their amendment. 
It will not, at a later time, require a vote. It will be worked out in 
some other manner. So Members should be notified there will not be a 
vote on this amendment. It was scheduled, as you know, for 3:40 this 
afternoon. We have been in a quorum call since then, anticipating there 
would be a vote. There will not be a vote on the Breaux motion to table 
the Feinstein amendment.
  I also announce that I have spoken to the two managers, Senator Lugar 
and Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator asking for unanimous consent to 
vitiate that agreement?
  Mr. REID. You took the words right out of my mouth.

[[Page 993]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also indicate that Senators Harkin and 
Lugar are in the process, with their staffs, of working through these 
amendments. We have, I think, 18 amendments. There are a number of 
them, I have been told, that will be accepted. We expect to have a 
unanimous consent agreement in the immediate future to handle about six 
of these amendments.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the 
amendments proposed to S. 1731 in the order in which they were offered, 
beginning with the Santorum amendment No. 2542, as modified, and ending 
with the Wellstone amendment No. 2847; that there be a time limitation 
of 20 minutes for debate with respect to each amendment, with the time 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that any second-
degree amendments be accorded the same time limitations as the first-
degree amendment--Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent 
that the unanimous consent proposal I just made be withdrawn. I will 
offer another one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
consider the amendments proposed to S. 1731 in the order in which they 
were offered, beginning with the Santorum amendment No. 2542, as 
modified, and ending with the Wellstone amendment No. 2847; that there 
be a time limitation of 20 minutes for debate with respect to each 
amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual 
form; that if there is a second-degree amendment offered, the first-
degree amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that it be 
in order for the managers to have a stacked sequence of votes beginning 
at a time agreed upon by the managers and the leaders or their 
designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I state, Mr. President, as I did earlier, we are trying to 
work out an agreement to work through the rest of these amendments so 
that there will be definite times on them. We are in the process of 
doing that now.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--Senator Enzi is not in the 
Chamber--that Senator Wellstone, who is in the Chamber, be allowed to 
begin his 20 minutes at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 2847

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to start speaking on the 
amendment. We may or may not make one change.
  This amendment is a modified version of an amendment I offered last 
week. It is a reform amendment to the EQIP program.
  The argument against the amendment I offered last week--which I think 
was an important amendment for our independent producers and an 
important amendment for the environment--was that the size limitation 
meant that midsized farmers could not expand. I actually thought that 
an operation with over 5,000 hogs was a pretty large operation in the 
first place.
  But what I am going to do this time is make some changes, which will, 
hopefully, give us the vote to go over the top.
  What this amendment does is comparable to what we have done with crop 
assistance in the commodity program. Now we have a reasonable payment 
limit. What we have is a payment limit with the commodity program and, 
in addition, restrictions on multiple payments and compliance with 
environmental laws. This amendment would have a reasonable payment 
limit on EQIP funds. It would restrict producers from receiving 
multiple EQIP payments. In other words, right now these conglomerates 
own multiple CAFOs and then get government money for each one of them. 
It becomes a subsidy in inverse relation to need. And this amendment 
would require that producers who receive EQIP funds have an 
environmental plan.
  At the moment, the direction in which this amendment goes is as 
follows: It would lower the payment limits from $50,000 per year to 
$30,000 per year. Right now, the limit is $10,000. Some farmers don't 
do multiple-year contracts.
  My point is, just as we had payment limits on an earlier vote with 
the Dorgan amendment, it seems to me we ought to also have payment 
limits with the EQIP program, if this environmental program is to have 
the policy integrity, and if we are not to be giving these payments to 
some of the largest operations that don't need them.
  Secondly, it prevents producers with an interest in more than one 
large CAFO from receiving more than one EQIP contract, which makes all 
the sense in the world from the point of view of reform. And, again, we 
are talking about an amendment that has some payment limitation.
  Finally, it requires the producers receiving the EQIP funds to have a 
comprehensive nutrient management plan which is an environmental plan.
  It is a reform amendment. I think we have done a lot of good work on 
this bill. The vote earlier today on the packer ownership amendment was 
extremely important. We passed the crop payment limitation by a 66-to-
31 vote, which was an historic vote.
  If my colleagues are in support of payment limitations, they should 
support this amendment. This amendment puts some reasonable payment 
limitations back into the Environmental Quality Incentive Program. 
Current law caps it at $10,000 per year. The underlying legislation 
increases the cap to $50,000 a year. That is a fivefold increase.
  This amendment recognizes the problem we have with the environmental 
pollution that comes from these large livestock operations, but it 
places a reasonable payment limit on the program: $30,000 per year up 
to $150,000 over 5 years.
  If we don't put some reasonable payment limits on the program, the 
flow of benefits is going to be just as we have seen with the 
commodities: huge payments to huge producers; in this case large 
livestock conglomerates that over the years have been squeezing 
independent producers out of existence.
  That is what this amendment is all about. Again, let me be crystal 
clear. This amendment now deals with the argument that some colleagues 
made that it is not going to let the midsize operations expand. This 
amendment is consistent with what we have done on payment limits. It is 
a reform amendment. This amendment plugs a big loophole with multiple 
CAFOs which is a huge problem when these conglomerates buy up a lot of 
these confinement operations and then get a subsidy for each one of 
them.
  Finally, this amendment calls for a sound environmental plan, which 
makes all the sense in world, a comprehensive nutrient management plan. 
It is a modest amendment. It is a good reform amendment. It is a good 
environmental amendment. Frankly, it is a good amendment for our 
independent producers.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I don't know who controls any time on the 
opposite side. We have examined the amendment on this side and, quite 
frankly, I think the Senator from Minnesota has made constructive 
changes to the EQIP program, which I think will inure to the benefit of 
our livestock producers all over America. On this side, we are prepared 
to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me respond to the distinguished 
Senator. I personally favor the amendment. I will ask for 3 more 
minutes for the hotline on our side to ascertain whether all of us are 
in agreement. I am hopeful that is the case. If I may have the 
indulgence of Senators, I will ask for a quorum call for about 3 
minutes of time. It would be my hope we could accept the amendment at 
that point.

[[Page 994]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if I could say a couple of words while we are 
waiting. That moves us right along.
  Before the Senator from Iowa leaves, let me say this for the record: 
I hope there will be support. I certainly would be pleased to not have 
a recorded vote. I know we are trying to move things along. I ask the 
Senator from Iowa in a bit of a colloquy here for his support in 
conference committee to keep this in because my experience has been all 
too often, when there is not a recorded vote and there is a voice vote, 
then the amendments get tossed aside. I know my colleague supports this 
amendment. I certainly ask for his support as the chair in the 
conference committee.
  I assume when he nods his head, it means yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Minnesota, my neighbor to the 
north, he is a very valuable member of our committee. When this bill is 
done and I go on to conference, it is my intention as chair to fight 
for all of the amendments that we in the Senate have adopted on this 
bill because it will be the Senate's position.
  Certainly in this area on the EQIP program, I believe the Senator's 
amendment improves what we have done in the underlying bill, and 
certainly I will do everything I can to make sure we keep those 
provisions.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with the 
time to be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will stay here and wait patiently for 
our 3-minute limit, and my colleagues can let me know.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Wellstone 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2\1/2\ minutes that remain to the 
proponents; 8 minutes remain in opposition.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to reserve the 
remainder of the time, the 2 minutes and the 8 minutes, and now proceed 
to recognize Senator Enzi who had two amendments offered which are 
going to be accepted on this side. I don't know if the Senator wanted 
any time at all, but to move the process along, I see the Senator from 
Wyoming is on the floor.
  I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the time be reserved 
and that we now go to the two Enzi amendments. I ask unanimous consent 
if we could just take 5 minutes on the Enzi amendment and then return 
to the Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 2843

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank everybody who has been working with 
me on these two very important issues. One of them is an accounting 
issue. That is to do with an authorization to have some drought 
assistance for livestock. We have had a livestock assistance program. 
It has been kind of a last-minute, put-it-on-the-budget effort every 
year. But the amount of money that gets spent on it every year is a 
very consistent amount, a good amount. It calls for us to recognize 
that upfront, provide for it upfront, and give our ranchers some 
assurance that they are going to have some help.
  This morning we passed a very important measure, and that actually 
provides for last year's drought assistance for livestock payments. 
People have been through last year's drought. They know they were 
already heard. One of the fascinating things about this is, it doesn't 
pay them for their losses. It pays them so they can buy a little feed 
so they can keep their base stock alive until they can produce again 
and have a crop. I know that Wyoming's portion of that turns out to be 
about $15 million. That comes to about $8,000 per rancher, and $8,000 
doesn't even buy much feed. But it will get some people through the 
winter. So I appreciate the concern of everybody and their willingness 
to accept it.


                           Amendment No. 2846

  Mr. President, the other amendment, of course, is a pet pilot project 
which will put lamb in Afghanistan and will solve a problem there. It 
is so small a project that it can be nonexistent. I know the Department 
of Agriculture will look at it, and I think it will be one of the 
things that will solve some problems for people who grow lambs in the 
West and will build up a herd in Afghanistan so they can be self-
sufficient. It is the old story--and I have heard a variation--give a 
man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and he will buy 
an ugly hat.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have examined both amendments on this 
side. They are valuable additions to the farm bill. I think they both 
have tremendous merit to them. We are pleased to accept them on this 
side.


                           Amendment No. 2847

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me, first of all, make an announcement 
before I comment on the amendments of the Senator. There has been an 
objection on our side to having a voice vote on the Wellstone 
amendment. Therefore, we will need to have a rollcall vote. Because of 
the thoughtfulness of the Senator from Iowa, there will be some further 
time to debate the amendment. I believe there are 8 minutes for the 
opposition. For all those listening to the debate, if there is 
opposition to the Wellstone amendment, that time remains. At the end of 
that time, the Wellstone amendment will be in the stack for votes and 
disposition after the unanimous consent on the other amendments has 
been run through, which is to simply say we are going to have a vote, a 
rollcall, and it will come at the end of the stack that the Senator 
from Nevada offered a while back.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question? I missed the 
first part. There is now a call for a rollcall vote?
  Mr. LUGAR. That is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                      Amendment Nos. 2846 and 2843

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will return now to the amendments of the 
Senator from Wyoming. I had an opportunity to visit with the Senator 
and to appreciate the depth of his understanding and research with 
regard to both of these amendments. On our side, we are pleased to 
accept them and, hopefully, we will have a unanimous vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 2843 is 
pending.
  Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2843) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider that vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2846

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 2846 is now 
pending.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2846) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
statement of the Senator from Indiana, there be no amendments in order 
prior to the vote on the Wellstone amendment No. 2847.

[[Page 995]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the 
time being charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if other Senators are coming down with 
amendments, I will stop speaking. Otherwise, I will take about 5 
minutes now if we have the time.
  Mr. REID. We are on the Senator's time anyway.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes as in morning 
business.
  Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Wyoming 
has arrived and may wish to speak on the Wellstone amendment. How much 
time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes in opposition.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me be very clear that we made a 
modification from the original amendment to deal with some of the 
problems my colleagues had about expansion. We are doing two things: 
Lowering the payment limits from $50,000 per year to $30,000 per year, 
though it can be $30,000 per year over 5 years. This is consistent with 
the vote we have made on payment limitations. There is no reason for 
Government subsidies going to the largest of the largest. Second is to 
prevent producers with an interest in more than one large CAFO to 
receive multiple EQIP contracts. This is consistent as a reform 
amendment. Why should conglomerates get payments for multiple CAFOs?
  Finally, making sure there is a comprehensive management plan which 
goes to the producers, which is good, sound environmental practice. As 
I said, this has the support of a lot of farm organizations and many 
environmental organizations. It is a good reform vote. I hope we will 
get a majority vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me make a couple of comments. I have 
been very involved in this program over time. The Senator brought it up 
before. It seems to me there are some issues here about which we ought 
to talk. We didn't talk about it at all in committee. EQIP, in my view, 
and I think pretty much under the law, is designed to give technical 
assistance to do good for the environment. They are not tied to 
nutrients particularly or to any particular kind of action. They ought 
to be available to people who want take some action, whether it is 
changing a ditch to make it more workable for the environment, or 
whatever.
  Constantly we keep trying to limit it to certain sizes and you have 
to report the number of animals that you own. That is not part of the 
proposition. This idea of nuance was an idea that came up in the 
Clinton administration. It was never put in as a rule, and now we are 
going to put it into law. It seems to me that it is an unnecessary 
amount of detail and is singly trying to target certain areas when 
really the opportunity is broad.
  I was out in my home this weekend and was talking about this--in 
fact, I guess it was in Denver at the Cattlemen's--and people said: We 
need more money for EQIP, but we do not want to have more and more 
rules where every time we try to do something we invite EPA to be here 
on top of us, and all these other things.
  I feel fairly strongly about it. However, I do recognize we need to 
move forward, and I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his cooperation. I am saying 
that when you put up a facility there has to be a plan of what you are 
going to do with the waste. That is all I am really saying.
  If I heard the Senator from Wyoming correctly, he is not objecting. 
Are we still going to go forward with a recorded vote or not? I will do 
it either way, but it sounds as if we could move forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. My understanding is that a recorded vote would occur at 
the expiration of the time of this amendment and the expiration of the 
time of whatever amendments that were in the original unanimous consent 
request. In other words, a list of, I think, four amendments needed to 
be disposed of. So after we have completed work on all of those, there 
would then be rollcall votes therefore required, and this would be one 
of those instances.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, is it possible to ask unanimous consent 
that the rollcall vote on this issue be vitiated?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate on the amendment? If not, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 2847.
  The amendment (No. 2847) was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2845

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the McConnell 
amendment No. 2845 is now pending.
  Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time being 
charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are now on 
the McConnell amendment, No. 2845. Is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin 
be allowed to offer a second-degree amendment to amendment No. 2845; 
that the time between now and 5 o'clock be equally divided between 
Senator Harkin and Senator McConnell or their designees, and that at 
5:45 we vote on the Harkin second-degree amendment and that at 5 
o'clock this matter be set aside.
  I would say for the information of all Senators, there is a 
leadership meeting at 5 o'clock. I think it is bicameral. I don't know 
what it is; I am not attending. We will stay here on the floor and try 
to work out some other things during that 45-minute period.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. To make it clear, we are going to debate now for about 20 
minutes on my substitute and the underlying McConnell amendment. That 
will be set aside. The vote will then occur on my second-degree 
amendment at 5:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. There may be intervening business between now and then, 
but there will be no votes until 5:45; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                Amendment No. 2856 to Amendment No. 2845

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment. I send 
it to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2856 to amendment No. 2845.

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'']

[[Page 996]]


  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, please clarify, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what we have in front of us is the 
McConnell amendment, which reduces loan rates by less than a quarter of 
a percent. He takes that money and basically puts it into nutrition 
programs.
  Frankly, my history in both the House and Senate in the Agriculture 
Committee for 27 years is one of very strong support for nutrition 
programs.
  Let's look at the record. The House of Representatives, in their farm 
bill, has $3.6 billion over baseline for nutrition programs for 10 
years--$3.6 billion. The Senate bill, as we reported it from committee, 
had $6.2 billion, almost twice as much for nutrition programs over the 
same period of time.
  Due to certain amendments that have been offered and agreed to 
already on the Senate floor, the amount of money for nutrition now in 
the pending farm bill is $8.4 billion. That is well over twice what the 
House has. Could it be more? Yes. We could always do more, of course. 
But we have tried to keep a well-balanced bill. I submit we have done a 
lot to address the underlying concerns of accessibility, of assets--of 
a lot of things--for people who need food stamps and other nutrition 
programs.
  The McConnell amendment, if you divide it all up, would put about $49 
million a year additional into a program that already is spending $20 
billion a year. Now, $49 million is a lot of money, but compared to $20 
billion? I submit this will have almost no effect on the underlying 
nutrition programs. Really, the way I see this amendment, it is an 
attempt to take some more money out of commodity programs by reducing 
the loan rate, which is important as an income support for farmers in 
my part of the country and, in fact, all over America.
  What my amendment does is it says: OK, if you are going to nick the 
loan rates by a quarter of a percent, let's then leave it as an income 
support for farmers--one way or the other.
  Last Saturday in Denver, CO, President Bush said one of the things he 
wanted to see in a farm bill was farm savings accounts. He said that. I 
think the distinguished ranking member has proposed this in the past. 
Senator Grassley, my colleague from Iowa, has supported this proposal 
in the past. Others have supported farm savings accounts. We plan to 
propose a pilot program in the underlying manager's amendment. It 
provides $36 million for a pilot program. It is not very much, but at 
least it was there to try to test the idea to see if it was acceptable 
and see if it would work. Some said that is not enough money.
  My second-degree amendment basically says we will take the less than 
quarter percent cut out of loan rates, but we will take that money, 
which is about $510 million, and we will put that into the farm savings 
account as a pilot program in 10 States. With that much money, perhaps 
we could really find out whether or not this program would work.
  The President said he has wanted it. Other people have been 
supporting it. I have some reservations about the idea, but there are 
plenty of people on the other side of the aisle, and the President, who 
have supported this idea. So in the spirit of bipartisanship I would 
like to include this pilot program so we can all find out exactly how 
it works and give the USDA some time to work out the details.
  Again, the President has requested this program. The pilot program 
will include 10 States. It will run from 2003 to 2006. To make the 
program viable, we will ramp up funding to $200 million by 2006.
  The pilot program allows the farmer to set up a savings account. The 
Secretary of Agriculture will then match the producer's contribution. A 
producer's contribution is limited to $5,000 a year. The farmer can 
then withdraw from the account when his farm income from that year is 
less than 90 percent of his farm income averaged over the last 5 years.
  Again, we have a strong nutrition title here. We have gone from $3.6 
billion in the House to $8.4 billion here. But if we want to have the 
farm savings accounts, then Senators will have a choice. We have 
already done a lot for nutrition. I take a back seat to no one in my 
support for strong nutrition programs. But if the will is to nick the 
loan rates a little bit--and I guess this is what this is all about--at 
least let's leave it with some income support for farmers. I am willing 
to give the benefit of the doubt to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle. Let's try this farm savings account. Let's see how it works. 
Maybe I will be proven wrong. I don't know that it will work, but it is 
probably worth a try. And I know the President wants it.
  The President keeps saying he wants bipartisanship. This is 
bipartisanship. I reach out a hand to those on the other side of the 
aisle and say fine, let's try the farm savings accounts.
  Let me point out one other thing. I mentioned the House had $3.6 
billion in nutrition. We are at $8.4 billion. President Bush, in the 
budget he sent down, has $4.2 billion increases for nutrition programs 
over the next 10 years. So, as I said, I think we can be proud of what 
we have done for nutrition in the Senate bill.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The underlying McConnell amendment which would be 
wiped out by the second-degree Harkin amendment is for the benefit of 
disabled people and working families with children. It would simply 
allocate $50 million over the next 10 years, per year, and pay for it 
with a thirteen-hundredths-of-1-percent lowering of loan rates, a 
thirteen-hundredths-of-1-percent reduction in loan rates over 10 years, 
which is a minuscule reduction in loan rates, to benefit the disabled 
and working families with children.
  That is what the underlying amendment is about. I had hoped the 
Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the committee, would accept this 
amendment. It seems to me it is pretty simple. There is not a farmer in 
America who is going to notice a thirteen-hundredths-of-1-percent 
reduction in loan rates over 10 years. No farmer is going to recognize 
that. But a lot of disabled people and working families will recognize 
the $16-a-month difference that it will make for them.
  On this amendment, I speak not only for myself but I speak for the 
following groups: The Children's Defense Fund, the Kentucky Task Force 
on Hunger, the Center on Budget and Policy
  Priorities, the National Council of La Raza, the Food Research and 
Action Center, America's Second Harvest, Bread for the World, and the 
Western Regional Antihunger Coalition, which includes the Food Bank of 
Alaska, the Association of Arizona Food Banks, the California Food 
Policy Advocates, the California Association of Food Banks, the Idaho 
Community Action Network, the Montana Food Network, Montana Hunger 
Coalition, the Oregon Hunger Relief Tax Force, the Oregon Food Bank, 
the Utahns Against Hunger, the Children's Alliance of Washington, the 
Washington Association of Churches, and the Washington Food Coalition.
  All of these groups are interested in helping provide sustenance for 
the disabled and working families with children. And the only sacrifice 
that the McConnell amendment envisions farmers making is a thirteen-
hundredths-of- 1-percent reduction in loan rates over 10 years.
  I don't think there is a need to further explain the underlying 
amendment. I had hoped Senator Harkin would accept it. Since he has not 
chosen to do that, I hope the Harkin second-degree amendment will be 
defeated and that the underlying amendment supported by all of these 
groups interested in feeding hungry people and disabled people will be 
agreed to.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes in support of the 
McConnell amendment.
  The distinguished Senator from Kentucky has stated the case well. In 
earlier debates, both of us pointed out

[[Page 997]]

that the McConnell amendment is essential to bringing justice to all 
Americans who are recipients of food stamps--in this case, among those 
who are most vulnerable in our society. It does so at a minimal change 
with regard to payments to farmers. I suspect most farmers recognize 
that and would commend the intent.
  In fairness, my distinguished colleague, the chairman of our 
committee, does not argue about the intent. Indeed, the Senate bill is 
much more generous than the House bill in regard to nutrition programs 
and food stamps in particular and is much more generous than 
administration proposals. At the same time, we have spent the time in 
committee attempting to explore equity. This seems to me to be an 
amendment that rounds this out, and that brings completion to our 
argument in a very satisfying way.
  The savings account idea is a good one, but to introduce it at this 
point seems to me to be inappropriate. I am most hopeful that Senators 
who support the McConnell amendment will think through, once again, an 
opportunity that we have in a humane way to help those who are 
vulnerable in our society through satisfying nutrition programs.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes twenty-two seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, frankly, I think it is quite appropriate. 
We plan to propose a pilot program in the manager's amendment. This 
just expands it.
  I am trying to do something that reaches across the aisle in a 
bipartisan atmosphere, something that friends on the other side of the 
aisle and the President have called for in doing something about these 
farm savings accounts. I don't really know whether they will work or 
not, but I am willing to let them try to put some money in the pilot 
program.
  On the other hand, on nutrition programs, there is $49 million a 
year. Every dollar helps. When you are spending $20 billion a year and 
say we are going to put in another $49 million, you could look at it 
and say that doesn't do much. The Senator from Kentucky says we are not 
taking much out of farmers. You are not taking much out of farmers but 
you are not doing much to help poor people, either.
  If you are going to do that--if you are going to nick the farmers a 
little bit--rather than holding out false hopes to poor people that 
somehow you are really going to boost nutrition programs, which you 
really aren't with this amendment, then at least try to do something 
that might be meaningful to help farm income in the future.
  Quite frankly, $50 million used in the farm savings accounts could be 
the underpinnings to help farm income in the future. That could be 
meaningful. But $49 million, or $50 million, on $20 billion for food 
stamps is, as I said, holding out false hopes to poor people that 
somehow you have done something.
  I suggest to my friend from Kentucky that perhaps he might want to 
tell the President not to send the budget down here that has $4.2 
billion in increases in nutrition programs when we are already at $8.4 
billion. I had hoped the President would have sent down a budget that 
said, no, we need to put more money in nutrition, and we need $8 
billion or $10 billion, as the ranking member was trying to do in 
committee with $10 billion more for nutrition.
  On the other hand, that amount of money going into farm savings 
accounts could be quite significant to a number of farmers.
  I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will not need to use the whole 5 
minutes. Let me restate what this is about. This is about working 
families with children and disabled people who are eligible for food 
stamps. It has been suggested by my friend and colleague from Iowa that 
the amount involved for those people would not be noticed. I would 
respectfully suggest that $16 a month for a family of four will be 
noticed and that the loss of thirteen-hundredths of 1 percent on the 
loan rate will not be noticed by the farmers.
  This is an amendment that ought to be approved. As I said earlier, it 
is supported by a vast array of groups led by the Children's Defense 
Fund that believes it is necessary to bring this program up to the 
level that it ought to achieve when looking into the future.
  I hope that the Harkin second-degree amendment will be defeated and 
that the underlying McConnell amendment, supported by the Children's 
Defense Fund and an array of different organizations, which I listed a 
few moments ago, will be approved.
  Again, this is about $16 a month for working families with children 
and the disabled, paid for by a thirteen-hundredths of 1 percent 
reduction in loan rates.
  I think this is a tradeoff that every farmer in America would 
understand. I consider myself a friend of farmers as well. I will bet 
there is not a farmer in Kentucky who wouldn't think this is an 
appropriate step to take.
  Is the Senator from Iowa out of time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 18 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am happy to yield back my time if the 
Senator from Iowa wants to yield back his 18 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                           Amendment No. 2822

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me ask the distinguished chairman of 
our committee for his attention to the Helms amendment No. 2822 dealing 
with animal welfare. I wanted to inquire of the Senator with regard to 
the Helms amendment No. 2822 on animal welfare. It is my understanding 
that on both sides of the aisle we are prepared to accept that 
amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is a good amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. Will the Chair turn our attention to the Helms amendment 
No. 2822 and proceed with the regular order with that amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending. The question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2822) was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 2829

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn 
to amendment No. 2829.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is now the 
pending question.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senators Breaux and Feinstein have worked on 
this amendment now for the past hour or thereabouts.


