Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I withhold instead of my yielding time back and forth. Rather than using all of my time, the other side will have the last 10 minutes of debate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment on the farm bill. I offered this second-degree amendment to the Craig amendment to clear up any concerns raised by the opposition regarding the word ``control'' in the original Johnson-Grassley amendment banning packer ownership of livestock. The new language reads that a packer may not own or feed hogs or cattle ``through a subsidiary, or through an arrangement that gives the packer operational, managerial, or supervisory control over the livestock, or over the farming operation that produces the livestock, to such an extent that the producer is no longer materially participating in the management of the operation with respect to the production of livestock.'' What we are trying to do is clear up a little blue smoke that has been raised about the amendment that Senator Johnson and I offered prior to the holidays. It was adopted 51 to 46. So we want to clear up what the word ``control'' means. We do that through the phrase ``materially participating.'' A farmer who materially participates in the farming operation must pay self-employment taxes. Those who do not materially participate do not have to pay self-employment taxes. The phrase has appeared in the IRS Code, section 1402(a), since 1956, and there is a full hopper of case law clarifying the definition. So the words we use to explain