                    Amendment No. 2829, As Modified

  On their behalf, I send a modification to the desk and ask unanimous 
consent the amendment be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Strike the period at the end of section 143 and insert a 
     period and the following:

     SEC. 144. REALLOCATION OF SUGAR QUOTA.

       Subtitle B of title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act 
     of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

        ``PART VIII--REALLOCATING SUGAR QUOTA IMPORT SHORTFALLS

     ``SEC. 360. REALLOCATING CERTAIN SUGAR QUOTAS.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, on or after June 1 of each year, the United States Trade 
     Representative, in consultation with the Secretary, shall 
     determine the amount of the quota of cane sugar used by each 
     qualified

[[Page 998]]

     supplying country for that fiscal year, and may reallocate 
     the unused quota for that fiscal year among qualified 
     supplying countries.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Qualified supplying country.--The term `qualified 
     supplying country' means one of the following 40 foreign 
     countries that is allowed to export cane sugar to the United 
     States under an agreement or any other country with which the 
     United States has an agreement relating to the importation of 
     cane sugar:

    Argentina
    Australia
    Barbados
    Belize
    Bolivia
    Brazil
    Colombia
    Congo
    Costa Rica
    Dominican Republic
    Ecuador
    El Salvador
    Fiji
    Gabon
    Guatemala
    Guyana
    Haiti
    Honduras
    India
    Ivory Coast
    Jamaica
    Madagascar
    Malawi
    Mauritius
    Mexico
    Mozambique
    Nicaragua
    Panama
    Papua New Guinea
    Paraguay
    Peru
    Philippines
    St. Kitts and Nevis
    South Africa
    Swaziland
    Taiwan
    Thailand
    Trinidad-Tobago
    Uruguay
    Zimbabwe.

       ``(2) Cane sugar.--The term `cane sugar' has the same 
     meaning as the term has under part VII.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment, as 
modified?
  If not, the time is yielded back. The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2829, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2829), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                           Amendment No. 2854

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn 
to the McConnell amendment No. 2854.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is now the 
pending question.
  Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2854.
  The amendment (No. 2854) was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate is not in a quorum call; is that 
right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                           Amendment No. 2855

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn 
to amendment No. 2855, Senator Kyl's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is now the 
pending question.


                    Amendment No. 2855, As Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk, which has 
been signed off on by Senator Kyl, Senator Lugar, and Senator Harkin. I 
ask unanimous consent the amendment be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 9, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       ``(12) Implementation.--In carrying out this subsection, 
     the Secretary shall comply with--
       ``(A) all interstate compacts, court decrees, and Federal 
     and State laws (including regulations) that may affect water 
     or water rights; and
       ``(B) all procedural and substantive State water law.
       On page 10, line 1, strike ``(13)'' and insert ``(14)''.
       On page 11, line 9, strike ``(14)'' and insert ``(15)''.
       On page 10, line 14, strike ``(15)'' and insert ``(16)''.
       On page 10, line 22, strike ``(16)'' and insert ``(17)''.
       On page 20, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       ``(j) Implementation.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall comply with--
       ``(1) all interstate compacts, court decrees, and Federal 
     and State laws (including regulations) that may affect water 
     or water rights; and
       ``(2) all procedural and substantive State water law.
       On page 20, line 11, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(k)''.
       On page 20, line 22, strike ``(k)'' and insert ``(l)''.
       On page 21, line 4, strike ``(l)'' and insert ``(m)''.
       On page 21, line 9, strike ``(m)'' and insert ``(n)''.
       On page 21, line 12, strike ``(n)'' and insert ``(o)''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2855, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2855), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2542, As Further Modified

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask the that Chair consider an amendment 
by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, No. 2542.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending. Is there further 
debate?
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask clarification from the Chair. On the copy of the 
amendment I am looking at, it identifies it as amendment No. 2639. Can 
the Chair help illuminate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. As soon as the Chair has been illuminated, the 
Chair will illuminate.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment No. 2542 was modified 
with the text of the amendment the Senator has just referenced.
  Mr. HARKIN. It has been modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It has been modified.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair for that information. I ask that the 
Chair proceed to consideration of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is momentarily in doubt.
  The pending question is amendment No. 2542 as previously modified and 
with the proposed modification that is now at the desk.
  Is there objection to the second modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is further modified.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:
       Beginning on page 2, strike line 11 and all that follows 
     through page 4, line 21, and insert the following:
       ``(C) for the socialization of dogs intended for sale as 
     pets with other dogs and people, through compliance with a 
     performance standard developed by the Secretary based on the 
     recommendations of veterinarians and animal welfare and 
     behavior experts that--
       ``(i) identifies actions that dealers and inspectors shall 
     take to ensure adequate socialization; and
       ``(ii) identifies a set of behavioral measures that 
     inspectors shall use to evaluate adequate socialization; and
       ``(D) for addressing the initiation and frequency of 
     breeding of female dogs so that a female dog is not--
       ``(i) bred before the female dog has reached at least 1 
     year of age; and
       ``(ii) whelped more frequently than 3 times in any 24-month 
     period.''.
       (b) Suspension or Revocation of License, Civil Penalties, 
     Judicial Review, and Criminal Penalties.--Section 19 of the 
     Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 19. (a) If the Secretary'' and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 19. SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE, CIVIL 
                   PENALTIES, JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND CRIMINAL 
                   PENALTIES.

       ``(a) Suspension or Revocation of License.--

[[Page 999]]

       ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1) (as designated by paragraph (1)), by 
     striking ``if such violation'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``if the Secretary determines that 1 or more 
     violations have occurred.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) License revocation.--If the Secretary finds that any 
     person licensed as a dealer, exhibitor, or operator of an 
     auction sale subject to section 12, has committed a serious 
     violation (as determined by the Secretary) of any rule, 
     regulation, or standard governing the humane handling, 
     transportation, veterinary care, housing, breeding, 
     socialization, feeding, watering, or other humane treatment 
     of dogs under section 12 or 13 on 3 or more separate 
     inspections within any 8-year period, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) suspend the license of the person for 21 days; and
       ``(B) after providing notice and a hearing not more than 30 
     days after the third violation is noted on an inspection 
     report, revoke the license of the person unless the Secretary 
     makes a written finding that revocation is unwarranted 
     because of extraordinary extenuating circumstances.''

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President this amendment is a continuation of my 
interest in the protection and humane treatment of animals, 
specifically, dogs and puppies. This amendment will crack down on 
breeders who do not abide by existing requirements for the humane 
treatment and care of dogs bred for the pet trade. It will also fill 
some gaps in the law that involve important humane concerns.
  There has been extensive coverage of the improper care, abuse, and 
mistreatment common at ``puppy mills'' across America. Unsuspecting 
consumers who purchase these puppies find out that they have latent 
physical and behavioral problems because of the poor care they received 
in the important early stage of their lives. This can lead to safety 
concerns, tremendous expense and heartbreak for families. And for the 
dogs, it often means they end up taken to shelters where they must be 
euthanized because they're too aggressive or sickly to be adopted.
  My amendment enjoys the support of national animal protection 
organizations, such as the Humane society of the United States and the 
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ASPCA, as 
well as 861 humane organizations, shelters, and animal control 
associations. I ask unanimous consent that a listing of these 
organizations, by State, be printed to the Record. Also let the Record 
reflect that my own State of Pennsylvania has 14 organizations on this 
list ranging from the Western Pennsylvania Westie Rescue Committee, the 
Humane Society of Lackawanna County and the York County SPCA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SANTORUM. There are at least 3,000 commercial dog breeding 
facilities licensed to operate by the United States Department of 
Agriculture. These facilities are required to comply with the rules and 
regulations of the Animal Welfare Act, AWA, that sets forth minimal 
standards for humane handling and treatment. Inspections, to oversee 
compliance with AWA standards, are performed by the USDA.
  There are serious inadequacies with the current system that demand 
our attention and our action. One problem has been insufficient 
resources for the USDA to perform timely and routine inspections. 
Second, inspectors have too few tools to make the assessment of proper 
care that they must. I have worked for several years on strategies to 
solve these problems through congressional and agency action.
  I was very pleased to be joined last year by one-third of my Senate 
colleagues in seeking an increased appropriation for USDA to enforce 
the Animal Welfare Act. USDA has approximately 80 inspectors to inspect 
nearly 10,000 USDA federally-licensed facilities involving millions of 
animals. Increases in USDA's enforcement budget will certainly help the 
agency fulfill its responsibility to ensure compliance with the AWA.
  Counting Fiscal Year 2002, Congress has appropriated an additional 
$13 million since 1999 to enable USDA to track down more unlicensed 
facilities, conduct more inspections, and improve follow-up enforcement 
efforts.
  And while Congress is making progress addressing the AWA budget 
shortfall, it is also important to address gaps in the law to better 
protect dogs and consumers.
  That is why I introduced the Puppy Protection Act, along with my 
colleague Senator Durbin, to address these additional areas requiring 
our attention.
  Today's amendment is based on that bill, S. 1478, which we introduced 
on October 1, 2001. The Puppy Protection Act, and our amendment today, 
will make three very important and needed changes to the Animal Welfare 
Act's oversight of commercial dog breeding operations.
  First, legislation addresses the need for breeding females to be 
given time to recover between litters and to be protected from breeding 
in their first year of life.
  Second, it requires that dogs receive adequate interaction with other 
dogs and with people to help prevent behavioral problems in the future.
  Third, it encourages swift and strong enforcement against repeat 
offenders by creating a ``three strikes and you're out'' system for 
chronic violators.
  The science is clear that dogs who are raised without adequate 
contact with other dogs and with people are likely to have behavioral 
problems throughout their lives.
  This amendment recognizes the critical importance of the early weeks 
of a dog's life. The Animal Welfare Act does currently recognize this 
need.
  Our amendment also addresses the issue of breeding and its 
correlation to an animals's welfare. Sometimes a life of intensive 
breeding can begin at 6 months of age, well before a dog is mature 
enough to mother a litter of puppies and still remain healthy.
  Relentless overbreeding can cause severe nutritional deficiencies and 
impairs a dog's immune system, leading to increased risk of infections, 
illness and organ failure.
  These concerns go to the heart of humane treatment, and are as 
appropriate for Congress to address as other areas already covered by 
the AWA, such as adequate veterinary care, food, water, sanitation, 
ventilation, and shelter from harsh weather.
  Finally, our amendment addresses the problem of commercial dog 
breeders who repeatedly violate the requirements of the Animal Welfare 
Act, but continue to operate.
  This carefully-crafted provision will help USDA take action against 
the genuinely bad actors while allowing for the rights of all 
individuals in the breeding business. I am deeply concerned about small 
business and the protection of private property rights, so I have 
worked with many interested parties to ensure this provision strikes 
the right balance.
  When families decide to buy or adopt a dog, they are taking in a new 
family member. When they find, after weeks or months of sharing their 
home with this dog, that their pet has behavioral problems or some 
latent disease, they often do everything in their power to help their 
dog with veterinarian care or behavioral training.
  Unfortunately, dogs that are maltreated early in life and that have 
been denied the early contacts that allow them to form solid bonds with 
people and other animals, may bite or lash out. Families that face 
these problems will often go to great lengths, and spare no expense, to 
find a cure for a problem that could easily have been prevented.
  Our legislation should not be controversial. It is about protecting 
animals from mistreatment. It is about preventing heartbreak and loss 
to families. And it is about doing what is responsible.
  Please support the Santorum-Durbin amendment for puppy protection.

                               Exhibit 1

               Endorsement List for Puppy Protection Act

                  (861 Endorsements--Updated 11/27/01)


                                 Alaska

       Anchorage Animal Control
       Gastineau Humane Society (Juneau)
       Sitka Animal Shelter (Sitka)


                                Alabama

       The Animal Shelter (Anniston)
       Barbour County Humane Society Inc. (Eufaula)

[[Page 1000]]

       BJC Animal Control Services, Inc. (Birmingham)
       Central Alabama Animal Shelter (Selma)
       Circle of Friends (Montrose)
       City of Irondale Animal Control (Irondale)
       Dekalb County SPCA (Fort Payne)
       Greater Birmingham Humane Society
       Humane Society of Elmore County (Wetumpka)
       Humane Society of Etowah County (Gadsden)
       Humane Society of Chilton County (Clanton)
       Humane Society of Pike County (Troy)
       Mobile SPCA (Mobile)
       Monroe County Humane Society (Monroeville)
       Montgomery Humane Society (Montgomery)
       St. Clair Animal Shelter (Pell City)
       Tuscaloosa Metro Animal Shelter (Tuscaloosa)
       Walker County Humane Society (Jasper)


                                Arizona

       Berryville Animal Care and Control (Berryville)
       Hot Springs Village Animal Welfare League (HPV)
       Paragould Animal Welfare Society (Paragould)
       Sherwood Animal Services (Sherwood)


                                Arizona

       Animal Defense League of Arizona (Tucson)
       Arizona Animal Welfare League (Phoenix)
       Coconino Humane Association (Flagstaff)
       Hacienda De Los Milagros, Inc. (Chino Valley)
       Holbrook Police Department (Holbrook)
       Humane Society of Sedona (Sedona)
       Humane Society of Southern Arizona (Tucson)
       Long Lake Animal Shelter/Fort Mojave Ranger Department 
     (Mohave Valley)
       Payson Humane Society, Inc. (Payson)


                               California

       Actors and Others for Animal (North Hollywood)
       All for Animals (Santa Barbara)
       Animal Friends of the Valley/LEAF (Lake Elsinore)
       Animal Protection Institute (Sacramento)
       Animal Care Services Division, City of Sacramento 
     (Sacramento)
       Animal Place (Vacaville)
       Antioch Animal Services (Antioch)
       Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (Davis)
       Benicia/Vallejo Humane Society (Vallejo)
       Berkeley Animal Care Services (Berkeley)
       California Animal Care (Pam Desert)
       California Animal Defense and Anti-Vivisection League, Inc. 
     (Carson)
       City of Perris Animal Control (Perris)
       City of Sacramento Animal Care Services Division 
     (Sacramento)
       City of Santa Barbara Police Department--Animal Control 
     (Santa Barbara)
       Contra Costa Humane Society (Pleasant Hill)
       Costa Mesa Animal Control (Costa Mesa)
       Desert Hot Springs Animal Control (Desert Hot Springs)
       Division (Santa Barbara)
       Dog Obedience Club of Torrance, CA (Torrance)
       Earth Island Institute (San Francisco)
       Eileen Hawthorne Fund Inc. (Fort Bragg)
       Escondido Humane Society (Escondido)
       Friends for Pets Foundation (Sun Valley)
       Friends of the Fairmont Animal Shelter (San Leandro)
       Friends of Solano County (Fairfield)
       Haven Humane Society, Inc. (Redding)
       The Healdsburg Animal Shelter (Healdsburg)
       Helen Woodward Animal Center (Rancho Santa Fe)
       Hollister Animal Shelter (Hollister)
       Humane Education Network (Menlo Park)
       Humane Society of Imperial County (El Centre)
       Humane Society of Tuolumne County (Jamestown)
       Kings SPCA (Hanford)
       Lake Tahoe Humane Society/SPCA (South Lake Tahoe)
       Lawndale Municipal Services, Animal Control Division 
     (Lawndale)
       The Marin Humane Society (Novato)
       Orange County People for Animals (Irvine)
       Orange County SPCA (Huntington Beach)
       Pasadena Humane Society and SPCA (Pasadena)
       Pet Adoption League (Grass Valley)
       Petaluma Animal Services (Petaluma)
       Placer County Animal Services (Auburn)
       Placer County Animal Services (Kings Beach/Tahoe Vista)
       Pleasanton Police Department--Animal Services (Pleasanton)
       Rancho Coastal Humane Society (Leucadia)
       Reedley Police Department (Reedley)
       Retired Greyhound Rescue (Yuba City)
       Sacramento County Animal Care and Regulation (Sacramento)
       Sacramento SPCA (Sacramento)
       Santa Cruz SPCA (Santa Cruz)
       Seal Beach Animal Care Center (Seal Beach)
       Siskiyou County Animal Control (Yreka)
       Solano County Animal Control (Fairfield)
       Southeast Area Animal Control Authority (Downey)
       Spay Neuter Associates (Ben Lomond)
       The SPCA of Monterey County (Monterey)
       Stanislaus County Animal Services (Modesto)
       State Humane Association of California (Sacramento)
       Town and Country Humane Society (Orland)
       Town of Truckee Animal Control (Truckee)
       Tracy Animal Shelter (Tracy)
       Tri-City Animal Shelter (Fremont)
       Tulare County Animal Control Shelter (Visalia)
       United Animal Nations/Emergency Rescue Service (Santa 
     Barbara)
       Valley Humane Society (Pleasanton)
       Woods Humane Society (San Luis Obispo)
       Yuba Sutter SPCA (Yuba City)
       Yucaipa Animal Placement Society (Yucaipa)


                                colorado

       Adams County Animal Control (Commerce City)
       Barnwater Cats Rescue Organization (Denver)
       Cat Care Society (Lakewood)
       Cherry Hills Village Animal Control (Cherry Hills Village)
       Delta County Humane Society (Delta)
       Denver Animal Control and Shelter (Denver)
       The Dreampower Foundation/P.A.A.L.S. (Castle Rock)
       Dumb Friends League (Denver)
       Good Samaritan Pet Center (Denver)
       Humane Society of Boulder Valley (Boulder)
       Intermountain Humane Society (Conifer)
       Larimer Humane Society (Fort Collins)
       Lone Rock Veterinary Clinic (Bailey)
       Longmont Humane Society (Longmont)
       Montrose Animal Protection Agency (Montrose)
       Rangely Animal Shelter (Rangely)
       Rocky Mountain Animal Defense (Boulder)
       Table Mountain Animal Center (Golden)
       Thornton Animal Control (Thornton)


                              connecticut

       Animal Welfare Associates, Inc. (Stamford)
       Connecticut Humane Society (Newington)
       Enfield Police Department-Animal Control (Enfield)
       Forgotten Felines, Inc. (Clinton)
       The Greater New Haven Cat Project, Inc. (New Haven)
       Hamilton Sundstrand (West Locks)
       Kitty Angels of Connecticut (Coventry)
       Meriden Humane Society (Meriden)
       Milford Animal Control (Milford)
       Per Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) (Norwalk)
       Quinebaug Valley Animal Welfare Service (Dayville)
       Valley Shore Animal Welfare League (Westbrook)


                                delaware

       Delaware SPCA (Georgetown)
       Delaware SPCA (Stanton)


                                florida

       Alachua County Humane Society (Gainesville)
       Animal Rights Foundation of Florida (Pompano Beach)
       Animal Welfare League of Charlotte County (Port Charlotte)
       Arni Foundation (Daytona Beach)
       Baker County Animal Control (Macclenny)
       Central Brevard Humane Society-Central (Cocoa)
       Central Brevard Humane Society-South (Melbourne)
       Citizens for Humane Animal Treatment (Crawfordville)
       Clay County Animal Control (Green Cove Springs)
       Coral Springs Humane Unit (Coral Springs)
       First Coast Humane Society/Nassau County Animal Control 
     (Yulee)
       Flayler County Humane Society (Palm Coast)
       Halifax Humane Society (Daytona Beach)
       Humane Society of Broward County (Fort Lauderdale)
       Humane Society of Collier County, Inc. (Naples)
       Humane Society of Lake County (Eustis)
       Humane Society of Lee County, Inc. (Fort Myers)
       Humane Society of Manatee County (Bradenton)
       Humane Society of North Pinellas (Clearwater)
       Humane Society of St. Lucie County (Fort Pierce)
       Humane Society of Tampa Bay (Tampa)
       Humane Society of the Treasure Coast, Inc. (Palm City)
       Jacksonville Humane Society
       Jefferson County Humane Society (Monticello)
       Lake City Animal Shelter (Lake City)
       Leon County Humane Society (Tallahassee)
       Marion County Animal Center (Ocala)
       Okaloosa County Animal Services (Fort Walton Beach)
       Panhandle Animal Welfare Society (Fort Walton Beach)
       Play Acres, Inc. (Wildwood)
       Prayer Alliance for Animals (Jupiter)
       Putnam County Humane Society (Hollister)
       Safe Animal Shelter of Orange Park (Orange Park)

[[Page 1001]]

       Safe Harbor Animal Rescue and Clinic (Juniper)
       South Lake Animal League, Inc. (Clermont)
       Southeast Volusia Humane Society (New Smyrna Beach)
       SPCA of Hernando County, Inc. (Brooksville)
       SPCA of Pinellas County (Largo)
       SPCA of West Pasco (New Port Richey)
       Suncoast Basset Rescue, Inc. (Gainesville)
       Suwannee County Humane Society (Live Oak)
       Volusia County Animal Services (Daytona)
       Wings of Mercy Animal Rescue (Panama County Beach)


                                georgia

       Animal Rescue Foundation, Inc. (Milledgeville)
       Atlanta Humane Society and SPCA, Inc. (Atlanta)
       Basset Hound Rescue of Georgia, Inc. (Kennesaw)
       Big Canoe Animal Rescue (Big Canoe)
       Catoosa County Animal Control (Ringgold)
       Charles Smithgall Humane Society, Inc. (Cleveland)
       Cherokee County Humane Society (Woodstock)
       Clayton County Humane Society (Jonesboro)
       Collie Rescue of Metro Atlanta, Inc. (Atlanta)
       Coweta County Animal Control Department (Newman)
       Crawfordville Shelter (Crawfordville)
       Douglas County Humane Society (Douglasville)
       Dublin-Laurens Humane Association (Dublin)
       Fayette County Animal Shelter (Fayetteville)
       Fitzgerald-Ben Hill Humane Society (Fitzgerald)
       Forsyth County Humane Society (Cumming)
       Georgia Labrador Rescue (Canton)
       Glynn County Animal Services (Brunswick)
       Golden Retriever Rescue of Atlanta (Peachtree City)
       The Good Shepard Humane Society (Sharpsburg)
       Homeward Bound Pet Rescue, Inc. (Ellijay)
       Humane Services of Middle Georgia (Macon)
       Humane Society of Camden County (Kingsland)
       Humane Society of Griffin-Spalding County (Experiment)
       Humane Society's Mountain Shelter (Blairsville)
       Humane Society of Moultrie-Colquitt County (Moultrie)
       Humane Society of Northwest Georgia (Dalton)
       Lookout Mountain Animal Resources, Inc. (Menlo
       Lowndes County Animal Welfare (Valdosta)
       Okefenokee Humane Society (Waycross)
       Pet Partners of Habersham, Inc. (Cornelia)
       Pound Puppies N Kittens (Oxford)
       Rescuing Animals in Need, Inc. (Buford)
       Rockdale County Animal Care and Control (Conyers)
       Small Dog Rescue/Adoption (Cumming)
       Society of Human Friends of Georgia, Inc. (Lawrenceville)
       Toccoa-Stephens County Animal Shelter (Tocco)
       Town of Chester (Chester)
       Vidalia Animal Control (Vidalia)
       Washington-Wilkes Animal Shelter (Washington)


                                 hawaii

       Hawaii Island Humane Society (Kailua-Kona)
       Hawaii Island Humane Society (Keaau)
       Hawaiian Humane Society (Honolulu)
       Hauai Humane Society (Lihue)
       The Maui Humane Society (Puunene)
       West Hawaii Humane Society (Kailua-Kona)


                                  iowa

       Animal Control (Creston)
       Animal Lifeline of Iowa, Inc. (Carlisle)
       Animal Protection Society of Iowa (Des Moines)
       Animal Rescue League of Iowa (Des Moines)
       Appanoose County Animal Lifeline, Inc. (Centerville)
       Boone Area Humane Society (Boone)
       Cedar Bend Humane Society (Waterloo)
       Cedar Rapids Animal Control (Ely)
       Cedar Valley Humane Society (Cedar Rapids)
       City of Atlantic Animal Shelter (Atlantic)
       Creston Animal Rescue Effort (Creston)
       Friends of the Animals of Jasper County (Newton)
       Humane Society of Northwest Iowa (Milford)
       Humane Society of Scott County (Davenport)
       Iowa City Animal Car and Control (Iowa City)
       Iowa Federation of Humane Societies (Des Moines)
       Jasper County Animal Rescue league and Humane Society 
     (Newton)
       Keokuk Humane Society (Keokuk)
       Montgomery County Animal Rescue (Red Oak)
       Muscatine Humane Society (Muscatine)
       Northeast Iowa People for Animal Welfare (Decorah)
       Raccoon Valley Humane Society (Adel)
       Siouxland Humane Society (Sioux City)
       Solution to Over-Population of Pets (Burlington)
       Spay Neuter Assistance for Pets (SNAP) (Muscatine)
       Vinton Animal Shelter (Vinton)


                                 idaho

       Animal Ark (Grangeville)
       Animal Shelter of Wood River Valley (Hailey)
       Bannock Humane Society (Pocatello)
       Ferret Haven Shelter/Rescue of Boise, Inc. (Boise)
       Humane Society of the Palouse (Moscow)
       Idaho Humane Society (Boise)
       Kootenai Humane Society (Hayden)
       Pocatello Animal Control (Pocatello)
       Second Chance Animal Shelter (Payette)
       Twin Falls Humane Society (Twin Falls)


                                illinois

       Alton Area Animal Aid Associaton (Godfrey)
       Anderson Animal Shelter (South Elgin)
       The Anti-Cruelty Society (Chicago)
       Chicago Animal Care and Controll (Chicago)
       Community Animal Rescue Effort (Evanston)
       Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control 
     (Bridgeview)
       Friends Forever Humane Society (Freeport)
       Hindsdale Humane Society (Hinsdale)
       Homes for Endangered and Lost Pets (St. Charles)
       Humane Society of Winnebago County (Rockford)
       Illinois Federation of Humane Society (Urbana)
       Illinois Humane Political Action Committee (Mahomet)
       Kankakee County Humane Society (Kankalee)
       Metro East Humane Society (Edwardsville)
       Naperville Animal Control (Naperville)
       Peoria Animal Welfare Shelter (Peoria)
       Peoria Humane Society (Poeria)
       PetEd Humane Education (Hinsdale)
       Quincy Humane Society (Quincy)
       South Suburban Humane Society (Chicago Heights)
       Tazewell Animal Protective Society (Pekin)
       West Suburban Humane Society (Downers Grove)
       Winnebago County Animal Services (Rockford)


                                indiana

       Allen County SPCA (Fort Wayne)
       Cass County Humane Society (Logansport)
       Dubois County Humane Society (Jasper)
       Elkhart City Police Department-Animal Control Division 
     (Elkhart)
       Fort Wayne Animal Care and Control (Ft. Wayne)
       Greene County Humane Society (Linton)
       Greenfields, Hancock County Animal Control (Greenfield)
       Hammond Animal Control (Hammond)
       Hendricks County Humane Society (Brownsburg)
       Home for Friendless Animals Inc. (Indianapolis)
       Humane Society Calumet Area, Inc. (Munster)
       Humane Society of Elkhart County (Elkhart)
       Humane Society for Hamilton County (Noblesville)
       Humane Society of Hobart (Hobart)
       Humane Society of Indianapolis (Indianapolis)
       Humane Society of Perry County (Tell City)
       Johnson County Animal Shelter (Franklin)
       La Porte County Animal Control (La Porte)
       Madison County SPCA and Humane Society, Inc. (Anderson)
       Martin County Humane Society (Loogootee)
       Michiana Humane Society (Michigan City)
       Monroe County Humane Association (Bloomington)
       Morgan County Humane Society (Martinsville)
       New Albany/Floyd County Animal Shelter/Control (New Albany)
       Owen County Humane Society (Spencer)
       Salem Department of Animal Control (Salem)
       Scott County Animal Control and Humane Investigations 
     (Scottsburg)
       Sellersburg Animal Control (Sellersburg)
       Shelbyville/Shelby County Animal Shelter (Shelbyville)
       South Bend Animal Care and Control (South Bend)
       St. Joseph County Humane Society (Mishawaka)
       Starke County Humane Society (North Judson)
       Steuben County Humane Society, Inc. (Angola)
       Tippecanoe County Humane Society (Lafayette)
       Vanderburgh Humane Society, Inc. (Evansville)
       Wells County Humane Society, Inc. (Bluffton)


                                 kansas

       Animal Heaven (Merriam)

[[Page 1002]]

       Arma Animal Shelter (Arma)
       Caring Hands Humane Society (Newton)
       Chanute Animal Control Department (Chanute)
       City of Kinsley Animal Shelter (Kinsley)
       Finney County Humane Society (Garden City)
       Ford County Humane Society (Dodge City)
       Heart of America Humane Society (Overland Park)
       Hutchinson Humane Society (Hutchinson)
       Kansas Humane Society of Wichita (Wichita)
       Lawrence Humane Society (Lawrence)
       Leavenworth Animal Society (Leavenworth)
       Medicine Lodge Animal Shelter (Medicine Lodge)
       Neosho County Sheriff's Office (Erie)
       Salina Animal Shelter (Salina)
       S.E.K. Humane Society (Pittsburg)
       Southeast Kansas Humane Society (Pittsburg)


                                kentucky

       Boone County Animal Control (Burlington)
       Friends of the Shelter/SPCA Kentucky (Florence)
       Humane Society of Nelson County (Bardstown)
       Jefferson County Animal Control and Protection (Louisville)
       Kentucky Coalition for Animal Protection, Inc. (Lexington)
       Lexington Humane Society (Lexington)
       Marion County Humane Society Inc. (Lebanon)
       McCracken County Humane Society, Inc. (Paducah)
       Muhlenberg County Humane Society (Greenville)
       Woodford Humane Society (Versailles)


                               louisiana

       Calcasieu Parish Animal Control and Protection Department 
     (Lake Charles)
       Cat Haven, Inc. (Baton Rouge)
       City of Bossier Animal Control (Bossier City)
       Coalition of Louisiana Advocates (Pineville)
       Don't Be Cruel Sanctuary (Albany)
       East Baton Rouge Parish Animal Control Center (Baton Rouge)
       Humane Society Adoption Center (Monroe)
       Iberia Humane Society (New Iberia)
       Jefferson Parish Animal Shelters (Jefferson)
       Jefferson SPCA (Jefferson)
       League in Support of Animals (New Orleans)
       Louisiana SPCA (New Orleans)
       Natchitoches Humane Animal Shelter (Natchitoches)
       Spay Mart, Inc. (New Orleans)
       St. Bernard Parish Animal Control (Chalmette)
       St. Charles Humane Society (Destrehan)
       St. Tammany Humane Society (Covington)


                             massachusetts

       Alliance for Animals (Boston)
       Animal Shelter Inc. (Sterling)
       Baypath Humane Society of Hopkinton, Inc. (Hopkinton)
       The Buddy Dog Humane Society, Inc. (Sudbury)
       CEASE (Somerville)
       Faces Inc. Dog Rescue and Adoption (West Springfield)
       Faxon Animal Rescue League (Fall River)
       Lowell Humane Society (Lowell)
       MSPCA (Boston)
       New England Animal Action, Inc. (Amherst)
       North Attleboro Animal Control/Shelter (N. Attleboro)
       North Shore Feline Rescue (Middleton)
       South Shore Humane Society, Inc. (Braintree)


                                maryland

       Animal Advocates of Howard County (Ellicott City)
       Bethany Centennial Animal Hospital (Ellicott City)
       Caroline County Humane Society (Ridgely)
       Charles County Animal Control Services (La Plata)
       Harford County Animal Control (Bel Air)
       Humane Society of Baltimore County (Reistertown)
       Humane Society of Carroll County, Inc. (Westminister)
       The Humane Society of Charles County (Waldorf)
       The Humane Society of Dorchester County, Inc. (Cambridge)
       The Humane Society of Harford County (Fallston)
       Humane Society of Southern Maryland (Temple Hills)
       Humane Society of Washington County (Maugansville)
       Labrador Retriever Rescue, Inc. (Clinton)
       Prince George's County Animal Welfare League (Forestville)
       Shady Spring Kennels and Camp for Dogs (Woodbine)
       St. Mary's Animal Welfare League, Inc. (Hollywood)


                                 MAINE

       The Ark Animal Shelter (Cherryfield)
       Boothbay Region Humane Society (Boothbay Harbor)
       Bucksport Animal Shelter (Bucksport)
       Greater Androscoggiin Humane Society (Auburn)
       Houlton Humane Society (Houlton)
       Humane Society--Waterville Area (Waterville)
       Kennebec Valley Humane Society (Augusta)
       Maine Friends of Animals (Falmouth)
       Penobscot Valley Humane Society (Lincoln)


                                MICHIGAN

       Adopt-A-Pet (Allegan)
       Animal Placement Bureau (Lansing)
       Capital Area Humane Society (Lansing)
       The Cat Connection (Berkley)
       Concern for Criters (Battle Creek)
       Friends for Felines Inc. (Lansing)
       Grosse Point Animal Adoption Society (Grosse Pointe Farms)
       Humane Society of Bay County, Inc. (Bay City)
       Humane Society of Huron Valley (Ann Arbor)
       Humane Society of Kent County (Walker)
       Humane Society of Southwest Michigan (Benton Harbor)
       Inkster Animal Control (Inkster)
       Iosco County Animal Control (Taws City)
       Kalamazoo Humane Society
       Lenawee Humane Society (Adrian)
       Menominee Animal Shelter (Menominee)
       Michigan Animal Adoption Network (Livonia)
       Michigan Animal Rescue League (Pontiac)
       Michigan Humane Society (Westland)
       Michigan Humane Society (Rochester Hills)
       Midland County Animal Control (Midland)
       Mid-Michigan Animal Welfare League (Standish)
       Ottawa Shores Humane Society (West Olive)
       Pet Connection Humane Society (Reed City)
       Roscommon County Animal Shelter (Roscommon)
       The Safe Harbor Haven Inc./Rottweiler Hope (Grand Ledge)
       St. Clair Shores Emergency Dispatchers (St. Clair Shores)
       St. Joseph County Animal Control (Centreville)
       WAG Animal Rescue (Wyandotte)
       Wonderful Humane Society (Cadillac)


                               Minnesota

       Almost Home Shelter (Mora)
       Animal Allies Humane Society (Duluth)
       Beltrami Humane Society (Bemidji)
       Bernese Mountain Dog Club of the Greater Twin Cities (St. 
     Paul)
       Brown County Humane Society (New Ulm)
       Carver-Scott Humane Society (Chaska)
       Clearwater County Humane Society (Bagley)
       Doberman Rescue Minnesota (Prior Lake)
       Friends of Animal Humane Society of Carlton County, Inc. 
     (Cloquet)
       Hibbing Animal Shelter (Hibbing)
       Humane Society of Otter Tail County (Fergus Falls)
       Humane Society of Polk County, Inc. (Crookston)
       The Humane Society of Wright County (Buffalo)
       Isanti County Humane Society (Cambridge)
       Minnesota Valley Humane Society (Burnsville)
       Second Chance Animal Rescue (White Bear Lake)
       Waseca County Humane Society (Waseca)


                                MISSOURI

       Afton Veterinary Clinic (St. Louis)
       The Alliance for the Welfare of Animals (Springfield)
       Animal House Veterinary Hospital (Arnold)
       Animal Protective Association of Missouri (St. Louis)
       Audrain Humane Society (Mexico)
       Boonville Animal Control Shelter (Boonville)
       Callaway Hills Animal Shelter (New Bloomfield)
       Caruthersville Humane Society (Caruthersville)
       Columbia Lowndes Humane Society (Columbus)
       Dent County Animal Welfare Society (Salem)
       Dogwood Animal Shelter (Camdenton)
       Humane Society of Missouri (St. Louis)
       Humane Society of the Ozarks (Farmington)
       Humane Society of Southeast Missouri (Cape Girardeau)
       Jefferson County Animal Control (Barnhart)
       Lebanon Humane Society (Lebanon)
       Lee's Summit Municipal Animal Shelter (Lee's Summit)
       Marshall Animal Shelter (Marshall)
       Northeast Missouri Humane Society (Hannibal)
       Olde Towne Fenton Veterinary Hospital (Fenton)
       Open Door Animal Sanctuary (House Springs)
       Pound Pals (St. Louis)
       Saline Animal League (Marshall)
       Sikeston Bootheel Humane Society (Sikeston)
       St. Charles Humane Society (St. Charles)
       St. Joseph Animal Control and Rescue (St. Joseph)
       St. Louis Animal Rights Team (St. Louis)
       St. Peters Animal Control (St. Peters)
       Wayside Waifs (Kansas City)


                              MISSISSIPPI

       Cedarhill Animal Sanctuary, Inc. (Caledonia)

[[Page 1003]]

       Forest County Humane Society (Hattiesburg)
       Humane Society of South Mississippi (Gulfport)
       Mississippi Animal Rescue League (Jackson)


                                montana

       Anaconda Police Department--Animal Control
       Animal Welfare League of Montana (Billings)
       Bitter Root Humane Association (Hamilton)
       Bright Eyes Care and Rehab Center, Inc. (Choteau)
       Humane Society of Cascade County (Great Falls)
       Humane Society of Park County (Livingston)
       Mission Valley Animal Shelter (Polson)
       Montana Spay/Neuter Taskforce (Victor)
       Missoula Humane Society (Missoula)
       PAWHS (Deerlodge)


                             north carolina

       Animal Protection Society of Orange County (Chapel Hill)
       Carolina Animal Protection Society of Onslow County, Inc. 
     (Jacksonville)
       Carteret County Humane Society, Inc. (Morehead City)
       Charlotte/Mecklenburg Animal Control Bureau (Charlotte)
       Forsyth County Animal Control (Winston-Salem)
       Henderson County Humane Society (Hendersonville)
       Humane Society of Rowan County (Salisbury)
       Justice For Animals, Inc. (Raleigh)
       Moore Humane Society (Southern Pines)
       North Carolina Animal/Rabies Control Association (Raleigh)
       SPCA of Wake County (Garner)
       Wake County Animal Control (Raleigh)
       Watauga Humane Society (Blowing Rock)


                              north dakota

       Central Dakota Humane Society (Mandan)
       James River Humane Society (Jamestown)
       Souris Valley Humane Society (Minot)


                                nebraska

       Animal Rescue Society, Inc. (Lincoln)
       Capital Humane Society (Lincoln)
       Care Seekers (Omaha)
       Central Nebraska Humane Society (Grand Island)
       Coalition for Animal Protection, Inc. (Omaha)
       Dodge County Humane Society (Fremont)
       Hearts United for Animals (Auburn)
       McCook Humane Society (McCook)
       Nebraska Border Collie Rescue (Bellevue)
       Nebraska Humane Society (Omaha)
       Panhandle Humane Society (Scottsbluff)
       White Rose Sanctuary (Gordon)


                             new hampshire

       Animal Rescue League of New Hampshire (Bedford)
       Cocheco Valley Humane Society (Dover)
       Collage (Nashua)
       Concord-Merrimack County SPCA (Concord)]
       Conway Area Humane Society (Center Conway)
       Greater Derry Humane Society, Inc. (East Derry)
       Humane Society of Greater Nashua (Nashua)
       Manchester Animal Shelter (Manchester)
       Monadnock Humane Society (W. Swanzey)
       New Hampshire Animal Rights League, Inc. (Concord)
       The New Hampshire Doberman Rescue League, Inc. (Rochester)
       New Hampshire Humane Society (Laconia)
       New Hampshire SPCA (Stratham)
       Salem Animal Rescue League (North Salem)
       Solutions to Overpopulation of Pets, Inc. (Concord)
       Sullivan County Humane Society (Claremont)
       White Mountain Animal League (Franconia)


                               new jersey

       Animal Welfare Federation of New Jersey (Montclair)
       Associated Humane Societies (Newark)
       Cumberland County SPCA (Vineland)
       Humane Society of Atlantic County (Atlantic County)
       Hunterdon County SPCA (Milford)
       Monmouth County SPCA (Eatontown)
       Parsippany Animal Shelter (Parsippany)
       Paws for a Cause (Brick)


                               new mexico

       Animal Aid Association of Cibola County (Milan)
       Cimarron Police Animal Control (Cimarron)
       Deminig/Luna County Humane Society (Derming)
       Dona Ana County Humane Society (Las Cruces)
       Homeless Animal Rescue Team, Inc. (Los Lunas)
       Peoples' Anti-Cruelty Association (Albuquerque)
       Rio Grand Animal Humane Association, Inc. (Los Lunas)
       Roswell Humane Society (Roswell)
       San Juan Animal League (Farmington)
       Santa Fe Animal Shelter and Humane Society


                                 nevada

       Carson/Eagle Valley Humane Society (Carson City)
       Nevada Humane Society (Sparks)


                                new york

       Animal Rights Advocates of Western New York (Amherst)
       The Caring Corps, Inc. (New York)
       Chautauqua County Humane Society (Jamestown)
       Chenango County SPCA (Norwich)
       Columbia-Greene Humane Society (Hudson)
       Elmore SPCA (Peru)
       Finger Lakes SPCA of Central New York (Auburn)
       The Fund for Animals (New York)
       Humane Society of Rome (Rome)
       New York State Animal Control Association (Oswego)
       New York State Humane Association (Kingston)
       People for Animal Rights, Inc. (Syracuse)
       SPCA of Catt County (Olean)
       St. Francis Animal Shelter, Inc. (Buffalo)


                                  ohio

       Angles for Animals (Greenford)
       Animal Adoption Foundation (Hamilton)
       Animal Charity (Youngstown)
       Animal Control of Brook Park (Brook Park)
       Animal Control-City of Middleburg Heights (Middleburg 
     Heights)
       Animal Protection Guild (Canton)
       Animal Protective League (Cleveland)
       The Animal Shelter Society, Inc. (Zanesville)
       Alter Pet Inc. (Sharon Center)
       Ashtabula County Humane Society (Jefferson)
       Athens County Humane Society (Athens)
       Belmont County Animal Shelter (St. Clairsville)
       Brown County Animal Shelter (Georgetown)
       Canine Therapy Companions (Wooster)
       Capital Area Humane Society (Hilliard)
       Carroll County Humane Society (Carrollton)
       City of Cleveland Dog Kennels (Cleveland)
       Crawford County Humane Society (Bucyrus)
       Darke County Animal Shelter (Greenville)
       Erie County Dog Pound (Sandusky)
       Euclid Animal Shelter (Euclid)
       Gallia County Animal Welfare League (Gallipolis)
       Harrison County Dog Warden (Codiz)
       Hearts and Paws (Canal Fulton)
       Henry County Humane Society (Napoleon)
       Humane Association of Butler County (Trenton)
       Humane Association of Warren County (Lebanon)
       Humane Society of Delaware County (Delaware)
       Humane Society of Erie County (Sandusky)
       Humane Society of Greater Dayton (Dayton)
       Humane Society of Guernsey County (Cambridge)
       Humane Society of the Ohio Valley (Marietta)
       The Humane Society of Ottawa County (Port Clinton)
       Humane Society of Preble County (Eaton)
       Humane Society of Sandusky County (Fremont)
       Lake County Dog Shelter (Painesville)
       Lake County Humane Society, Inc. (Mentor)
       Marion County Humane Society (Marion)
       Maumee Valley Save-A-Pet (Waterville)
       Medina County Animal Shelter (Medina)
       Miami County Animal Shelter (Troy)
       Monroe County Humane Society (Woodsfield)
       Montgomery County Animal Shelter (Dayton)
       Morrow County Humane Society (Mt. Gilead)
       North Central Ohio Nature Preservation League (Mansfield)
       North Coast Humane Society (Cleveland)
       Ohio County Dog Wardens' Association (Delaware)
       Ohioans for Animal Rights (Eastlake)
       PAWS (Middletown)
       Paws and Prayers Per Rescue (Akron)
       Pet Birth Control Clinics (Cleveland)
       Pet-Guards Shelter (Cuyahoga Falls)
       Portage County Animal Protective League (Ravenna)
       Portage County Dog Warden (Ravenna)
       Rescue, Rehabilitation and Release Wildlife Center (New 
     Philadelphia)
       Sandusky County Dog Warden (Fremont)
       The Scratching Post (Cincinnati)
       Society for the Improvement of Conditions for Stray Animals 
     (Kettering)
       SPCA Cincinnati (Cincinnati)
       Stark County Humane Society (Louisville)
       Their Caretakers (DeGraff)
       Toledo Area Humane Society (Maumee)
       Tuscarawas County Dog Pound (New Philadelphia)
       Wayne County Humane Society (Wooster)
       Wester Reserve Humane Society (Euclid)
       Wood County Humane Society (Bowling Green)
       Wyandot County Humane Society, Inc. (Sandusky)


                                oklahoma

       Animal Aid of Tulsa, Inc. (Tulsa)
       Enid SPCA (Enid)
       Home at Last Organization (Tulsa)

[[Page 1004]]

       Humane Society of Cherokee County (Tahlequah)
       Oklahoma Humane Federation (Oklahoma City)
       Partners for Animal Welfare Society (McAlester)
       PAWS (Muskogee)
       Petfinders Animal Welfare Society, Inc. (Moore)
       Promoting Animal Welfare Society, Inc. (Muskogee)
       Stephens County Humane Society (Duncan)
       Volunteers for Animal Welfare, Inc. (Oklahoma City)


                                 oregon

       Hood River County Sheriff's Department (Hood River)
       Humane Society of Allen County (Lima)
       Humane Society of Central Oregon (Bend)
       Humane Society of Williamette Valley (Salem)
       Jackson County Animal Shelter (Phoenix)
       Lakeview Police Department (Lakeview)
       Multnomah County Animal Control (Troutdale)
       Oregon Humane Society (Portland)
       South Coast Humane Society (Brookings)
       Wallowa County Humane Society (Enterprise)


                              pennsylvania

       Antietam Humane Society, Inc. (Waynesboro)
       Beaver County Humane Society (Monaca)
       Bradford County Humane Society (Ulster)
       Chester County SPCA (West Chester)
       Cumberland Valley Animal Shelter (Chambersburg)
       Humane Society at Lackawanna County (Clarks Summit)
       Lehigh Valley Animal Rights Coalition (Allentown)
       The Pennsylvania SPCA (Philadelphia)
       The Pennsylvania SPCA (Stroudsburg)
       Ruth Stein Memorial SPCA (Pottsville)
       SPCA of Luzerne County (Wilkes Barre)
       Western Pennsylvania Westie Rescue Committee (New Castle)
       Women's Humane Society (Bensalem)
       York County SPCA (Thomasville)


                              rhode island

       Animal Rescue League of SRI (Wakefield)
       Potter League for Animals (Newport)
       Providence Animal Control Center (Providence)
       Warren Animal Shelter (Warren)


                             south carolina

       The Animal Mission (Columbia)
       Animal Protection League of South Carolina (Hopkins)
       Beaufort County Animal Shelter and Control (Beaufort)
       Blue Ridge Animal Fund (Travelers Rest)
       City of Aiken Animal Control (Aiken)
       Columbia Animal Shelter (Columbia)
       Concerned Citizens for Animals (Simpsonville)
       Grand Strand Humane Society (Myrtle Beach)
       The Greenville Humane Society (Greenville)
       Hanahan Animal Control Office/Animal Shelter (Hanahan)
       Hilton Head Humane Association (Hilton Head Island)
       Humane Society of Marion County (Marion)
       Humane Society of the Midlands (Columbia)
       The Humane Society of North Myrtle Beach (North Myrtle 
     Beach)
       Kershaw County Humane Society (Camden)
       Lancaster County Animal Control (Kershaw)
       Lexington Animal Services (Lexington)
       Nutritional Medicine Center (North Charleston)
       South Carolina Animal Care and Control Association 
     (Columbia)
       The Spay/Neuter Association, Inc. (Columbia)
       St. Francis Humane Society (Georgetown)
       Walter Crowe Animal Shelter (Camden)


                              South Dakota

       Aberdeen Area Humane Society (Aberdeen)
       Beadle County Humane Society (Huron)
       Humane Society of the Black Hills (Rapid City)


                               tennessee

       Animal Protection Association (Memphis)
       Companion Animal Support Services (Nashville)
       Fayette County Animal Rescue (Rossville)
       Greenville-Greene County Humane Society (Greenville)
       Hardin County Humane Society (Savannah)
       Hickman Humane Society (Centerville)
       Humane Society of Cumberland County (Crossville)
       Humane Society of Dickson County (Dickson)
       Humane Society of Dover-Stewart County (Dover)
       Nashville Humane Association (Nashville)
       North Central Tennessee Spay and Neuter (West Lafayette)
       Tennessee Humane Association (Knoxville)


                                 texas

       Animal Adoption Center (Garland)
       Animal Connection of Texas (Dallas)
       Animal Defense League (San Antonio)
       Animal Shelter and Adoption Center of Galveston Island, 
     Inc. (Galveston)
       Affordable Companion Animal Neutering (Austin)
       Canyon Lake Animal Shelter Society (Canyon Lake)
       Central Texas SPCA (Cedar Park)
       Citizens for Animal Protection (Houston)
       City of Brownsville-Animal Control (Brownsville)
       City of Hurst Animal Services (Hurst)
       City Nacogdoches Animal Shelter (Houston)
       City of West University Place (Houston)
       Doggiemom Rescue (Dallas)
       Find-A-Pet (Dallas)
       Guadalupe County Humane Society (Sequin)
       Harker Heights Animal Control (Harker Heights)
       Homeless Pet Placement League (Houston)
       H.O.R.S.E.S. in Texas (Chico)
       Houston Dachshund Rescue (Spring)
       Houston Humane Society (Houston)
       Houston SPCA (Houston)
       Humane Society of El Paso (El Paso)
       Humane Society of Greater Dallas (Dallas)
       Humane Society of Harlingen (Harlingen)
       Humane Society of Montgomery County (Conroe)
       Humane Society of Navarro County (Corsicana)
       Humane Society of North Texas (Fort Worth)
       Humane Society of Tom Green County (San Angelo)
       Jasper Animal Rescue (Jasper)
       Lubbock Animal Services (Lubbock)
       Metroport Humane Society (Roanoke)
       North Central Texas Animal Shelter Coalition (Fort Worth)
       Operation Kindness Animal Shelter (Carrollton)
       Paws Shelter for Animals (Kyle)
       SPCA of Texas (Dallas)
       Texas Federation of Humane Society (Austin)
       Waco Humane Society and Animal Shelter (Waco)


                                virginia

       Animal Assistance League (Chesapeake)
       Animal Welfare League of Alexandria (Alexandria)
       Caring for Creatures (Palmyra)
       Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA (Charlottesville)
       Danville Area Humane Society (Danville)
       For the Love of Animals in Goochland (Manakin-Sabot)
       Henrico Humane Society (Richmond)
       Heritage Humane Society (Williamsburg)
       Humane Society Montgomery County (Blacksburg)
       Humane Society/SPCA of Nelson County (Arrington)
       Isle of Wight County Humane Society (Smithfield)
       Lynchburg Humane Society Inc. (Lynchburg)
       Madison County Humane Society (Madison)
       The National Humane Education Society (Leesburg)
       New Kent Sherrif's Department (New Kent)
       Page County Animal Shelter (Stanley)
       Peninsula SPCA (Newport News)
       Portsmouth Police Animal Control (Portsmouth)
       Potomac Animal Allies, Inc. (Woodbridge)
       Prevent a Litter Coalition, Inc. (Reston)
       Smyth County Humane Society (Marion)
       SPCA of Northern Virginia (Arlington)
       SPCA of Martinsville-Henry County (Martinsville)
       SPCA of Winchester, Frederick and Clarke Counties 
     (Winchester)
       Suffolk Animal Control Shelter (Suffolk)
       Tazewell County Animal Shelter (Tazewell)
       Vinton Police Department--Animal Control (Vinton)
       Virginia Beach SPCA (Virginia Beach)
       Wildlife Center of Virginia (Waynesboro)
       Williamsburg-James City County Animal Control 
     (Williamsburg)


                                VERMONT

       Addison County Humane Society (Middlebury)
       Caledonia Animal Rescue (St. Johnsbury)
       Central Vermont Humane Society (Montpelier)
       Collie Rescue League of New England (Bradford)
       Elizabeth H. Brown Humane Society, Inc. (St. Johnsbury),
       Endtrap (White River Junction)
       Green Mountain Animal Defenders (Burlington)
       Humane Society of Chittenden County (South Burlington)
       The Nature Network (North Pomfret)
       Rutland County Humane Society (Pittsford)
       Rutland Police Department-Animal Control (Rutland)
       Second Chance Animal Center (Shaffsbury)
       Vermont Volunteer Services for Animals (Woodstock)
       Windham County Humane Society (Brattleboro)


                               WASHINGTON

       Animal Protection Society (Friday Harbor)
       City of Hoquiam's Animal Control
       Ellensburg Animal Shelter (Ellensburg)
       Humane Society of Central Washington (Yakima)

[[Page 1005]]

       The Humane Society of Seattle/King County (Bellevue)
       Humane Society of Skagit Valley (Burlington)
       Kindred Spirits Animal Sanctuary (Suquamish)
       NOAH (Stanwood)
       Progressive Animal Welfare Society (Lynnwood)
       SpokAnimal C.A.R.E. (Spokane)
       Wenatchee Valley Humane Society (Wenatchee)
       Whatcom Humane Society (Bellingham)


                               WISCONSIN

       Alliance for Animals (Madison)
       Bay Area Humane Society and Animal Shelter, Inc. (Green 
     Bay)
       Cats International (Cedarburg)
       Chippewa County Humane Association (Chippewa Falls)
       Clark County Humane Society (Neillsville)
       Coulee Region Humane Society, Inc. (LaCrosse)
       Dane County Humane Society (Madison)
       Eastshore Humane Association (Chilton)
       Eau Claire County Humane Association (Eau Claire)
       Elm Brook Humane Society (Brookfield)
       Fox Valley Humane Association Ltd (Appleton)
       Humane Society of Marathon County (Wausan)
       Lincoln County Humane Society Inc. (Merrill)
       Northwoods Humane Society (Hayward)
       Ozaukee Humane Society (Grafton)
       The Pepin County Humane Society (Durand)
       Rock County Humane Society (Janesville)
       Rusk County Animal Shelter (Ladysmith)
       Shawano County Humane Society (Shawano)
       Washburn County Area Humane Society (Spooner)
       Washington County Humane Society (Slinger)
       Wisconsin Humane Society (Milwaukee)


                             WEST VIRGINIA

       Brooke County Animal Welfare League (Wellsburg)
       Federation of Humane Organizations of West Virginia 
     (Mineral Wells)
       Hampshire County Pet Adoption Program (Paw Paw)
       Hancock County Animal Shelter New Cumberland)
       Humane Society of Harrison County (Shinnston)
       Humane Society of Morgan County (Berkeley Springs)
       Humane Society of Parkersburg (Parkersburg)
       The Humane Society of Pocahontas County (Hillsboro)
       Humane Society of Raleigh County (Beckley)
       Jackson County Humane Society/Jackson County Animal Shelter 
     (Cottageville)
       Jefferson County Animal Control (Keaneysville)
       Kanawha/Charleston Humane Association (Charleston)
       Marshall County Animal Rescue League (Glen Dale)
       Monroe County Animal League, Inc. (Union)
       Morgantown Animal Control (Morgantown)
       Ohio County Animal Shelter (Triadelphia)
       Ohio County SPCA (Triadelphia)
       Ohio County SPCA (Wheeling)
       Putnam County Humane Society, Inc. (Scott Depot)
       TLC Animal Sanctuary (Clendenin)
       Upshur County Humane Society (Buckhannon)
       Wetzel County Humane Society (New Martinsville)


                                WYOMING

       Animal Care Center (Laramie)
       Caring for Powell Animals (Powell)
       Cheyenne Animal Shelter
       Dare to Care Animal League (Riverton)
       Humane Society of Park County (Cody)
       Lander Pet Connection, Inc. (Lander)
       Laramie Animal Shelter (Laramie)
       PAWS of Jackson Hole (Jackson)
       Wyoming Advocates for Animals (Cheyenne)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment as further modified.
  The amendment (No. 2542), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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 ask the Chair to bring us to 
consideration of the Gramm amendment No. 2849.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is now pending.
  The Senator from Texas.


                    Amendment No. 2849, as Modified

  Mr. GRAMM. I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide equity and fairness for the promotion of imported 
                             Hass avocados)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Section 1205 of the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and 
     Information Act (contained in H.R. 5426 of the 106th 
     Congress, as introduced on October 6, 2000 and as enacted by 
     Public Law 106-387) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (b)(2) strike subparagraph (C) and insert 
     in lieu thereof:
       (C)Future allocation.--After five years, the USDA has 
     discretion to revisit the issue of seat allocation on the 
     board.
       (2) in paragraph (h)(1)(C)(iii) by striking everything in 
     the first sentence following ``shall'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``be paid not less than 30 days after the avocado 
     clears customs, unless deemed not feasible as determined by 
     the Commissioner of Customs in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture.''

  Mr. GRAMM. This is a very simple amendment that tries to bring equity 
to Mexican producers of avocados by collecting the fee in the same way 
on imported avocados as we do on domestically grown avocados. It also 
gives the Department of Agriculture an opportunity in 5 years to look 
at the representation on the board that spends the money to promote 
avocados.
  I thank the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, for working with 
me. I commend it to my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2849), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2856

  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: What now is before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2856, offered by the Senator 
from Iowa.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from 
Utah (Mr. Bennett) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 17, nays 80, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

                                YEAS--17

     Akaka
     Brownback
     Carnahan
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Kohl
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Reid
     Roberts
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--80

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens

[[Page 1006]]


     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bennett
     Domenici
     Sessions
  The amendment (No. 2856) was rejected.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2845

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the underlying 
amendment No. 2845.
  The amendment (No. 2845) was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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.
  The Senator from Georgia.


                Amendment No. 2832, As Further Modified

  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to further modify 
amendment No. 2832, offered by Senator Cleland and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 120, line 3, strike ``$0.10'' and insert ``$0.11''.
       On page 112, strike lines 20 through 25 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(A) a designated marketing association of peanut 
     producers that is approved by the Secretary, which may own or 
     construct necessary storage facilities. In the Southeast and 
     Southwest areas, such designated marketing association shall 
     be operated primarily on behalf of peanut producers. The 
     designated area marketing association shall be allowed to 
     form marketing pools for peanuts by type and quality, 
     including the creation of a separate pool for Valencia 
     peanuts in New Mexico;
       (B) the Farm Service Agency; or
       (C) a loan servicing agent approved by the Secretary.
       On page 112, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(6) Loan servicing agent.--If approved by a majority of 
     historical peanut producers in a State voting in a referendum 
     conducted by the Secretary, as a condition of the Secretary's 
     approval of an entity to serve as a loan servicing agent or 
     to handle or store peanuts for producers that receive any 
     marketing loan benefits in the State, the entity shall agree 
     to provide adequate storage (if available) and handling of 
     peanuts at the commercial rate to other approved loan 
     servicing agents and marketing associations.

       On page 116, strike lines 6 through 15 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(h) Area Marketing Association Costs.--If approved by a 
     majority of historical peanut producers in a State voting in 
     a referendum conducted by the Secretary, the Secretary shall 
     deduct in a marketing assistance loan made to an area 
     marketing association in a marketing area in the State such 
     costs as the area marketing association may reasonably incur 
     in carrying out the responsibilities, operations, and 
     activities of the association and Commodity Credit 
     Corporation under this section.
       ``(i) Definition of Commingle.--In this section and section 
     158H, the term `commingle', with respect to peanuts, means--
       ``(1) the mixing of peanuts produced on different farms by 
     the same or different producers; or
       ``(2) the mixing of peanuts pledged for marketing 
     assistance loans with peanuts that are not pledged for 
     marketing assistance loans, to facilitate storage.

     ``SEC. 158H. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.

       ``(a) Official Inspection.--
       ``(1) In general.--All peanuts placed under a marketing 
     assistance loan under section 158G or otherwise sold or 
     marketed shall be officially inspected and graded by a 
     Federal or State inspector.
       ``(2) Accounting for commingled peanuts.--If approved by a 
     majority of historical peanut producers in a State voting in 
     a referendum conducted by the Secretary, all peanuts stored 
     commingled with peanuts covered by a marketing assistance 
     loan in the State shall be graded and exchanged on a dollar 
     value basis, unless the Secretary determines that the 
     beneficial interest in the peanuts covered by the marketing 
     assistance loan have been transferred to other parties prior 
     to demand for delivery.

  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Edwards, Warner, Allen, and Sessions be added as cosponsors and that 
the amendment, as further modified, be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2832, as further 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 2832), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                      Amendment No. 2848 Withdrawn

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
2848, offered by Senator Gramm of Texas, be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the matter now before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 2825, offered by the Senator from 
Oklahoma. The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 2853

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside and that the Harkin amendment No. 2853 be 
called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment deals with a change, and 
that has to do with the equity portion of a part of the farm bill that 
just changes the mix a little bit to cover cities up to 100,000.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2853.
  The amendment (No. 2853) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2850

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order. Might I 
inquire exactly what the regular order now is before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is amendment No. 2850 
offered on behalf of Senators Kyl and Nickles.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand that the pending amendment 
before the Senate is the Kyl amendment No. 2850 that deals with a sense 
of the Senate on estate taxes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, we are getting close to the end 
here. We only have a few amendments left that I have on my list. Most 
of them have been worked out. I thank all Senators for helping to work 
out the amendments. I think we have basically the pending amendment, as 
I understand it. We have an amendment No. 2851 offered by Senator 
Domenici dealing with dairy. We have the Leahy amendment No. 2834 
dealing with organics. We have a Kerry-Snowe amendment No. 2852 dealing 
with commercial fisheries, and we have an Inhofe amendment No. 2825 
dealing with peanuts. That is all I have on my list. I ask Senator 
Lugar if he has anything else.
  Mr. LUGAR. That is my understanding. I believe, in addition, another 
amendment will be offered in relation to the Kyl-Nickles amendment on 
estate taxes.
  Mr. HARKIN. A second degree?
  Mr. LUGAR. A second-degree amendment. But there will be votes on both 
of those; that is, they will be side by side in the debate.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are now on the Kyl amendment No. 2850. 
I ask the assistant majority leader if we could enter into a time 
agreement to bring this to a close.

[[Page 1007]]


  Mr. REID. If I could respond to the manager of the bill for the 
majority, we attempted to get a time agreement. We could not do that. 
We agreed to having 30 minutes equally divided. This matter has been 
debated endlessly for the past several weeks. I think we have heard 
about all there is to hear. I would hope that those people who are in 
favor of this legislation would speak, and those opposed to it. Senator 
Conrad is going to speak. He has an alternative. The proposal is, we 
would vote on his and, following that vote, on the underlying Kyl 
amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask the leader, could we move to that and debate that?
  Mr. REID. Senator Conrad has been on the floor for more than an hour. 
He is here someplace. He will be here momentarily. But what he did say 
is he would appreciate it if those who are proposing this legislation 
would move forward and then, when they have completed their statement, 
he would offer the second degree, and we would go from there.
  Senator Kyl is here.
  Mr. HARKIN. Senator Kyl is here. Wonderful. Now we can move ahead. 
Get the Senator a podium.
  Mr. REID. I inquire through the Chair to my friend, the Senator from 
Arizona--he is going to speak--are there others who wish to speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in response to the assistant majority leader, 
the answer is, yes. Senator Gramm is prepared to speak. I think Senator 
Hutchison was here a moment ago. Senator Nickles will be back in about 
a half hour. So until we know exactly how many people want to speak, I 
am reluctant to enter into a time agreement. I don't want to take all 
night, but I don't want to limit it at this point.
  If I could further propound an inquiry, it is my understanding we 
will have separate votes on both the second-degree amendment and on the 
Kyl-Nickles amendment. What I am unclear of is the effect of the Conrad 
amendment and whether it would obviate the Kyl amendment. It is a 
little unclear by virtue of the language. I have only seen a 
handwritten copy of it. It would be helpful if we knew what the effect 
of that is before we proceed.
  Mr. REID. If I may respond to my friend from Arizona, if the Conrad 
second-degree amendment passes, then his amendment is gone. If it 
doesn't pass, then we would come back and vote on his amendment.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I had understood earlier, the idea would 
be to have a separate up-or-down vote on both. I thought that is what 
the agreement was. Am I incorrect?
  Mr. REID. I think the Senator from Arizona is correct. The Senator 
from North Dakota has decided he wanted to file a second-degree 
amendment. I would only say to my friend from Arizona, if you and those 
who have spoken on behalf of this legislative measure for several weeks 
now have confidence it has been elaborated upon several times, you 
should be OK and have a vote on yours.
  Mr. KYL. I am sorry. If the suggestion was that we should have a 
vote, I think there are folks who would like to talk about this.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry to interrupt. If we could have some time 
agreement from the proponents of this legislation, we would work out a 
side-by-side.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think at 7 o'clock we should revisit this 
question of a time agreement. We perhaps could enter into it. I want to 
wait until Senator Nickles returns.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry on that issue?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would inquire, for purposes of scheduling this evening, 
I understand the Senator's point that someone is now gone for a half an 
hour and you might want to talk at 7 o'clock about scheduling. Is there 
any way we might get some notion of whether we will have votes, whether 
you are intending to accept the time agreement, so that if we are going 
to have votes later this evening we could get a sense of when that 
might be?
  Mr. REID. If I could respond to my friend, the majority leader wants 
to finish this bill tonight. We have indicated that the estate tax 
debate is going to take a little bit of time. Earlier today, we agreed 
on half an hour evenly divided.
  But I say about the amendments pending, Domenici 2851, Leahy, Kerry-
Snowe, and Inhofe, if that is still available, if they are not here, I 
am going to move to table those amendments. We are not going to wait 
around for people to come by at their convenience and offer their 
amendments. That is a very good question. We have been on this bill for 
weeks. We have made tremendous progress today with the help of the 
managers of this bill. I see no reason we can't finish it tonight. I 
think we should finish it tonight.
  Mr. GRAMM. If the Senator will yield, I thought we had something 
worked out where the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, would have a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution on making the repeal of the death tax 
permanent and that the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, would 
have a parallel measure with a sense of the Senate about the Social 
Security trust fund, and that we would have an opportunity to vote on 
each so it would be technically possible that both could go into the 
bill.
  If, on the other hand, the Conrad amendment is a substitute for the 
Kyl amendment and would, in the process of being adopted, kill it, then 
what we want is an up-or-down vote on the Kyl amendment. We certainly 
don't object to an up-or-down vote on the Conrad amendment. We don't 
think it is relevant because 9 years from now, when this would go into 
effect, we will have a surplus far larger than the repeal of the death 
tax. But if we could do it where they are parallel, as I understood we 
were going to do it, I think we can get a time limit and finish our 
business.
  If the Conrad amendment is a substitute so that we are not going to 
get to vote on a sense of the Senate to repeal the death tax, I don't 
think we will get an agreement.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we had an agreement earlier today that was 
not effectuated with the consent of the Chair. We thought we had an 
agreement on 30 minutes equally divided on the first- and second-degree 
amendments and there would be side-by-side votes. The time agreements 
have broken down.
  We acknowledge that this issue has been debated considerably. We are 
willing to give you an up-or-down vote. But even though it is not 
relevant to the farm bill, we believe there should be a vote, it should 
transpire. But we want a time agreement. Otherwise, we are faced with 
an all-night session here, and it is not necessary. The Senator from 
Arizona has told me in 25 minutes he would agree to a time agreement. 
So I think we should all cool our jets for a few minutes and see if we 
can work our way through this.
  Mr. LUGAR. If I may respond to my colleague, shortly, I will offer a 
motion that the Inhofe amendment be withdrawn. That means there will be 
only three amendments other than the debate on the estate tax. I 
inquire if we might get a time agreement of 20 minutes on each of those 
three amendments.
  Mr. REID. To interrupt my friend--and I hope he accepts this--that 
would be Domenici, Leahy, and Kerry-Snowe.
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes. And then perhaps work out time agreements so that 
there are up-and-down votes on the two estate tax amendments.
  Mr. REID. In fact, we could get one of the amendments out of the way 
before 7 p.m. I think that is appropriate. 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.


                     Amendment No. 2825, Withdrawn

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move that the Inhofe amendment No. 2825 
be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 1008]]


  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. 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. KYL. Mr. 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. 2850

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I anticipate a unanimous-consent request to 
be delivered momentarily which will set the stage for the debate on the 
Kyl-Nickles amendment which I believe is the pending business. But we 
do not need to waste time prior to that. We can actually begin this 
discussion and lock that in and proceed. With that understanding--and I 
have spoken to Senator Conrad about this--I propose we begin the 
discussion on this amendment, and when the agreement is ready, we can 
propound it to the body.
  Let me say by way of introduction, and then I will yield to the 
Senator from Texas for some remarks, that the Kyl-Nickles amendment is 
a sense of the Senate. We should finish the job we started last year 
and make the repeal of the death tax permanent.
  As my colleagues will recall, because the tax bill was considered 
under the reconciliation procedure, it could only last 10 years. That 
means that even though we repealed the death tax in that 10th year, 
after that, the bill sunsets and we go right back to the position of 
the death tax as it existed last year, with a 60-percent higher rate 
and a $675,000 exemption. That is very unfair, it is very poor tax 
policy, and if we really meant to repeal the death tax, as we voted to 
do, then we should finish the job we started.
  This amendment simply puts us on record as committing to that 
proposition so that when the appropriate bill comes along, we can 
accomplish the result. Clearly, this farm bill is an appropriate 
vehicle for us to discuss this issue as a sense-of-the-Senate issue 
because there are an awful lot of owners of family farms who would like 
to see the death tax repealed so they do not have to worry about the 
burden of it.
  To further discuss this proposition, I yield now to the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much what Senator 
Kyl and Senator Nickles are doing because most people think we are on a 
glidepath to eliminating the death tax. We have taken that vote.
  The worst situation we could possibly have is not knowing. Can you 
imagine how debilitating it would be to plan for a family business or a 
family farm to think that you would have 9 years at lower inheritance 
taxes and then in the 10th year, unless you happened to die in the one 
year we have repealed, you would end up going back to 3 years ago? That 
just does not make sense.
  The best tax policy is one that is stable, that people can count on; 
that when it is passed, people can plan according to that tax law or 
policy.
  What we have now is the absolute opposite. We have a situation where 
people cannot plan. They do not know when they are going to die, so 
they do not know what the inheritance tax is going to be, and they do 
not know if it really will be repealed because Congress keeps talking 
back and forth about not repealing something we have already repealed. 
That is not consistent, and it is not good tax policy.
  Family-owned farms and small businesses are the hardest hit because 
they have assets that are valued greater than the income they can 
produce. When someone who is the head of a small business or a family 
farm dies, many times the value of that farm or small business is very 
high and the family does not have the cashflow to pay the taxes. So 
what do they do? They sell the family business or family farm to pay 
the taxes.
  This is not money that has never been taxed. No, it is money that was 
taxed when it was earned, and taxed every year that it has been 
invested. The money has already had its fair share of taxes taken out.
  We have to make a decision in this Congress if we want small 
businesses to survive. I do. Small family-owned businesses are the 
basis of our country. Sometimes they grow and prosper and become big 
businesses. Sometimes they are passed to their children and create 
livelihoods for children.
  Lost in a lot of this debate are the employees of these small 
businesses and family-owned farms, the people who own nothing but work 
for these small businesses. What happens when a business has to be sold 
to pay taxes? All the people relying on that business lose their job. 
We have heard story after story of a small family business that was the 
most important business in town and had to be sold. The people working 
there were out of jobs, in a very small community where one does not 
just walk across the street and get another job. We have heard that 
time and again.
  I will never forget the letter I saw written by a man who happened to 
have a farm that his parents had worked very hard to buy, about 100 
acres in a beautiful part of Texas, but it was a part of Texas in the 
old days that was just a farming area. It was not very expensive, not 
very well known. It was pretty and nice but not that big a deal. Today 
it is called the hill country, and it is the most expensive land in 
rural Texas.
  When the parents died, the children inherited that farm, but they had 
to sell their own homes to pay the taxes on that farm because it had 
escalated to such a great value. They sold their homes and moved into 
an apartment to keep the family farm.
  The bottom line is, going into the third generation, the man said: My 
children could not possibly get enough cash to pay the taxes for us to 
pass this farm to them in the third generation. The land is going for 
$6,000, $7,000 an acre, and the farm will eventually have to be sold.
  Mr. President, who gains? Who gains from selling that farm? Who gains 
from a small business having to be sold to pay taxes? The employees who 
work for that business lose. They lose their jobs and their livelihoods 
in the community in which they want to live. Certainly not the family, 
not the patriarch and the matriarch who worked hard to put that 
business together. Certainly not the children who may have worked or 
wanted to be in the family business, who wanted to continue the 
tradition. They lose.
  One might say Uncle Sam gains. But is it really a gain when you tear 
something out of our economy that is a thriving small business? It is a 
minuscule amount. It is an amount that has already had taxes paid on 
it. In fact, the only reason one would ever want to tax an inheritance 
is to level society, and America was not built on society leveling. 
America was built on the concept that one could come to this country, 
work hard, and make as good a living as they could make by the sweat of 
their brow, and pass on what they have to their children, if that is 
what they decide to do.
  We are not a country that is entrepreneurial, that has a spirit that 
is looking at society leveling. What good does it do for us to tax at 
death and disrupt family businesses, family farms, family ranches, 
families? It does not make sense.
  I hope we will pass the amendment offered by Senator Kyl and Senator 
Nickles that puts the Senate on record we are going to make permanent 
this tax cut. We have done it once. The Congress has voted for it and 
the President has signed the bill, but because of a process, it goes 
out of existence in 10 years and that is not stabilizing, it is 
destabilizing, and we need to correct it and do the right thing.
  So I applaud Senator Kyl and Senator Nickles. I support them fully, 
and I hope Congress will speak once again. We passed it once; we can do 
it again. This time let us do it right, and let us do it within a 
process that says we are doing this and we really mean it; not we are 
doing this but because of a process that nobody cares about it is going 
out of existence in 10 years. Let us do it right so people can count on 
it, so they can plan and so these small businesses can continue to 
create jobs and be a part of our economy.

[[Page 1009]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I will offer a 
second-degree amendment that says this: Since both political parties 
have pledged not to use Social Security surplus funds by spending them 
for other purposes, and since under the administration's 2003 budget 
the Federal Government is projected to spend the Social Security 
surplus for other purposes in each of the next 10 years, and since 
permanent extension of the inheritance tax repeal would cost, according 
to the administration's own estimate, approximately $104 billion over 
the next 10 years and $800 billion in the next 10 years, all of which 
would further reduce the Social Security surplus, therefore it is the 
sense of the Senate that no Social Security surplus funds should be 
used to make currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful 
spending.
  The situation we face as a nation is last year when we were 
addressing the budget, the President and the Congressional Budget 
Office told us we were going to have $5.6 trillion of surpluses over 
the next decade. Under the President's budget, that is down to $600 
billion. The truth is there are no surpluses left. Let me repeat that. 
There are no surpluses left, not a dime. Every penny of money that is 
still available is Social Security money, every dime. There are no 
surpluses left.
  This chart shows it very clearly. This chart shows from 1992 until 
2012 the fiscal condition of the country. We were in deep deficit in 
1992. Then we started to pull out of it with the 1993 plan that we 
passed, I might add, without a single vote on the other side of the 
aisle, not a single vote, and we started moving out of deficit.
  In 1997, we passed an additional plan. That one was on a bipartisan 
basis, and it finished the job. We moved into budget surpluses. We 
stopped using Social Security trust funds. This chart shows in specific 
detail what has happened since 1996. In 1996, we were using 100 percent 
of the Social Security trust funds for other purposes. The same was 
true in 1997. In 1998, we reduced it so we were only using 30 percent 
of Social Security money for other purposes.
  In 1999 and 2000, we stopped using Social Security money entirely. 
These were the good days. These were the responsible days. In 2001, we 
started backsliding. Under the President's budget, President Bush's 
budget, every year we are going to be using 100 percent of the Social 
Security money for other purposes.
  Let us go back to what we confront. We are headed for deficits this 
year, fiscal year 2002, 2003, every year through the rest of this 
decade. Making tax cuts that were previously scheduled permanent means 
every dime of it is coming out of Social Security.
  Where did the money go? The Congressional Budget Office came before 
the Budget Committee and told us that in the near term the biggest 
reason was the recession, but over the 10 years of the President's 
plan, the biggest reason of the tax cuts the President proposed and 
pushed through Congress last year, 42 percent of the reduction in the 
surplus and the return to deficits is from the tax cut. Twenty-three 
percent is from the recession. Eighteen percent of the additional 
expense is caused by the attack on the United States. Seventeen percent 
is caused by certain technical changes, largely the underestimation of 
the cost of Medicare and Social Security.
  Last year, we were told there was in the non-trust-fund side of the 
Federal accounts a $2.7 trillion surplus. That is from where the tax 
cuts came. But you know what. There is no $2.7 trillion of non-trust-
fund money anymore. The Congressional Budget Office tells us, instead 
of surpluses, there are massive deficits, $2.2 trillion of deficits. 
What the good Senator from Arizona is saying is do not worry about it. 
Let us just pile on some more. Let us have some more tax cuts. Let us 
dig the hole deeper.
  What he is saying is, let us not only have the estate tax reductions 
that are already scheduled, which are significant--and I would correct 
those who say there is a death tax. There is no death tax in America. 
Ninety-eight percent of the estates in America pay nothing, zero. They 
pay no estate tax. That is what we have in America, not a death tax; it 
is an estate tax. If one has an estate over a certain value, they start 
to pay something. Why? Because we have determined that is a fair way to 
distribute tax burden.
  The Senator from Texas says this is not part of American history. I 
beg to disagree. It is a fundamental part of American history. Go back 
and read what the Founding Fathers had to say on this question. They 
did not want America to be a land of inherited aristocracy. No, no, no. 
They wanted this to be a land where people rose and fell on the basis 
of their own hard work and their own skills and their own talent, not 
because they inherited from grandpa, not because they inherited from 
great grandpa. That was not the point of America, and that is why 
fundamentally we have had an estate tax because our Founding Fathers 
came from Europe and they saw what inherited aristocracy led to, the 
concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and ultimately 
instability and political chaos. They did not want that for us.
  So the reality is, 2 percent of estates in this country pay any 
estate tax. We are scheduled to raise the exemption to $3.5 million per 
person. Only three-tenths of 1 percent of estates are at that level. 
This would mean that one could transfer $7 million and not pay a dime 
of tax. The Senator from Arizona is not satisfied with that. He wants 
anybody to be able to pass any amount to their heirs.
  The cost in this decade of the Senator's proposal is $104 billion. 
The cost in the next decade is $800 billion. At the time the baby 
boomers start to retire, they will take it all out of Social Security 
funds. That is from where it is coming from.
  Here is what we confront at the very time they are talking about 
adding $800 billion of additional tax cuts: Social Security and 
Medicare trust funds go cash negative at the very time they are talking 
about another $800 billion of tax cuts, all of it out of Social 
Security.
  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget came before the 
Senate Budget Committee and said:

       Put more starkly, Mr. Chairman, the extremes of what will 
     be required to address our retirement are these: We'll have 
     to increase borrowing by very large, likely, unsustainable 
     amounts; raise taxes to 30 percent of GDP, obviously 
     unprecedented in our history; [we are at 19 percent of GDP 
     now in taxes. Anybody think we will go to 30 percent of GDP? 
     If we do not, they will have to be massive cuts in benefits] 
     or eliminate most of the rest of government as we know it. 
     That's the dilemma that faces us in the long run, Mr. 
     Chairman, and these next 10 years will only be the beginning.

  I cannot think of an amendment that is more fiscally irresponsible 
than the one before this body now. The President last year in his State 
of the Union promised not to use Social Security trust funds for any 
other purpose. That is the pledge he made. I quote:

       To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors 
     are not diverted to any other program, my budget protects all 
     $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social 
     Security and for Social Security alone.

  That is what he said last year.
  Now, in reading his budget, we see he will take $2.2 trillion of 
Social Security and Medicare trust fund money and use it for tax cuts 
and other expenses of Government.
  The Senator from Arizona says that is not enough, let's take even 
more money from Social Security--let's take it all and not protect any 
of Social Security.
  I don't think so. Those who vote to take it are going to be mighty 
surprised by the reaction of the American people when they find out we 
are already on course to eliminate taxes for a couple that would not 
pay any taxes--not a dime--on $7 million. Now the Senator proposes no 
limits forever--and take every dime out of the Social Security trust 
fund.
  This reversal in our financial fortune has meant that over the next 
decade, instead of being virtually debt free by 2008, which is what 
they told us last year, we now find by 2008 there will be $3 trillion 
of debt. The result of that is we will be paying as a country $1 
trillion more in interest over the next decade. Instead of $600 billion 
in interest,

[[Page 1010]]

we will pay $1.6 trillion in interest payments. We ought to quit 
digging the hole deeper.
  This amendment takes more money out of the trust funds to have a tax 
cut that goes to a fraction of 1 percent of the American people.
  The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas earlier argued 
this is a question of fairness. I agree. It is a question of fairness. 
Where should the money come from to restore the integrity of the trust 
funds? Where should it come from? One of the first places we would look 
is the wealthiest among us, for us to say, if you die and have an 
estate of over $7 million, maybe you ought to be part of solving this 
extraordinary problem we now face. I don't think that is unreasonable.
  We have had some of the wealthiest people in America before the 
Finance Committee saying they did not think it was unreasonable for 
them to make some contribution to restoring the integrity of the trust 
funds of Social Security and Medicare.
  For those who say this money has already been taxed over and over and 
over, it is not true. Much of this money has never been taxed because 
it has been locked up in long-term capital gains and people never paid 
taxes at all.
  This is a fundamental question before the Senate, the most basic of 
questions about priorities, about fiscal responsibility, about paying 
our bills, about keeping the promise that this President and Members of 
this Chamber made on the question of not looting or raiding the Social 
Security trust fund to pay for other things. Now before the Senate is 
an amendment that says we will take Social Security money and use it to 
give a tax reduction to the very wealthiest. What a perversion of 
fairness. Those are not the values of the people I represent. I don't 
believe those are the values of the American people. I hope when the 
vote is called tomorrow we will have a chance to vote for the 
substitute amendment and to defeat the amendment of the Senator from 
Arizona.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I agree with every word Senator Conrad 
said. Senator Conrad laments that we are not keeping our promises of 
not raiding the Social Security trust fund. In fact, in his resolution 
he talks about not using it for tax cuts or spending.
  I remind my colleagues, only a few hours ago on rollcall vote No. 25, 
we waived the Budget Act to steal $2.4 billion out of the Social 
Security trust fund. If people look at that vote--I voted against it, 
the Senator from Arizona voted against it--the Senator from North 
Dakota voted for the budget waiver that did exactly what he laments 
today. In the same day we talk about not spending the Social Security 
trust fund on making the death tax repeal permanent, we waive the 
Budget Act to take $2.4 billion of it to pay subsidies while we 
continue to talk about the poor versus the rich. Where did the 
subsidies go? A select group of people, generally very high income 
people.
  It is very instructive to note that while the assault on making the 
repeal of the death tax permanent is an assault that is claimed to be 
protecting Social Security, this very day those who have launched the 
assault voted to raid the Social Security trust fund when we have a 
deficit where we are spending Social Security trust fund money and 
borrowing money. That did not prevent the Senate from spending another 
$2.4 billion this very single day. That shows how this whole amendment 
rings hollow.
  It does not end there. Let me read this language of the Conrad 
amendment:

       Therefore it is the Sense of the Senate that no Social 
     Security surplus funds should be used to pay for making 
     currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful 
     spending.

  Who gets to define ``wasteful''? Does that mean every effort to make 
the death tax repeal permanent is equivalent to wasteful spending? In 
fact, was adding $2.4 billion to an already bloated farm bill less or 
more wasteful than making the death tax repeal permanent so that 
farmers and ranchers will not lose their farms and ranches when they 
die?
  A final point before I turn to the amendment I am for. Senator Conrad 
acts as if the passage of the Kyl amendment--and we are just doing a 
sense of the Senate--would spend Social Security trust fund money. Not 
so. In fact, the Kyl amendment goes into effect 9 years from now. Nine 
years from now, in the year 2011--in fact, Conrad refers to the 
administration's estimate. Let me tell you what that estimate is.
  Nine years from now, when the Kyl amendment would go into effect, by 
making the tax cut that would be fully implemented permanent, we will 
have a surplus, according to OMB, of $350 billion. The Social Security 
surplus will be $290 billion, which is $60 billion less than the 
surplus we are projected to have.
  The repeal of the death tax costs $4 billion. So, in fact, if the 
death tax repeal were made permanent, if we were voting on, not a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution but law today--and we are going to get 
an opportunity to do that, probably on the so-called energy bill--but 
if we were voting on it today, this permanency goes into effect in 9 
years, in 2011, the projected surplus from the administration--contrary 
to what the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that Senator Conrad is 
offering says--is $350 billion, the Social Security surplus is $290 
billion, giving us an on-budget surplus of $60 billion. Repealing the 
death tax costs $4.249 billion. So even if we were repealing the death 
tax and making that repeal permanent, we will not spend a penny of 
Social Security surplus in the year 2011.
  Let me also say something about the idea that we are going to have 
social unrest because we don't make people pay 55 cents out of every 
dollar they earned in their life to the Government when they die; I 
think it is stretching someone's conception of social unrest beyond the 
breaking point. I am opposed to the death tax. None of my people have 
ever paid a death tax. The only thing I have ever been bequeathed in my 
life is a cardboard suitcase that my great uncle Bill, my grandmother's 
brother, left me, full of yellow sports clippings, but I am opposed to 
the death tax because it is wrong. It is rotten. It is absolutely 
outrageous that people work a lifetime, they save, skimp, sacrifice, 
they build up a business, they build up a farm, they build up assets, 
and then when they die their children have to sell their life's work to 
give the Government another 55 cents on the dollar tax.
  I remind my colleagues that the Kyl provision requires people to pay 
capital gains tax. If you have untaxed income, you are going to have to 
pay it. But what it does not have is double taxation.
  I believe the American people understand this issue, and I can 
honestly say, in speaking in my State and around the country, in white-
collar crowds or blue-collar crowds, when I talk about killing the 
death tax, when I talk about not making people sell their business or 
sell their farm, people always applaud--whether they expect to pay the 
tax or not.
  I think if we view things politically as to who gains and who loses, 
we often lose in terms of not understanding our own country. This is a 
question of right and wrong. The death tax is wrong. And the final 
absurdity is that on the floor of the Senate we claim to be repealing 
the death tax, Democrats and Republicans voted to repeal it, and yet 
because of a quirk in the Budget Act we are phasing down the death tax 
to zero, 9 years from now. So if you die 9 years from now, your 
children can keep what you have earned, but if you die 10 years from 
now they have to pay 55 cents out of every dollar of your life's work 
to the Government.
  I think that is wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote for this sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. We should be making the repeal of the death 
tax permanent.
  I don't have any concern about committing ourselves to not spend the 
Social Security surplus in repealing the death tax. The repeal doesn't 
go into effect until 2011, at which point we simply make what the tax 
is on that day permanent. By 2011 we are going to have a surplus that 
far exceeds the Social Security surplus, unless we do

[[Page 1011]]

what we did today, which is waive the Budget Act to spend it.
  I am hopeful that those who vote for the Conrad amendment, tomorrow 
when we vote on another budget waiver, will vote not to waive the 
Budget Act. But I hope people will not say to us, ``We are really 
worried, we are worried we are going to use the Social Security surplus 
to make tax cuts permanent and to make the repeal of the death tax 
permanent,'' and at the same time in the same day to take $2.4 billion 
out of the Social Security trust fund.
  I do not understand. If you are concerned about the trust fund for 
repealing the death tax, how come you are not concerned about it when 
you are spending money on a bloated agriculture bill? I do not think 
you can have it both ways.
  I think, in the end, people who vote for this resolution, when we 
vote on another budget waiver to spend more money, I hope they will 
say: Look, I voted for the Conrad resolution which said I wouldn't 
spend Social Security trust funds. So while I would love to spend this 
money, I cannot vote for the waiver.
  I bet that many people will vote for this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution, then vote not to make the repeal of the death tax 
permanent, and then the first time we have a vote on busting the budget 
and spending more Social Security trust fund, they will vote for it.
  Maybe that sells where you are from. That doesn't sell where I am 
from. I am for repealing the death tax. I am for making it permanent. 
The good news is that everyone should know that by doing that we are 
not raiding the Social Security trust fund. We raided it today when we 
waived the budget point of order on $2.4 billion. We stole that money 
right out of the Social Security trust fund, and everybody who voted 
for that waiver voted to steal that money out of the Social Security 
trust fund.
  I am proud I did not.
  But when we make the death tax repeal permanent, it costs $4 billion 
in the year 2011, which is when the permanency would kick in. At that 
point we will have a $60 billion non-Social Security surplus, according 
to the administration's numbers, if we quit spending money.
  I urge my colleagues, however you vote on the Conrad amendment, just 
be sure you read it before you vote and you are ready to live up to it. 
I am ready to live up to the sense of the Senate to repeal the death 
tax. I am ready to live up to the sense of the Senate on the Conrad 
amendment.
  I would strike out ``wasteful'' because, as we all know, every 
program you are for is not wasteful. So I thank our dear colleague from 
Arizona for his leadership. I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate those remarks of the Senator 
from Texas. The Senator from Alabama, I know, and the Senator from 
Oklahoma, as well, want to speak. I just wanted to make a couple of 
points.
  No. 1, President Bush wants us to do this. His budget for this next 
fiscal year has in it the permanent repeal of the death tax. So he 
wants us to go forward with it. As the Senator from Texas said, we will 
have a Social Security surplus at the time when we make this death tax 
repeal permanent. So we are not raiding the Social Security trust fund, 
as the Conrad amendment would suggest. In fact, because we are 
injecting more money into our economy, one could expect there will be 
additional Federal revenues, not less Federal revenues.
  One of the experts on this subject, Dr. William Steger, has estimated 
that immediate repeal of the death tax would provide a $40 billion 
automatic stimulus to the economy. He is president of Consad Research 
Corporation and an adjunct professor of policy sciences at Carnegie 
Mellon University. So it is a $40 billion automatic stimulus to the 
economy--not taking the Social Security trust fund.
  I will have a lot more to say about this after we enter into our 
unanimous consent agreement, but I think both the Senator from Alabama 
and the Senator from Oklahoma would like to speak, and I will yield the 
floor to them at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his 
hard work and leadership on this. I appreciate the remarks of the 
Senator from Texas. He is eloquent, as always, and is effective in the 
points he makes.
  First of all, I would like to say why I think it is appropriate that 
we have this sense-of-the-Senate amendment on the farm bill. It is 
because it is one of the most significant issues for farmers in 
America. I speak to farmers frequently. When I first began to campaign 
for the Senate, they told me right upfront that one of their top 
priorities was the elimination of the death tax. It threatens 
everything they do.
  I was shocked and really surprised to hear the Senator from North 
Dakota say he is not worried about people passing on their farms to 
their children. I thought that was what the farm bill was all about. I 
thought it was all about trying to preserve a family farm. What good 
does it do to preserve the farm, have a living wage for farmers, and 
then make them pay 50 or 55 percent of the value of the farm to the 
Government every generation?
  Eliminating the death tax is about preservation of the farm. I think 
it is appropriate that we are considering it. It is certainly one of 
the highest priorities of every agricultural organization of which I 
know.
  Second, let me say why I think this thing is bad economics for 
America, why it is hurting our economy, and why we need to eliminate 
it.
  First of all, the death tax is extraordinarily difficult to compute 
and collect by the Federal Government. It produces a lower return based 
on how much money the taxpayer has to pay than almost any other tax we 
pay. It is an extraordinarily complex thing. It causes individuals to 
go through the most intricate gyrations and causes them to make 
financial decisions they would never make otherwise except to attempt 
to avoid being decimated or having their heirs decimated by the death 
tax.
  Let me tell you what I am really concerned about. This is an issue 
that I feel has not been talked about enough. There are a lot of 
different ideas that people have about why this tax is bad. I would 
like to talk about a purely economic argument that strikes me as a 
great unfairness about the death tax.
  Let us say International Paper Company, or the Weyerhaeuser Company, 
owns 1,000 acres of land, and an individual owns 1,000 acres of land 
and saves some money and manages it well. Then the individual dies. 
They have to pay an estate tax. But Weyerhaeuser or International 
Paper, which may own 600,000 acres of land, or maybe multimillion acres 
of land, never pays a death tax. Big corporations, large stock-held 
corporations, never have their corporate work--Mr. President, I believe 
there is a little noise here. Even I can't think very well when it is 
going on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  So these large corporations are never impacted by estate taxes, but 
they are competing with smaller farmers, smaller timber producers, and 
smaller landowners. Whenever a family member in one of those privately 
held companies dies, they get whacked by the Federal Government with a 
tax. It makes them less competitive.
  In my State of Alabama, we have seen an extraordinary number of banks 
go out of business by selling out to larger banks. Small, closely held 
banks no longer exist today. One of the main reasons is that the family 
sits around the table and wrestles with what they are going to do about 
the future. They get an offer from a big holding company to buy them 
out. They consider how much in taxes they are going to have to pay and 
how they are going to keep the bank going while paying 55 percent tax 
on it. They end up selling out, and then we get bigger and larger 
corporations with more and more concentrations of wealth and less 
competitiveness in the American economy.

[[Page 1012]]

  We need and desire more smaller motel companies. We need more small 
entrepreneurs. We need more stores selling material, like Home Depot or 
Wal-Mart. But those stores, if they are closely held, end up getting 
whacked in each generation by an estate tax.
  I talked to a young man and his father. They had four motels. He told 
me they were paying $5,000 a month for insurance on the father's life, 
trying to make sure that if he were to die, they wouldn't lose their 
investment.
  That is the reality of America. This tax is favoring large 
corporations in their competitiveness against small corporations and 
companies and closely held companies. It is not fair. It is not healthy 
for the economy. We can do better.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my friend from 
Alabama, Senator Sessions, for his speech, as well as the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. Kyl, and the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, because they 
have laid it out very plainly and very clearly to the American people.
  When we repealed this tax, it was temporary. Some people asked, Why? 
We did it under a reconciliation instruction. Most Americans don't have 
a clue what that means. Basically, that instruction was given to 
Congress, saying you can pass a bill for 10 years. In other words, it 
had a sunset. We passed the bill that increased the exemption basically 
from about $750,000 up to about $4 million. It took 9 years to do that. 
On the 10 years, we said we will just eliminate the tax which is 
unfair. It is unfair to have a tax on death. It is unfair for the 
Federal Government to say: When somebody dies, we want half of their 
estate. We don't care if they built up a big business. Maybe they built 
up Microsoft, or maybe they built up a series of restaurants, or maybe 
they built up a manufacturing facility, or maybe they have a large 
ranch or a large farm which they have had in their family for two or 
three generations.
  We said even if you are fairly large, we don't think the Federal 
Government should come in and take half of it because you happen to 
pass away. So we changed it. We said the taxable event will not be 
death; it will be when the property is sold. That is what we passed.
  So the taxable rate, when and if that property is sold, will be at 
the capital gains rate. It will be at 20 percent, which is plenty of 
tax, and the taxable event will be figured when the property is sold, 
when there is money available to pay that tax. That made good, eminent 
sense.
  The bad news is it will be sunset. Presently, we take the exemption 
of last year. This year, because of the tax changes we made last year, 
the exemption is $1 million. There is no death tax by the Federal 
Government if you pass away this year and the taxable estate is less 
than $1 million. That is an improvement.
  We gradually increased that over a period of time. For 2009, we go up 
to a $3.5 million exemption. We gradually reduce the rate, which is 
presently 50 percent--last year it was 55--to 45 percent by the year 
2009, and there is a $3.5 million exemption. For the year 2010, we said 
we are going to eliminate it. There will be no taxable event on death. 
The taxable event will be when the property is sold. The tax rate will 
be at the capital gains rate, which is 20 percent, instead of the rate 
of 45 percent. It makes good sense. It is good sense.
  Unfortunately, because of the sunset in the year 2011, bingo, nothing 
happens. So we revert back to last year's law. Instead of having a $3.5 
million exemption, we have an exemption of about $1 million. Instead of 
having the rate at 45 percent, we are going to go back to the rate of 
55 or 60 percent. But there was a little 5-percent kicker rate for 
estates that were between $10 million and $17 million. We go back to a 
maximum rate in the year 2011 of 60 percent. That is absurd.
  A lot of us said we should make the death tax repeal permanent. That 
is what the sense of the Senate is. Somebody asked, Why isn't this 
real? We tried to do it on the tax bill we had pending before the 
Senate--the so-called stimulus package. Senator Daschle pulled that 
bill down. He didn't want a vote on the amendment of my colleague from 
Arizona and me. Maybe it is because we are going to win. Maybe it is 
because we are going to change the tax law and do some real good so 
people can count on it. We didn't get a vote on it.
  That is the reason we are here today. We are on the farm bill. We 
voted on a lot of amendments dealing with agriculture, none of which is 
as strongly supported as this amendment we are going to vote on 
tomorrow.
  I have spoken to my fair share of agricultural groups--ones that want 
very little Government involvement and ones that want a lot more than I 
want. But they are unanimous. When you ask them if they want to repeal 
the tax, they are in support because they realize that the so-called 
death tax is one of the most punitive things you can do to American 
agriculture.
  That is telling somebody, who in many cases is asset rich and cash 
poor: We want half your assets. So they may be trying to pass their 
farm or ranch on to their kids or to their grandkids, but Uncle Sam 
says: No, you can't do that because the value of your estate is over $1 
million. And you don't have to have a very big farm or ranch for that 
to happen where the Federal Government wants half.
  The Federal Government is entitled to take half? That is going to be 
the law unless we make repeal permanent. So that is why this is 
important to agriculture. That is why it is important that the 
amendment be adopted.
  What about the underlying amendment or the ``let's confuse the 
American public'' amendment that was offered by our friends on the 
Democratic side. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I don't have a 
problem with the conclusion. It says:

       Therefore it is the Sense of the Senate that no Social 
     Security surplus funds should be used to pay to make 
     currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful 
     spending.

  I do not want them to be used for wasteful spending.
  And ``permanent tax cuts,'' let's see, do we do that in our 
amendment? The answer is no. So I guess I could support the 
``therefore,'' which is the only thing people really read in these 
resolutions.
  If you read the sentence above that, it is just factually incorrect. 
It says:

       Since permanent extension of the inheritance tax repeal 
     would cost, according to the Administration's estimate, 
     approximately $104 billion over the next 10 years, all of 
     which would further reduce the Social Security surplus . . . 
     .

  That is factually incorrect. I am a stickler for facts. I think 
people are entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to 
their own facts.
  If you use the administration's estimate, they estimate that the 
surplus will exceed Social Security by about $51 billion in the year 
2010, $99 billion in the year 2011--the first year this would have real 
impact--$199 billion in the year 2012, and $395 billion--these are 
surpluses over and above Social Security. In other words, they are 
enormous surpluses in the outyears.
  You may say this does not really have an impact until the years 2011, 
2012, and 2013 because that is when the death tax is repealed, and 
those are years we have enormous surpluses, including Social Security.
  So the amendment is trying to confuse people and bring in Social 
Security, and so on. Maybe it is confusing, but it is not accurate. It 
is factually inaccurate. I want people to know that. I do not care how 
you vote on it. It doesn't mean anything. The sense of Senate says we 
are not going to use Social Security to pay for permanent tax cuts.
  This amendment that Senator Kyl and I and Senator Gramm and Senator 
Sessions have offered does not do that. Are we for wasteful spending? 
No.
  It is interesting to note that people start drawing out Social 
Security every time we have a tax cut that is real or a tax cut that is 
proposed as real. But they couldn't care less about spending. 
Evidently, it is OK to spend money--Social Security money--on anything 
and everything, and, oh, we

[[Page 1013]]

will waive the Budget Act to do so, but, oh, in the outyears, when we 
have enormous surpluses far exceeding Social Security, don't you dare 
do it. We are going to waive the Social Security flag. It is a false 
flag. It is false cover. Maybe it makes people feel good. I can care 
less how people vote on that amendment.
  I hope people will vote in favor of the sense of the Senate that says 
we should make the repeal of the death tax permanent. We should do it. 
We can afford it. We must do it.
  It makes no sense, whatsoever, to have a death tax where the Federal 
Government is coming in and taking a significant portion of somebody's 
farm or ranch or business, saying: Oh, we want to take it and use it to 
pay for other programs, and so on. That does not make sense.
  So I compliment my colleagues from Arizona and Texas and Alabama for 
their work on this amendment. I am happy to cosponsor this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues, tomorrow morning, to vote in favor of this 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment to permanently repeal the death tax. 
Probably the best thing we can do for agriculture in this entire bill 
is to make repeal of the death tax permanent.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the proposal before us today to repeal the 
estate tax rests on profound misunderstandings of this tax, and 
particularly on who pays this tax.
  We have been hearing our colleagues talk about the death tax and that 
it is stalking every American. It turns out that in 1999, 2.5 million 
adults died; 49,870 estates incurred a tax liability. A very small 
fraction of Americans face the estate tax, but I point out, they are 
the wealthiest Americans. They are not the Social Security recipients. 
They are not individuals who have worked all their lives and are now 
with a small pension facing their last days. These are the wealthiest 
Americans.
  It turns out that with the unified credits, with the ability to gift 
funds to individuals, there is an opportunity--in fact, one that is 
taken by most Americans--to avoid the estate tax. So this is not a 
death tax; this is a tax on the very wealthiest Americans. And this is 
a tax that was really, in many respects, copied from the example of our 
British brethren across the sea, who saw the corrosive power of wealth 
that is passed on from generation to generation to generation.
  I have heard some of my colleagues on the Republican side talk about 
how the death tax is an insidious weapon of large corporations to beat 
down the small workers and farmers in this country. Nothing is further 
from the truth.
  This whole estate tax not only is designed to raise revenue, it is 
also designed to ensure that great fortunes are not passed down, 
becoming great and powerful without any check whatsoever.
  There is another issue with respect to estate taxes. People talk 
about it as so unfair because it is a double tax: You get taxed when 
you earn the money and you get taxed again when you pass away. It turns 
out that a significant amount of estates consist of unrealized capital 
gains.
  Economists have estimated that 36 percent of the wealth in all 
taxable estates is in the form of unrealized capital gains: someone 
purchases a home, someone purchases stock, they hold that stock for 
years, and at the time of their death, the estate tax is imposed. But 
also at the time of death, these assets are passed on to their heirs on 
a stepped-up basis. So without an estate tax, much of this gain would 
never be taxed.
  There is also another myth that we have heard time and time again; 
that is, really what happens is that this onerous tax takes away from 
the family farms and the small businesses of America; that they have to 
liquidate their assets; that they cannot pass them on; that they have 
to pay everything they have earned just to satisfy this tax.
  First of all, recognize this tax applies to very few Americans at 
all. And second, recognize that, despite all the discussions about the 
family farms being forced into sale because of this tax, no one can 
produce any real evidence.
  The New York Times did a report, talking about an Iowa State 
University economist who searched out and tried to find farms that were 
forced into sale because of the estate tax. He could not find any. 
Indeed, they cited officials from the American Farm Bureau. They could 
not find any concrete examples of a farm that was forced to be sold to 
pay for estate taxes. So the myth of the family farm being eliminated--
the sons and daughters standing there being denied their inheritance 
because of the estate tax--is a myth.
  There is also the suggestion that if we repeal the estate tax there 
will be no effect on charitable contributions. That, too, is a 
misnomer. There have been studies on this question. One study was by 
David Joulfaian, a Treasury Department economist, who estimated that 
eliminating the estate tax would reduce charitable bequests by about 12 
percent, or about $1.3 billion in 1998 dollars. This would have a 
deleterious effect on something that we all want to encourage; that is, 
contributions to charities.
  So for these reasons, and many more, I do not think repeal of the 
estate tax is something that should become permanent.
  It will also have an impact on State budgets because there is a 
portion of the estate tax which is credited to local States for their 
purposes. This would have adverse effects on the finances of States and 
the finances of the Federal Government. Ultimately, we would be trading 
off estate taxes for the rich, relief for those individual estates, and 
we would be paying for it with Social Security funds. I believe this is 
not the right way to proceed.
  Much of what is talked about today as the inequity of the estate tax 
is more myth than reality. The reality is that if we make this 
permanent, it will be a huge windfall, most of it the result of 
unrealized capital gains for the very wealthiest Americans, and we will 
be taking away the resources we need to provide support for seniors, 
for children, for the educational system, for those things that will 
make us strong as a nation.
  I hope we will reject the proposal offered by the Senator from 
Arizona.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I, too, rise in strong support of the 
second-degree amendment offered by our distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee. His arguments about protecting Social Security and 
the promotion of fiscal responsibility and basic fairness in our 
economy are compelling, particularly when we consider it relative to 
the permanent extension of the inheritance tax.
  This amendment stands for a very simple proposition, a principle that 
no Social Security surplus funds should be used for any other purpose. 
Under this second-degree amendment, the Senate would go on record 
opposing the use of Social Security funds for making currently 
scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful spending.
  Social Security is a sacred compact between the American people and 
their Government. We have promised all Americans if they work hard and 
play by the rules, when they retire they will not have to live in the 
fear of poverty. We have promised them a safety net that will provide 
baseline payments for their retirement years. That is what Social 
Security is all about, that safety net.
  The Kyl amendment and those who would make permanent the estate tax 
are truly undermining that promise of Social Security. In this decade 
alone, we will spend $104 billion, if this is made permanent, of Social 
Security revenues and reserves to fund this new accelerated tax cut. 
And probably as serious with regard to fiscal issues, we will spend 
over $800 billion in the following decade just at the time our baby 
boom generation, those in the demographic bubble, come into play, and 
when the stresses on Social Security and Medicare and all other Federal 
Government expenditures will be under most pressure.
  This is a bad idea. It is a mistake. The Senator from Rhode Island 
was

[[Page 1014]]

speaking in the context of fairness. I wonder why we think 2,800 farm 
estates out of over 2\1/2\ million in 1999 leads us to believe that we 
need to change this tax policy, particularly when we put it in 
conjunction with undermining our Social Security payments, and only 
48,000 estates were paid in 1998. Then you add in the fact that taxes 
have not been paid on unrealized capital gains. I don't understand why 
we want to make the tradeoff of undermining our fiscal position as a 
nation, undermining our ability to continue to fund Social Security 
appropriately for such a narrow slice.
  We are all asked to sacrifice in a world where we are under 
constraints because of national defense, homeland security, 
expenditures we need to make, but we also need to protect our seniors, 
our Social Security. It seems to me this is a priority that does not 
match the time nor the place nor the needs of our Nation.
  It is not like Social Security is an extraordinarily generous benefit 
for our seniors. It provides a little more than $10,000 per person per 
year on average. In New Jersey, that doesn't go a long way toward 
paying for retirement.
  I don't know why we should be putting it at more risk today than we 
would at other times, particularly since we are talking about such a 
narrow slice of the American landscape. This is a time when making some 
adjustments to our estate taxes are perfectly reasonable. We have 
accomplished that. We continue to do that as we go forward. But why we 
want to make this permanent, undermine our fiscal integrity, undermine 
Social Security, and do it with an eye that forgets about the fairness 
of who is getting the benefit relative to what is going to be charged 
to the American people as we go forward makes no sense.
  I hope my colleagues in the Senate will stand with the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota and make sure that we have a true expression 
of the sense of the Senate that stands with the American people.
  When the American people are asked a question, do we want to make 
permanent these tax cuts or do we want to have a raid on Social 
Security and an undermining of our retirement benefits, 84 percent of 
the American people say: Let's stand with Social Security, and let's 
forgo these tax cuts.
  I hope we take that into consideration when we are thinking about 
what are our priorities in this debate about an estate tax cut 
acceleration relative to our priorities on fiscal responsibility and 
protecting our seniors through Social Security.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator from Minnesota will withhold 
briefly, we are at a point now where we can see a finality to this 
bill. At the present time, it is my understanding on this estate tax 
debate, Senator Kyl and Senator Dayton are the only two people still 
left to speak on this. That is my understanding.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be allowed to speak for up 
to 15 minutes and Senator Dayton for up to 15 minutes regarding 
amendment No. 2850 and that there be no second-degree amendments in 
order to either amendment; that is, the Conrad amendment or the Kyl 
amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of the time of the two 
Senators I have just mentioned, the amendments be set aside to recur 
Wednesday, tomorrow, February 13, at 9:40 a.m.; that there be a total 
of 5 minutes for debate on both amendments with the time equally 
divided and controlled; that at 9:45 a.m., the first vote occur on the 
Conrad amendment, to be followed immediately by a vote on the Kyl 
amendment without further intervening action or debate.
  Has Senator Conrad offered his amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has not.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will offer his amendment. These will be 
the two amendments that have been talked about here this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, I would like to suggest one 
change in the proposal. I know Senator Domenici would like to speak 
tomorrow. He is not here this evening. Since there are no other 
Senators in the Chamber to listen to this debate except for the four 
who are here, might I inquire of the assistant majority leader whether 
he would be agreeable to a total of 10 minutes, with 5 minutes per 
side, and then adjusting it, the 9:40 or 9:45 time; in other words, to 
add 2\1/2\ minutes per side?
  Mr. REID. We accept that suggestion. The vote will be at 9:50.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have no objection to that point. Since 
there were two previous Democratic speakers, I wonder if the Senator 
from Minnesota would allow me to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request, as modified? Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2857

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Conrad, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2857.

  Mr. REID. 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Since both political parties have pledged not to misuse 
     Social Security surplus funds by spending them for other 
     purposes; and
       Since under the Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget, 
     the federal government is projected to spend the Social 
     Security surplus for other purposes in each of the next 10 
     years;
       Since permanent extension of the inheritance tax repeal 
     would cost, according to the Administration's estimate, 
     approximately $104 billion over the next 10 years, all of 
     which would further reduce the Social Security surplus;
       Therefore it is the Sense of the Senate that no Social 
     Security surplus funds should be used to pay to make 
     currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful 
     spending.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 20 
minutes each for debate prior to a vote in relation to the following 
remaining amendments: Domenici 2851, as modified; Kerry-Snowe 2852, 
with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that 
the amendments must be debated tonight; that no second-degree 
amendments be in order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation to 
the amendments; that if the amendment is not disposed of, then it 
remains debatable and amendable; that the vote in relation to these 
amendments occur on Wednesday in a stacked sequence in the order in 
which they were offered; that there be 2 minutes for explanation 
between each vote; that upon disposition of all amendments, the 
remaining provisions of the previous unanimous consent agreement remain 
in effect; provided further that a managers' amendment still be in 
order on Wednesday and that Senator McCain be recognized to speak for 
up to 15 minutes prior to final disposition of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2834, As Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk and state 
that Senators Leahy and Stevens and the two managers have agreed to 
this amendment. This is in relation to the Leahy amendment No. 2834.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The modification is as follows:

       On page 2, line 10, after the word ``forestry'', insert 
     ``or commercial fisheries.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Leahy amendment 
as modified?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2834), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page 1015]]




                    Amendment No. 2851, As Modified

  Mr. LUGAR. I call up amendment No. 2851, which I offered on behalf of 
Senator Domenici earlier today, and I send a modification of the 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Strike section 132 and insert the following:

     SEC. 132. NATIONAL DAIRY PROGRAM.

       The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
     (as amended by section 772(b) of Public Law 107-76) is 
     amended by inserting after section 141 (7 U.S.C. 7251) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 142. NATIONAL DAIRY PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Dairy farm.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `dairy farm' means a dairy farm 
     that is--
       ``(i) located within the United States;
       ``(ii) permitted under a license issued by State or local 
     agency or the Secretary--

       ``(I) to market milk for human consumption; or
       ``(II) to process milk into products for human consumption; 
     and

       ``(iii) operated by producers that commercially market milk 
     during the payment period.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `dairy farm' does not include a 
     farm that is operated by a successor to a producer.
       ``(2) Eligible production.--The term `eligible production' 
     means the average quantity of milk marketed for commercial 
     use in which the producer has had a direct or indirect 
     interest during each of the 1999 through 2001 fiscal years.
       ``(B) each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005.
       ``(4) Producer.--The term `producer' means the individual 
     or entity that is the holder of the license described in 
     paragraph (1)(A)(ii) for the dairy farm.
       ``(b) Program.--The Secretary shall make payments to 
     producers.
       ``(c) Amount.--Subject to subsection (h), payments to 
     producers on a dairy farm under this section shall be 
     calculated by multiplying--
       ``(1) the eligible production; by
       ``(2) the payment rate.
       ``(d) Payment Rate.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the payment 
     rate for a payment under this subsection shall be equal to 
     $0.315 per hundredweight.
       ``(2) Adjustment.--The Secretary may adjust the payment 
     rate under paragraph (1) with respect to the last fiscal year 
     of the payment period if the Secretary determines that there 
     are insufficient funds made available under subsection (h) to 
     carry out this section for that fiscal year.
       ``(e) Application for Payment.--To be eligible for a 
     payment for a payment period under this section, the 
     producers on a dairy farm shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary in such manner as is prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(f) Timing of Payments.--Payments under this section 
     shall be made on an annual basis.
       ``(g) Adjustments.--The Secretary may provide for the 
     adjustment of eligible production of a dairy farm under this 
     section if the production of milk on the dairy farm has been 
     adversely affected by (as determined by the Secretary)--
       ``(1) damaging weather or a related condition;
       ``(2) a criminal act of a person other than the producers 
     on the dairy farm; or
       ``(3) any other act or event beyond the control of the 
     producers on the dairy farm.
       ``(h) Funding.--The Secretary shall use not more than 
     $2,000,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to carry out this section.''.


                           Amendment No. 2850

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me explain where we are. We have two 
competing sense-of-the-Senate amendments. The first is the Kyl-Nickles 
amendment. Incidentally, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Hutchinson of Arkansas be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. This sense-of-the-Senate amendment says we should make 
permanent the repeal of the death tax that the majority of us voted for 
last year and the President signed into law. It is kind of a cruel hoax 
to repeal the death tax after a 10-year period, only to have that 
sunset the very next year. So if you are lucky enough to die in the 
year 2010, your heirs don't have to pay the tax. But if you are unlucky 
enough to live to the year 2011, you go right back to the death tax as 
it existed last year, with a 60-percent rate, with only a $675,000 
exemption. That will be a huge tax increase in that year unless we are 
able to make the death tax repeal permanent.
  I submit that all of us who voted for that--the vast majority of the 
Members of this body--certainly intended that we weren't playing a 
trick on the American people. We intended the repeal of the death tax 
to be permanent rather than just for 1 year. The competing amendment is 
Senator Conrad's. The bottom line is that we not spend Social Security 
money either for tax cuts or wasteful spending. That is a proposition 
with which I suspect we can all agree.
  The only problem with his proposal is in the text of it, an assertion 
that the proposal to make permanent the repeal of the death tax 
actually would spend Social Security money. That is incorrect, as has 
been pointed out by Senators Gramm and Nickles.
  Let me talk about the reasons we need to make the death tax repeal 
permanent and why the arguments of those who oppose that are simply 
incorrect. One of the arguments the Senator from Rhode Island had was 
that there is the myth that lots of people pay the death tax. Actually, 
I didn't assert that. I don't think most people would say lots of 
people pay it. Too many estates pay it. I guess his point was that 
people don't pay it, estates pay it. Who owns estates? People do--the 
heirs, the children, usually, of the person who has died. It is not a 
very happy circumstance that the death of their father or mother causes 
them to have to pay a tax. All of the other taxes, with two minor 
exceptions that we have in our Tax Code, are a result of some action 
that we take, voluntary action. If you want to earn money, you have to 
pay income tax. The death tax is the only one where you don't choose 
the event that triggers the tax. You die; you pay a tax. That is not 
something you voluntarily do.
  That is why everyone who has voted for it has agreed it is an unfair 
tax and it should not be paid. The fact that not that many people pay 
it is beside the point. It affects millions and millions of people. 
Whom does it affect? First of all, all the people in the families of 
the estates that are being taxed. Secondly, it affects all of the 
people who tried to plan against the eventuality of paying a death tax. 
There are literally millions of those people.
  In 1999, the estimate is that we collected $23 billion in estate tax 
and, in addition to that, Americans paid an additional $23 billion in 
estate planning, in insurance, to accountants and lawyers and estate 
planners. So, in effect, it is a double tax.
  Another point the Senator from Rhode Island made was that there is 
really a demonstrable effect on charitable contributions. He cited a 
study that said there might be fewer contributions to charity if we 
repeal the death tax. First, it should not be Federal Government policy 
to force people to give money to charity. That should be from the 
heart, not because you have a gun at your head. We can have incentives 
and we can have a tax credit if you contribute to charity. But we 
should not say unless you contribute that money to charity, the 
Government is going to confiscate it from your heirs. That is unfair 
and not something Federal tax policy should do.
  Secondly, to summarize a story of a friend of mine, Jerry Witsosky, 
who started a small printing company: He eventually hired 200 people. 
He was one of the most generous people in our community of Phoenix, AZ. 
He just could not say no. He had Boys and Girls Clubs named after him. 
He was a very generous person. When he died, his family had to sell the 
business to pay the estate taxes. They sold it to a big corporation. So 
much for preventing the accumulation of wealth. Has that big 
corporation ever contributed to charities in my community? Not that I 
am aware.
  The bottom line is these private, family-owned businesses are pillars 
of their community. When they have to be sold off to some big 
corporation, don't tell me you are going to have enhanced contributions 
to charity as a result.
  The Senator from New Jersey had a couple of arguments--I wish he were

[[Page 1016]]

still here. He is absolutely wrong in both of the arguments he made. I 
don't think he has actually read the bill that repealed the tax last 
year or he would not have made the statement that taxes are not paid on 
unrealized capital gains under the law that exists today, under the 
bill we passed last year. That is not correct. We substitute the 
capital gains tax for the estate tax. So for the first time there will 
be a tax on unrealized capital gains. The only amount we carve out from 
that is essentially equal to the exemption we have in the law today. So 
nobody who is exempt from paying the tax today would have to pay the 
tax 10 years from now. But except for that carve-out, there is going to 
be a capital gains tax substituted for the estate tax. So that argument 
of the Senator from New Jersey is simply incorrect.
  The second argument is also incorrect, that no Social Security 
surplus funds should ever be used and that that is what would happen if 
we made permanent the repeal of the estate tax. But that is not correct 
either. As the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Oklahoma pointed 
out, at the point in time that the repeal of the death tax is made 
permanent, we are running huge Social Security surpluses. In 2010, for 
example, according to OMB, we would have a Social Security surplus that 
year of $290 billion--a non-Social-Security surplus of $60 billion. 
Subtract the $4 billion in costs from the repeal of the death tax and 
you still have $56 billion in non-Social-Security surplus, and you 
still have the original $290 billion Social Security surplus.
  So the OMB numbers--the very numbers referred to in Senator Conrad's 
amendment--belie the claim that we would be taking Social Security 
money in order to pay for the repeal of the death tax. It just isn't 
true.
  Mr. President, what are the reasons for making the repeal of the 
death tax permanent? The primary reason is fairness. But the secondary 
reason is the confusion that exists in the code if we don't do that. 
Think about it. We gradually phase down the amount of death tax until 
the ninth year, when it finally goes out of existence, and 1 year later 
it is all back again in its worst form--the form that existed last 
year. How do you plan against that? Unless you are absolutely certain 
you are going to die in the year 2010, you are going to have to pay the 
same lawyers, accountants, buy the same insurance, and do the same 
estate planning that you do today that you will have to do tomorrow. 
You will have to do all of those things, and the net result is a very 
inefficient and wasteful situation--money that is unproductively going 
to these people who could be put productively back into the economy to 
create jobs, stimulate the economy and, to be fair, frankly, to our 
families.
  That money is wasted unless you consider money going to lawyers as 
not being wasted. As a recovering lawyer, I would argue differently. 
The fact is, that is unproductive capital. Wilbur Steger says if you 
can repeal it tomorrow, you can inject $40 billion of capital into our 
economy.
  The bottom line is repealing the death tax is good economically. It 
is also good for the people who have to plan against the eventuality of 
paying the tax, and it is good for the families who otherwise would 
have to bear the burden of it.
  It is not fair because it is a tax on death rather than voluntary 
activity. It is bad economic policy and bad tax policy because nobody 
can figure out under the law we passed last year what they are going to 
have to do, again, unless they know for sure they are going to die in 
the year 2010.
  Let's go back to the basics. Last year, because of a quirk in the 
law, we could only pass a 10-year tax bill. We did the best we could. 
We repealed the estate tax within that 10-year frame. Right after the 
10 years expire, the whole provision sunsets, and we go right back to 
the Tax Code as it existed last year.
  Is that what we intended when the vast majority of us voted to repeal 
the estate tax we call the death tax? No. Were we playing a cruel hoax 
on our constituents, claiming with great fanfare that we repealed the 
death tax, but knowing all along we really only repealed it for 1 year? 
Did we really intend for it to be repealed for 1 year? I daresay 
everyone who voted for repeal of the death tax is going to support the 
amendment, the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that says we should make 
it permanent. Otherwise, they intended something different certainly 
than I did and, I think, the vast majority of the Americans who support 
this.
  The President in his budget calls for the ``permanentizing'' of the 
repeal of the death tax. That is calculated in his budget, and OMB 
makes crystal clear that budget is not taking one dime from the Social 
Security surplus to do it. That is why we should reject the proposal of 
the Senator from North Dakota which has in it a statement that that is 
what we are doing.
  If he is willing to drop that one clause of his sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution, then I will be the first to vote for his sense-of-the-
Senate resolution and urge my colleagues to do so because I agree we 
should not take Social Security surplus money. But that is not what 
will happen if we are able to effect a permanent repeal of the death 
tax.
  At the end of the day, this is all about fairness. Is it fair to tax 
people who are members of a family and who did not choose that the 
breadwinner in the family die? Is it fair to tax them up to 60 percent 
of the value of that estate, especially since many of the assets of 
small businesses and farms are tied up not in cash or liquid assets but 
in the business itself, so that the net result is they cannot just 
write a check for that obligation, they literally have to sell the 
business, as my friend Jerry Witsosky's family had to do? Is that fair?
  Is that the policy the U.S. Government should be setting? I submit 
the answer is no. That is what the vast majority of Senators said last 
year. The House of Representatives concurred, and the President signed 
the repeal of the death tax into law.
  The only problem with that is, as I have said, it sunsets after the 
10th year. That is what we need to correct. We need to find the right 
vehicle to do that. It has been said the farm bill is not the right 
bill to do that, even though the tax has a very perverse effect on 
family farms. That is why we bring this sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
to our colleagues--if you agree with us that we make the repeal of the 
death tax permanent, that we intended to do that, and we intend to do 
as soon as we have the right opportunity and reject the competing 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that claims that doing this would take 
money from the Social Security surplus, something which now three of us 
have pointed out is absolutely totally false.
  If the author of the competing sense-of-the-Senate resolution will 
drop that claim and will simply say it is the sense of the Senate we 
not spend the Social Security surplus to ``perma-
nentize'' tax cuts or on wasteful spending, then we will be happy to 
support that. We can support both of them. Otherwise, we are going to 
have to vote against the sense-of-the-Senate resolution of the Senator 
from North Dakota, and I urge my colleagues to support the sense-of-
the-Senate resolution that Senator Nickles, Senator Hutchison, I, and 
others have sponsored. It is the right thing, it is the fair thing, and 
it is the honest thing to do for the American people so they are not 
misled that our action last year in repealing the death tax is for all 
time. It is not. It is only for 1 year.
  I conclude by submitting for the Record a list of organizations that 
support the permanent repeal of the estate tax, what I have been 
referring to as the death tax, and I ask unanimous consent this list be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                The Family Business Estate Tax Coalition

       Air Conditioning Contractors of America; American Business 
     Press; American Consulting Engineers Council; American 
     Council for Capital Formation; American Family Business 
     Institute; American Farm Bureau Federation; American Forest 
     and Paper Association; American Forest Resources Council; 
     American Hotel & Lodging Association;

[[Page 1017]]

     American International Automobile Dealers Association; 
     American Supply Association; American Wholesale Marketers 
     Association; American Vintners Association; Americans for 
     Fair Taxation; Associated Builders & Contractors; Associated 
     Equipment Distributors; Associated General Contractors; 
     Association for Manufacturing Technology.
       Citizens Against Government Waste; Citizens for a Sound 
     Economy; Communicating For Agriculture; Construction Industry 
     Manufacturers Association; Farm Credit Council; Fierce and 
     Isakowitz; Food Distributors International; Food Marketing 
     Institute; Guest & Associates; Independent Community Bankers 
     of America; Independent Insurance Agents of America; 
     International Council of Shopping Centers; Kessler & 
     Associates; National Association of Beverage Retailers; 
     National Association of Convenience Stores; National 
     Association of Home Builders; National Association of 
     Manufacturers; National Association of Plumbing-Heating-
     Cooling Contractors; National Association of Realtors; 
     National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National 
     Automobile Dealers Association; National Beer Wholesalers 
     Association; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National 
     Corn Growers Association; National Cotton Council; National 
     Electrical Contractors Association.
       National Federation of Independent Business; National 
     Grocers Association; National Licensed Beverage Association; 
     National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association; 
     National Marine Manufacturers Association; National Newspaper 
     Association; National Restaurant Association; National 
     Roofing Contractors Association; National Small Business 
     United; National Telephone Cooperative Association; National 
     Tooling & Machining Association; National Utility Contractors 
     Association; Newspaper Association of America; Ocean Spray 
     Cranberries, Inc; Organization for the Promotion & 
     Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO); 
     Painting & Decorating Contractors of America; Petroleum 
     Marketers Association of America; Printing Industries of 
     America; Rock Hill Telephone Company; Safeguard America's 
     Family Enterprises; Society of American Florists; 
     Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers; Texas and Southwestern 
     Cattle Raisers Association; Textile Rental Services 
     Association; Tire Association of North America; United States 
     Telecom Association; U.S. Business & Industry Council; U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce; Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America; 
     and the Wine Institute.

           Members of the Small Business Legislative Council

       Air Conditioning Contractors of America; Alliance of 
     Independent Store Owners and Professionals; Alliance of 
     Affordable Services; American Bus Association; American 
     Consulting Engineers Council; American Council of Independent 
     Laboratories; American Machine Tool Distributors Association; 
     American Moving and Storage Association; American Nursery and 
     Landscape Association; American Road & Transportation 
     Builders Association; American Society of Interior Designers; 
     American Society of Travel Agents, Inc.; American 
     Subcontractors Association; Associated Landscape Contractors 
     of America; Association of Small Business Development 
     Centers; Association of Sales and Marketing Companies; 
     Automotive Recyclers Association; Bowling Proprietors 
     Association of America; Building Service Contractors 
     Association International; Business Advertising Council; CBA; 
     Council of Fleet Specialists; Council of Growing Companies; 
     and the Cremation Association of North America.
       Direct Selling Association; Electronics Representatives 
     Association; Health Industry Representatives Association; 
     Helicopter Association International; Independent Community 
     Bankers of America; Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.; 
     Independent Medical Distributors Association; International 
     Association of Refrigerated Warehouses; International 
     Association of Used Equipment Dealers; International Business 
     Brokers Association; International Franchise Association; 
     Machinery Dealers National Association; Mail Advertising 
     Service Association; Manufacturers Agents for the Food 
     Service Industry; Manufacturers Agents National Association; 
     Manufacturers Representatives of America, Inc.; National 
     Association for the Self-Employed; National Association of 
     Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors; and the National 
     Association of Realtors.
       National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds; National 
     Association of Small Business Investment, Companies; National 
     Community Pharmacists Association; National Electrical 
     Contractors Association; National Electrical Manufacturers 
     Representatives Association; National Lumber & Building 
     Material Dealers Association; National Ornamental & 
     Miscellaneous Metals Association; National Paperbox 
     Association; National Private Truck Council; National Retail 
     Hardware Association; National Tooling and Machining 
     Association; National Wood Flooring Association; Painting and 
     Decorating Contractors of America; Petroleum Marketers 
     Association of America; Printing Industries of America, Inc.; 
     Professional Lawn Care Association of America; Promotional 
     Products Association International; The Retailer's Bakery 
     Association; Saturation Mailers Coalition; Small Business 
     Council of America, Inc.; Small Business Exporters 
     Association; SMC Business Councils; Society of American 
     Florists; Specialty Equipment Market Association; Tire 
     Association of North America; Turfgrass Producers 
     International; United Motorcoach Association; Washington Area 
     New Automobile Dealers Association.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues are joined in making 
permanent the repeal of the death tax, and we can express that is our 
intention when we vote on this tomorrow morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I want to take a different tack from some of my 
Democratic colleagues and say to the Senator from Arizona and others 
who have expressed his point of view that I understand and respect his 
sentiment as one which reflects also accurately what I have heard from 
a lot of Minnesota farmers, a lot of Minnesota business owners 
throughout the State.
  I am convinced, regardless of what my particular view might be and 
regardless of what the facts of the situation might be, that any farmer 
or business person or probably anybody who has accumulated some estate 
who even believes it is possible that he or she will ultimately be 
affected by this tax considers it onerous. I can see for those it does 
impact, they consider it onerous.
  I agree with the Senator from Arizona that the decision made a year 
ago by the Congress, signed into law, to finally repeal the estate tax 
entirely in the year 2010 and then reverse that repeal and go back to 
the pre-2001 tax level is nonsensical, absurd, and should have been 
recognized last year for what it was, which was an attempt--in fact, a 
successful effort--to compress 10 years of tax cuts permitted by the 
budget resolution into the first 9 years of the budget so we would face 
exactly this predicament and there would be, as the Senator said, and 
properly so, no logical explanation to the American people for why 
these tax cuts which occurred over those 9 years are suddenly all going 
to disappear in the 10th year.
  In fact, I think that argument can equally apply to the reduction in 
the rates which would also go back to their pre-2001 levels if no 
change is made. The child tax credit, which will go up to $1,000 per 
child, reverts back down to its pre-2001 $500 level.
  I agree with the Senator what was done last year was nonsensical, and 
any rational person trying to look into that situation, any tax 
planning expert advising someone about his or her tax plan decisions, 
especially as that year 2011 approaches, is going to say what it is, 
and with which I agree: It is nonsensical and ridiculous to conduct tax 
policy in that way.
  I invite the Senator from Arizona to work with me--and I look forward 
to doing so--to change this practice which I encountered last year 
which, for the first time, my first year--I understand the tactic, but 
I think it is fundamentally wrong no matter who perpetrates it, to be 
having tax changes phasing in, phasing out, and the like. These are the 
kinds of games and manipulations we all realize occur. No wonder the 
American people do not think we have a Tax Code they can depend upon, 
trust, that makes sense. They are right.
  In my experience, just about any tax that is imposed upon people is 
considered onerous. As a policymaker, I guess I am left wondering which 
of those taxes, from the standpoint of perceived burden and actual 
burden, would be the prime candidates to be reduced if we had the 
resources to do so.
  I certainly note that competing with the estate tax elimination, in 
terms of what taxes impact most Americans, the payroll tax would 
certainly be my first candidate, especially as it affects the employee. 
Seventy-five percent of working Americans pay more out of their payroll 
taxes than they do out of their income taxes. And certainly for 
employers, for businesses, it is perceived as a cost and as an 
impediment to hiring additional people.
  Another inequity we will face over this next decade as it stands 
today is

[[Page 1018]]

some 39 million Americans will be bumped up against the alternative 
minimum tax by the year 2011 under current law.
  We should remedy all of those inequities. The bottom line is, and 
what Senator Conrad was asking his colleagues to recognize tonight, and 
what the American people need to understand about the course that we 
are about to head down, is we cannot afford to make all of these tax 
cuts and all of the spending increases which the President's budget 
proposes without seriously weakening the financial strength of this 
country so that in a decade, at the end of this 10-year budget period, 
we are likely to be unable to meet the increased demands of Social 
Security and medical benefits of an aging population.
  If we take the President's budget, assume that the Congress does not 
change one thing about it, and then apply the Office of Management and 
Budget, the administration's own fiscal expert, consequences of that 
budget, as Senator Conrad said, and it bears repeating, for those next 
10 years every dollar in the Federal Government's operating budget, the 
surpluses, will be eliminated. All of the surpluses in the Medicare 
trust fund for every 1 of those 10 years will be eliminated. Sixty 
percent of the Social Security trust fund surpluses, totaling $1.5 
trillion during that time, will have to be spent to pay for the 
operating deficits which will result, leaving at the end of those 10 
years in the fiscal year 2012, $1 trillion of surpluses in the Social 
Security trust fund, and $1.9 trillion of debt that has not been paid 
because of this additional spending--national debt that, I might add, 
was projected originally a year ago to have been eliminated by the end 
of these 10 years.
  So I repeat, if we, today, were to adopt the budget which the 
President has sent to the Congress, without a change, if the economy of 
this country over the next decade performs according to OMB's 
assumptions, which are that we will come out of the recession quickly, 
we will boost up above average GDP, and then we will continue at a rate 
for the rest of the decade that will result in a decade average of 3.1 
percent real growth in GDP; in other words a reasonably optimistic 
economic assumption sustained over 10 years--low inflation, 2.1 
percent, unemployment staying at 4.9 percent, good economic 
conditions--we will still face $849 billion in deficits in our 
operating budgets which have to be made up by Social Security and 
Medicare trust fund dollars.
  At that point, we end up facing the proposal of Senator Kyl and 
others that we should eliminate the estate tax permanently during that 
following decade, which the Congressional Budget Office predicts would 
cost $4 trillion. If we look at the numbers, we will see we cannot 
afford to sacrifice another $4 trillion in tax revenues during that 
time.
  The Social Security payments are going to increase. The national debt 
has not been eliminated. Frankly, I am not even as concerned about that 
decade, at least not tonight, as I am about the decisions we will be 
making over the next few weeks and months that will affect what 
precedes that decade.
  I assume Senator Kyl's amendment will pass tomorrow. It is a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. It has no force of law. It does not start to 
take effect until the year 2011. That is about as easy a tax cut vote 
as anybody can ever hope for.
  I implore my Republican colleagues, I implore all of my Senate 
colleagues, to review the President's budget proposals and to review 
Senator Conrad's predictions because they essentially agree. They say 
if that budget is adopted, we are heading into another decade-long 
spree of cutting taxes. We did last year. Now some want to accelerate 
those tax cuts. We want to make some of those tax cuts permanent in 
following decades--popular decisions, every one of them not in context.
  We are proposing to embark on a major military spending spree, $451 
billion of additional defense spending in the next 5 years compounded 
through the next 5 years, spending that we are not paying for with the 
tax cuts; that we are paying for with the Medicare and Social Security 
trust funds. Those are the unavoidable realities, the unpleasant 
realities that we would prefer to avoid. If we do that, we will 
jeopardize the long-term financial security of this Nation.
  If we repeat what occurred in the 1980s and send this country down 
the path of ongoing budget deficits, we will bequeath to our children 
and those who follow a fiscal nightmare of unprecedented proportions. 
Regardless of what we do tomorrow with the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution, the real decisions we are going to face in the months ahead 
will not be those kinds of cosmetics. They will be real commitments to 
tax cuts and to spending increases that will be sweet and appealing at 
the time, but the reality is they will jeopardize this country's 
financial strength and stability.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                           Amendment No. 2851

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement that 
has been adopted on amendment No. 2851, the Domenici amendment on 
dairy, that debate must occur this evening. The provision provides for 
2 minutes of debate tomorrow prior to the vote, equally divided. 
Senator Domenici is not able to be present. Earlier today, on his 
behalf, I offered the amendment with a short argument.
  I ask that the Chair call up amendment No. 2851.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may 
require from the 10 minutes provided to the proponents of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President I will read from a letter which Senator 
Domenici has written to his colleagues in the Senate in support of 
amendment No. 2851:

       I ask you to join me in making the dairy title of the farm 
     bill equitable to all producers across the country. There is 
     currently $2 billion available in S. 1731 over the next five 
     years for the dairy program. However, the dairy title of the 
     farm bill currently under consideration on the Senate floor 
     gives special treatment to 12 states at the expense of the 
     remaining 38. Specifically, those producers in the 12 New 
     England states currently producing 18% of our nation's milk, 
     will receive a disproportionate 25% in producer payments. 
     This is inconsistent with the vast majority of other programs 
     where the loan rate, or payment rate for a particular 
     commodity is the same for producers all across the country. 
     There is no market justification for this type of division.
       FAPRI analysis of S. 1731 shows that the response to these 
     payments would result in depressed market prices. By the last 
     year of the program, estimates predict that income to dairy 
     farmers in every state would be reduced. This is a reduction 
     on all milk--not just milk of a certain level of production. 
     Thus, producers whose milk is not eligible for the payments 
     will be receiving less money for their milk than if the 
     payments were not made at all. To be fair, those producers 
     should not have to pay for this policy. All producers should 
     be allowed to fully participate.
       I ask that you support an amendment that will be offered on 
     my behalf that will distribute this $2 billion in a more 
     equitable manner. The program that I propose is national in 
     scope.
       Dairy prices can change rapidly from month to month. Rather 
     than burden the Secretary with the costs of computing payment 
     rates and making monthly payments, I propose to streamline 
     this process and make an annual flat payment to producers 
     over the next five years which will approximate the counter-
     cyclical payments they would receive if computed and paid 
     like other commodities. Estimates show that rate to be 
     approximately 31.5 cents per hundredweight on all milk 
     produced. Under this approach, administrative costs will be 
     reduced and payment uncertainties will be eliminated. A 
     payment on all milk will provide, in gross dollars, as much 
     or more money to virtually all states. A table illustrating 
     this is attached.

  I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page 1019]]



                                         COMPARISON OF PRODUCER PAYMENTS DASCHLE SUBSTITUTE--DOMENICI AMENDMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2001          Eligible                   Daschle substitute                   Domenici
                          State                             production        pounds     ------------------------------------------------    amendment
                                                             (million)       (million)     Min ($thous)    Mid ($thous)    Max ($thous)       (thous)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................             300             278             486           1,652            3402            3623
Alaska..................................................           14.36              13              23              79             163             173
Arizona.................................................            2884             854            1494            5079           10457           34824
Arkansas................................................             459             425             743            2528            5204            5542
California..............................................           33194           15435           27012           91839          189081          400818
Colorado................................................            1961            1181            2066            7024           14461           23679
Connecticut.............................................             459             425            5785            7646            7646            5542
Delaware................................................           140.9             130            1776            2347            2347            1701
Florida.................................................            2389            1206            2111            7178           14779           28847
Georgia.................................................            1431            1241            2171            7382           15198           17279
Hawaii..................................................           106.4              98             172             586            1206            1285
Idaho...................................................            7754            3644            6378           21684           44644           93630
Illinois................................................            2020            2006            3510           11935           24572           24392
Indiana.................................................            2576            2476            4332           14729           30325           31105
Iowa....................................................            3785            3702            6478           22025           45346           45704
Kansas..................................................            1560            1444            2527            8591           17688           18837
Kentucky................................................            1657            1654            2894            9839           20258           20008
Louisana................................................             629             582            1019            3464            7132            7595
Maine...................................................             656             607            8268           10928           10928            7921
Maryland................................................            1285            1207           16430           21716           21716           15516
Massachusetts...........................................             366             339            4613            6097            6097            4419
Michigan................................................            5721            5166            9041           30738           63284           69081
Minnesota...............................................            8895            8610           15068           51232          105477          107407
Mississippi.............................................             505             467             818            2781            5726            6098
Missouri................................................            1972            1942            3399           11557           23795           23812
Montana.................................................             346             320             560            1906            3923            4178
Nebraska................................................            1146            1061            1856            6311           12994           13838
Nevada..................................................             485             449             786            2671            5499            5856
New Hampshire...........................................             322             298            4058            5364            5364            3888
New Jersey..............................................             242             224            3050            4031            4031            2922
New Mexico..............................................            5561            1268            2219            7544           15532           67149
New York................................................           11750           11045          150396          198781          198781          141881
North Carolina..........................................            1164            1083            1894            6441           13261           14055
North Dakota............................................             655             606            1061            3607            7427            7909
Ohio....................................................            4388            4318            7556           25691           52893           52985
Oklahoma................................................            1293            1050            1837            6247           12861           15613
Oregon..................................................            1746            1437            2515            8550           17603           21083
Pennsylvania............................................           10849           10697          145669          192520          192520          131002
Rhode Island............................................            23.6              22             297             393             393             285
South Carolina..........................................             363             336             588            1999            4116            4383
South Dakota............................................            1631            1432            2506            8521           17542           19694
Tennessee...............................................            1335            1324            2318            7880           16223           16120
Texas...................................................            5099            4166            7290           24787           51032           61570
Utah....................................................            1634            1428            2499            8497           17494           19731
Vermont.................................................            2678            2557           34824           46028           46028           32337
Virginia................................................            1878            1850            3237           11006           22660           22677
Washington..............................................            5512            3467            6067           20629           42471           66557
West Virginia...........................................             249             230            3138            4148            4148            3007
Wisconsin...............................................           22225           21558           37727          128272          264089          268367
Wyoming.................................................              63              58             102             347             714             761
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         165,357  ..............         552,657       1,092,831       1,720,534       1,996,689
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA Dairy Products 4/17/01, 7/17/01, 10/16/01, 1/17/02.
Eligible pounds are pounds per operation at or below 8,000,000 per year and approximate the percentages used by FAPRI in its analysis.
Payment rates under Daschle Substitute are from Ken Bailey. Penn State Staff paper #344, December 20, 2001. Analysis of the Dairy Provisions in the
  Senate Version of the Farm Bill. Payments in the NE Program had to be reduced to keep within the 500 million budgetary cap.

  Mr. LUGAR. I continue reading:

       I also propose the elimination of caps on payments to 
     producers based upon production. This is a fairness issue. 
     Since 1983, dairy producers have paid assessments for their 
     programs. These assessments have always been without 
     limitation. Now that there are payments, these producers 
     should benefit from the same policy--payments without 
     limitations.
       A well known dairy economist with Penn State University, 
     using recent historical prices, estimated that payments for 
     the Northeast farmers would be from 24 cents to 91 cents per 
     hundredweight with an average of 57 cents. At the same time 
     producers elsewhere would receive from nothing to 35 cents 
     with a mid point of 14 cents.
       Producers in the same marketing orders who share the same 
     blend prices and the same markets, could be treated vastly 
     different under S. 1731. These producers are members of the 
     same cooperatives, use the same trucking companies and 
     otherwise participate in a single market. Yet, some in the 
     market order stand to make 3 to 4 times as much as their 
     neighbors, while market prices in the rest of the country are 
     significantly reduced as a result of the disparity.
       Again, I urge you to join me in making the dairy title 
     equitable to all producers. If you are interested in co-
     sponsoring this legislation or need additional information, 
     please contact Shelly Randel at 224-1964.

  I wish Senator Domenici were here to make the statement himself and 
to further amplify the equity of his program, but common sense would 
dictate that there should be equity among the States. Clearly, there is 
not. Clearly, dairy farmers with almost identical conditions and 
identical cooperatives should have equitable treatment. S. 1731 clearly 
does not accomplish that.
  Therefore, I commend the Domenici amendment to Senators. I am hopeful 
when the debate concludes tomorrow after the 2 minutes, 1 minute a side 
to summarize, that Senators will vote in favor of the Domenici 
amendment.
  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. 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 will ask again that a quorum call be 
instituted with the time evenly divided between the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, water laws are always an issue of great 
concern. However, they are of even greater concern in this day and 
age--especially in the West. This was so evident late last night and 
this morning when a deal was struck that relieves much of the West from 
participating in the Reid-Bingaman Water Conservation Program, but 
effectively sends New Mexico water down the river.
  All Western Senators, whose States are in much the same situation as 
New Mexico, opposed the Reid-Bingaman amendment. I came to the floor 
today and learned that in an attempt to keep this ill-conceived program 
alive, all Western States with the exception of

[[Page 1020]]

five--Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, California, and Washington--were 
exempted. This was an attempt to get most of the Western Senators who 
oppose this program from voting against it in its entirety.
  I was not consulted about New Mexico being allowed to drop out like 
other Western States because apparently Senator Bingaman wanted to keep 
New Mexico in the program--a program that is vehemently opposed by the 
New Mexico Cattle Growers, the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, 
the New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc., the New Mexico Public Lands Council, 
the Dairy Producers of New Mexico, the Arizona and New Mexico Coalition 
of Counties, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, the Elephant 
Butte Irrigation District, and the Carlsbad Irrigation District.
  Major policy changes with regard to State water issues should be 
considered carefully. The Reid-Bingaman proposal has never been the 
subject of a hearing. My staff has been given at least six drafts of 
this language--a sign that this should be introduced as legislation, 
referred to committee, and then brought to the Senate with the benefit 
of committee review.
  The Reid-Bingaman proposal is a State program only in appearance--
especially for those Western States who are reclamation States, such as 
New Mexico. There are many questions left unanswered when it comes to 
reconciling the Reid-Bingaman program with Federal Reclamation law. For 
example, does the entity that holds water rights in a reclamation 
project mean the Secretary of the Interior, the irrigation district or 
the individual landowner who receives the water under contract with the 
irrigation district? Is this relationship altered if the land is under 
a management contract or is leased in accordance with reclamation law? 
Do all of these parties have to agree? If one landowner enters into an 
agreement, what happens to the repayment obligations of the irrigation 
district? Can the irrigation district be forced to transfer water 
outside district boundaries by the landowner?
  Another problem with the Reid-Bingaman program is that it allows the 
Secretary or a State to use condemnation powers under other authority 
to further the purposes of this program. I see nothing in this language 
that prevents either the Federal Government or a State from extorting 
compliance and eligibility. It is evident from the comments spoken on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate that the clear objective of this program 
is to take water from farmers for urban needs by laundering water for 
conservation.
  The Reid-Bingaman program requires that States have a program to 
protect in stream flows. New Mexico does not have such a program and 
states that do have a program may not have as comprehensive a program 
as the sponsors of this amendment want. The New Mexico legislature has 
previously defeated legislation that would create any type of water 
bank or similar program.
  State water laws--especially in the West--are all different. Yet, the 
thrust of this program seems to be forcing states to conform their 
water laws into some Federal mold.
  Additionally, the Reid-Bingaman amendment allows for the transfer of 
water to a ``designee of the State.'' That could be a third party. 
Presumably, one could be ordered to transfer rights to an urban area or 
private group or individual. It is not completely clear, but it seems 
that state water law, especially as it applies to junior appropriators 
is being preempted.
  The ``savings'' clause in this amendment is too limited. It does not 
preserve any limitations under other Federal law, nor does it clearly 
preserve interstate compacts, treaties and the myriad of regulations 
that define interstate streams.
  Finally, I have heard many claim that this program is strictly 
voluntary. It is voluntary on its face only. The language is drafted to 
read that anyone who participates is ``willing.'' That is part of what 
is wrong in the West. We don't have enough water and people do not want 
to give up what little of this resource they have. If there were 
willing sellers out in New Mexico, all of the groups I mentioned above 
would not oppose the Reid-Bingaman program.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senate's 
attention an issue that I hope we might continue to work on during the 
conference on the farm bill. Last year President Bush set a theme that 
we ``should not leave any child behind.'' While the world has certainly 
changed in the past year, I believe that one of the reasons we will 
succeed in the war against terrorism is that we understand the 
importance of leaving no child behind. It is my hope that as we work 
through this conference we will keep our children's health as a top 
priority.
  The Food Stamp Act provides assistance to millions of children living 
in the United States. In 1980, Congress removed Puerto Rico from the 
food stamp program as a budget-cutting initiative and established in 
its place the Nutrition Assistance Program, a block grant for Puerto 
Rico to provide a modified Food Stamp Program. The Nutrition Assistance 
Program in Puerto Rico known as NAP, provides support to over 400,000 
children.
  Over the past year, Puerto Rico's Governor Sila Calderon and her 
administration have moved aggressively and voluntarily to complete 
implementation of an Electronic Benefits System for the nutrition 
program. The Commonwealth thus joins the 50 States as they modernize 
their food stamp distribution services to ensure authorized purchases 
by the individuals for whom the benefits were intended. They have 
worked effectively with the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service to 
strengthen the administration of the program to ensure that limited 
dollars are stretched to the maximum.
  However, as of 2000, the annual purchasing power of NAP was $147 
million less than when it was enacted 22 years ago, compared to the 
cost of household food on the mainland. If you use the index measuring 
the increased cost of food in Puerto Rico, you find that the purchasing 
power of the program has fallen by almost $1 billion.
  The loss of purchasing power has real effects on real children. If 
you look at the NAP and compare it to the Federal Food Stamp Program, 
you find that the program, 1, does not provide similar benefits; and 2, 
the budget limitations have excluded many low-income children in Puerto 
Rico from participation in the program.
  For example, the Food Stamp Program's monthly income limitation is 
$1,531 for a family of three on the mainland and in the Virgin Islands, 
but the NAP program must limit participation in the program to families 
of three whose income is $558. This amount equals about 47% of the 
Federal poverty level, while participation in the Federal Food Stamp 
Program is extended to those whose incomes are less than 150% of the 
Federal poverty level.
  The NAP maximum benefit level for the family of three is $268 as 
compared to $341 for food stamps on the mainland and $431 on the Virgin 
Islands. this problem becomes even more egregious when the cost of 
purchasing essential food items is compared between Puerto Rico and the 
mainland. For example, a gallon of milk in San Juan costs $3.89 
compared to $2.87 in Washington, D.C.
  When Congress established the Nutritional Assistance Program it was 
our intent to reduce cost and permit the Commonwealth flexibility in 
providing nutrition support. We certainly did not intend to create a 
gap such as the one that now exists between these two programs.
  Puerto Rico's children are U.S. citizens who deserve a greater 
opportunity for nutritional support. These young men and women will 
serve in the U.S. military, they will pay Social Security, Medicare and 
unemployment taxes, and they are expected to compete in the U.S. labor 
market. I believe that we need to ensure that children who are U.S. 
citizens and live in Puerto Rico are not left behind when it comes to 
nutrition.
  I look forward to working with the distinguished chairman; the 
distinguished ranking member Senator Lugar; and the other conferees to 
examine alternatives for providing resources to the Nutrition 
Assistance

[[Page 1021]]

Program so that there is some narrowing of the gap between the Federal 
Food Stamp Program and the Nutrition Assistance Program.
  Again, I thank the chairman for his excellent work on this issue, and 
I look forward to working with him to advance this cause.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of my friend, the distinguished Senator from Vermont. As I have 
indicated in remarks throughout the Senate's deliberations on this 
bill, nutrition assistance is of paramount importance for enhancing our 
nation's security. I am familiar with the Nutrition Assistance Program 
in Puerto Rico and recognize the importance of adjusting benefit levels 
and income requirements for inflation. This is why Senator Cochran and 
I worked together on legislation, 2 years ago, that now provides such 
an adjustment. I look forward to working with Senator Leahy, Chairman 
Harkin and the other conferees in the conference on this bill to 
explore this issue by assessing the needs of low-income Puerto Ricans 
and possible means of addressing those needs.


                             peanut program

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my 
distinguished colleague from Georgia, Mr. Miller, regarding the peanut 
title of the proposed farm bill.
  My colleague represents the largest peanut growing State and I 
represent one of the largest peanut product manufacturing States. I 
compliment him for his leadership and I am pleased by the efforts of 
the Agriculture Committee in moving to a market-oriented peanut 
program. My foremost concern is for elimination of the peanut quota 
system, which has restricted peanut production in the United States. Do 
the provisions of this farm bill terminate the peanut quota program?
  Mr. MILLER. Yes, the legislative language of this farm bill 
explicitly terminates the peanut quota system effective with the 2002 
crop. The bill also provides that the Secretary of Agriculture is to 
enter into contracts that will compensate quota owners for the lost of 
their quota.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I believe such provisions are useful, but I would like 
to have the compensation to quota owners terminated 1 year before the 
end of this 5-year farm bill. I have no problem with the House bill, 
which buys out quota owners over a 5-year period in the context of a 
10-year farm bill.
  Mr. MILLER. If we end up with a 5-year farm bill as a result of the 
House-Senate conference, my quota owners would have no problem in 
having their quota bought our over 4 years. Therefore, I commit to the 
Senator to work with the House-Senate conferees to ensure that we end 
the quota owner buy-out contract 1 year shy of any farm bill 
reauthorization.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my colleague for this unquestioned commitment 
to finding an agreeable resolution. I understand that these reforms may 
be difficult for some of his peanut quota growers. However, if we fail 
to provide real reform of the peanut program we will have done a great 
disservice to the entire U.S. peanut sector.
  Mr. MILLER. Ever-expanding peanut imports are threatening the current 
and future viability of the peanut industry in Georgia and other 
peanut-producing and manufacturing states. Peanut growers, shellers, 
and manufacturers will come under increasing pressure as peanut 
production and peanut processing infrastructure moves offshore. I am 
pleased to say that this new peanut program offers a positive 
resolution for the entire peanut industry, and the new program ensures 
that the U.S. peanut sector is competitive in the world marketplace.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I applaud the leadership and foresight of the Senator 
from Georgia in developing a peanut program that truly brings needed 
reform to the program while presenting new opportunities for young 
peanut farmers.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I wish to enter a short colloquy with 
the Senator from Iowa, Chairman of the Agriculture Committee and the 
floor manager of this bill. As you know, the manager's amendment 
contains a provision designed to remedy problems that transpired last 
year in the programs governed by Public Law 107-25. My question is 
whether this remedy applies to farmers eligible for payments and 
assistance under Public Law 107-25, but who were denied payments and 
assistance because their cases were under appeal when the September 30, 
2001 deadline passed.
  As the distinguished Senator might know, several Missouri farmers did 
not receive payments and assistance they were entitled to under Public 
Law 107-25. It was impossible for these Missouri farmers to meet their 
September 30 deadline because their cases were under appeal. They 
received no payments even though it was eventually determined that they 
were eligible for assistance. So, by no fault of their own, several 
Missouri family farmers face ominous financial situations without the 
clarifications provided in this amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I commend the Senator's work on behalf of Missouri family 
farmers and thank her for her consideration of this amendment. This 
amendment will indeed apply to farmers who were under appeal status 
when the deadline passed but later were found to be in compliance and 
eligible for payments and assistance under Public Law 107-25. The 
amendment provides that they will receive payments for which they were 
eligible and have not received. I am pleased that this amendment will 
help Missouri farmers facing difficult situations.


                               Nutrition

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for the purpose of 
engaging in a colloquy with my good friends, the distinguished senior 
Senators from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Minnesota. Each 
of us worked closely with the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member 
of the Committee on Agriculture to ensure that the nutrition title of 
the pending legislation represents an important step forward to improve 
the program's ability to help low-income children, working poor, and 
the elderly. As a former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I know 
the importance of achieving balance in a farm bill. To ensure broad, 
bipartisan and bicameral support, a farm bill must have a strong 
nutrition title that benefits urban and suburban areas that feel less 
of a direct stake in the agricultural provisions of the bill. I think 
the pending legislation has that. Unfortunately, the bill passed by the 
other body earlier this fall does not. A mere $3.6 billion out of a 
$73.5 billion farm bill does not come close to representing balance and 
leaves unmet too many of the urgent nutritional needs of low-income 
families in urban, suburban, and rural areas alike.
  Mr. KENNEDY. This farm bill makes important progress in ensuring the 
nutritional well-being of low-income children. The food stamp program 
is by far our nation's largest and most important child nutrition 
program. Over half of all food stamp recipients are children. Four-
fifths of all food stamp benefits go to families with children. Despite 
its important mission, however, this program has been in trouble. Fully 
half of the savings in the 1996 welfare law came from budget-driven 
cuts in food stamp benefits. Since then, sharp reductions in the 
participation rate among eligible households have produced huge 
additional problems. As a result, significant unmet need exists among 
low-income children in our country. This legislation takes important 
steps to address these problems. It recognizes that one of the clear 
consequences of welfare reform is that children have been hurt. It was 
never the intention of the 1996 law to cut off these children. This 
legislation restores benefits to all children to eliminate confusion, 
and to encourage parents to apply for benefits on behalf of their 
children. In addition, this legislation recognizes that families with 
children have greater living expenses than single individuals, and it 
adjusts the food stamp standard deduction accordingly. It relies on the 
fundamental concept, similar to the concept in legislation I introduced 
last year with Senator Specter, that food stamp benefits should not 
start to phase down until a family's income is nine percent above

[[Page 1022]]

the poverty line. By providing more adequate food assistance benefits 
to children, we can help ensure that they go to school ready to learn 
and grow up to be strong, healthy, productive members of our society.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Accordingly, one of the most important aspects of the 
nutrition title of this legislation is its sensitivity to the needs of 
legal immigrants and their families. Immigrants come to this country 
today for the same reasons that have brought them here throughout our 
history: to live in freedom and the opportunity to earn a better life 
for themselves and their families through hard work. Unfortunately, 
many immigrants, like other workers in this country, will at times find 
it difficult to obtain work. Others may be unable to work for a period 
of time because of workplace injuries or family illnesses. To prevent 
these hard-working, tax-paying families from suffering serious 
hardship, it is vital that we extend our country's nutritional safety 
net, the food stamp program, to more legal immigrants, particularly 
immigrant children. Unlike its counterpart in the other chamber, the 
nutrition title of this legislation does just that. I am proud to 
support that effort.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. While falling somewhat short of what I had hoped for 
in terms of nutrition funding, this legislation nonetheless makes 
important strides to help ensure that the most vulnerable among us are 
not left without adequate nutrition in this land of plenty. Refugees 
and asylees, who enter this country to escape foreign oppression, could 
receive food stamps for as long as they need them without having to 
worry about an arbitrary time limit such as the one in current law. 
Childless unemployed adults could receive six months of food stamps 
within a twenty-four month period designated by the state. This is 
still a harsh provision, tougher than the provision that twice passed 
the Senate in the mid-1990s with bipartisan support. Nonetheless, it 
would give more people enough time to find new employment before their 
food stamp eligibility runs out. The legislation also preserves a $25 
million fund to help these states provide work slots to persons 
reaching this time limit. The legislation also helps the very poorest 
of the poor by increasing the standard deduction and by providing 
transitional food stamps to persons leaving welfare because they 
obtained low-paying jobs or because they reached a time limit.
  Mr. LEAHY. I fully concur with and support the comments of all four 
of my distinguished colleagues that have just spoken on the nutrition 
title of the farm bill. In addition to the many important features of 
the bill highlighted in their remarks, I would like to add that this 
legislation also takes major steps to simplify the program. Households 
would be permitted to report on changes in their circumstances by 
filling out a simple form every six months rather than having to take 
time off from work to visit the food stamp office, as often happens 
today. The cumbersome recertification process would be replaced by the 
same kind of redetermination process long used in the SSI and Medicaid 
programs. The crucial excess shelter deduction would be retained. This 
is essential to protect families in cold weather states like Vermont 
from facing the cruel choice between heating and eating. Nonetheless, 
legislation would greatly simplify the calculation of households' 
utility costs. States would be given the option to conform their 
definitions of income and resources in the food stamp program to those 
they use in other programs. This should allow states to eliminate 
unnecessary questions from their application forms. In simplifying the 
program, this legislation strives to protect families in need from 
experiencing hardship. Simplification should be a means of helping the 
program serve families better, not an end unto itself. I believe the 
simplification provisions in this legislation meet that test. As a 
result, this legislation makes important progress toward simplifying 
the program in ways that the benefit of State administrators and needy 
families alike.


                     MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM FUNDING

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I 
filed to the farm bill that would enhance funding for the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's Market Access Program. I appreciate the 
support and cosponsorship of Senators Feinstein, Craig, Cantwell, 
Boxer, and Wyden on this amendment.
  Last year, the House of Representatives passed Trade Promotion 
authority by one vote, and the World Trade Organization meetings in 
Doha wrapped up with an agreement to begin a new round of trade 
negotiations. In Washington, D.C., and in the capitals of nation's 
around the world, it appears that momentum is building to expand trade.
  But in rural areas in my home State, the support for new trade 
agreements is declining. Apple growers in Omak, WA and asparagus 
growers in the Yakima Valley are asking tough questions about our trade 
agreements.
  Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in the nation. I 
have supported opening new markets for our products, whether it's 
airplanes or apples. I have also been a strong supporter of giving our 
farmers and businesses the tools they need to compete.
  The global marketplace is tough, extremely competitive, and not 
always based on free market principles. Foreign governments have taken 
an aggressive posture in promoting their products. We need to be 
aggressive too.
  One way we can be aggressive is to fully fund the Market Access 
Program. MAP helps nonprofit industry groups and other qualifying 
entities to conduct market promotion in foreign markets. MAP funds can 
be used for advertising and other consumer promotions, market research, 
and technical assistance.
  In my home State of Washington, I have seen how MAP can help farmers, 
cooperatives, and small businesses. For example, each year, the apple 
industry receives roughly $3 million in export development funds from 
the USDA Market Access Program.
  These funds, matched by grower funds, are used to promote U.S. apples 
in more than 20 countries throughout the world. Since 1987, when the 
apple industry first used MAP funds, apple exports have increased by 88 
percent. Nearly one-quarter of fresh U.S. apple production is exported 
each year, with an estimated value of nearly $400 million.
  If we are not aggressive, we will not gain market share.
  My amendment would have modified the Senate Farm Bill to fund MAP at 
$200 million by 2004, and brought the Senate bill more in line with the 
House-passed Farm Bill, which funds MAP at $200 million beginning in 
fiscal year 2002. While it may not be possible to fully fund MAP at 
$200 million in fiscal year 2002, I strongly support funding MAP at 
this level beginning in fiscal year 2003.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I want to begin by thanking Senator Feinstein for her 
strong advocacy for additional Market Access Program funding. I also 
want to commend the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, 
Senator Harkin, for writing a strong trade title in this Farm Bill. It 
is clear to me that Senator Harkin understands how critical USDA trade 
programs are to our farmers and ranchers, and to hungry nations around 
the world.
  I am concerned, however, about the level of funding for the Market 
Access Program in the early years of this Farm Bill. I was prepared to 
offer an amendment to the Farm Bill to add $145 million to the Market 
Access Program, so that we would fund MAP at $200 million sooner than 
in the underlying bill. Unfortunately, some controversy arose over the 
offset for my amendment.
  I would ask Senator Feinstein if she believes we need to fund the 
Market Access Program at $200 million as soon as possible in the final 
Farm Bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree very strongly with the Senator from 
Washington that we need to fund the Market Access Program at $200 
million.
  If American agriculture is to remain competitive, we must ensure that 
our farmers are given the same support that their foreign competitors 
receive.
  Heavily subsidized foreign citrus entering the U.S. has quadrupled 
over the last five years, significantly lowering

[[Page 1023]]

prices domestically for California growers. In the European Union 
alone, government subsidization of the fresh produce sector reaches 
upwards of $15 billion each year.
  The Market Access Program provides new jobs--jobs for longshoremen, 
jobs in processing, jobs in transportation, and of course, jobs for 
growers.
  The Market Access Program is an important tool in expanding markets 
for U.S. agricultural products.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that each dollar spent 
on the Market Access Program results in an increase in agricultural 
exports of between $2 and $7.
  Small farmers especially benefit from this program because they would 
not be able to break into these foreign markets on their own.
  The Market Access Program helps create and protect U.S. jobs, combat 
inequitable trade practices, improve the U.S. balance of trade, and 
improve farm income.
  I thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership on this issue. 
I look forward to continuing our work together on increasing funding 
for this valuable program. To the distinguished Chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, thank you for your continued help and support.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from California for her remarks. I 
would ask the Senator from Iowa if he supports raising MAP funding to 
$200 million as soon as possible in the final Farm Bill that is sent to 
President Bush.
  Mr. HARKIN. I want to thank the Senators from Washington and 
California for their strong advocacy for the Market Access Program. I 
believe this is an indispensable program, particularly for specialty 
crop producers around the country.
  To answer the question raised by the Senators from Washington and 
California, I agree we need to fund MAP at $200 million. The conference 
committee will have to address many difficult issues, however I believe 
it is a reasonable goal to try to fund MAP at $200 million as soon as 
possible, recognizing that it may take some time for USDA to ramp up 
the program effectively.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his strong support for 
the Market Access Program and the specialty crop growers in my state.


                        MILK PROTEIN CONCENTRATE

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today I planned to offer an amendment to 
the Senate farm bill that would close the milk protein concentrate 
loophole.
  During the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the United 
States agreed to allow a substantial increase in dairy product imports 
into this country. Tariff-rate quotas were established to allow imports 
of most dairy products to rise from an average of 2 percent of domestic 
consumption to as much as 5 percent.
  Until recently, these controls have been effective, but foreign 
exporters now have found ways to circumvent these quotas. Importers are 
adjusting the protein content of nonfat dry milk so that it is 
classified by the U.S. Customs Service as milk protein concentrate, or 
MPC, a product that is not limited by a tariff-rate quota.
  There is no tariff-rate quota on MPC because it was a relatively new 
product when the Uruguay Round WTO agreement was negotiated.
  In March 2001, a General Accounting Office study requested by 
Congress determined that MPC imports have surged by more than 600 
percent in just 6 years. MPC imports doubled between 1998 and 1999 
alone. According to the GAO study, it appears that some foreign 
exporters are blending previously processed dairy proteins, such as 
casein and whey, into nonfat dry milk to boost its protein content. 
This is being done solely for the purpose of avoiding the U.S. tariff-
rate quota for nonfat dry milk. This practice, specifically cited in 
the GAO report, circumvents statutory regulations designed to restrict 
imports of nonfat dry milk powder.
  I have introduced legislation, S. 847, that would close this loophole 
by regulating MPC imports in the same manner all other dairy product 
imports are regulated, by establishing new tariff-rate quotas on MPC. 
It also would close a similar loophole that exists for casein used in 
the production of food or feed, while continuing to allow unrestricted 
access for imports of casein used in the manufacture of glues and for 
other industrial purposes.
  The Minnesota Farmers Union, the Minnesota Milk Producers, the 
National Milk Producers Federation, and the National Farmers Union 
strongly support this bill. I have worked closely with these 
organizations over the past year to find an appropriate legislative 
vehicle for my bill, and that is why I am now offering this legislation 
to the Senate Farm Bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota for 
his hard work on behalf of U.S. dairy farmers. This bill, however, 
properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. 
As chair of the finance Committee, I will work with the Senator from 
Minnesota to bring the issue to the attention of the Finance Committee 
members and to find an appropriate legislative vehicle for his proposal 
this session.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his 
strong support for U.S. dairy farmers. I respectfully withdraw my plans 
to offer this amendment.

                          ____________________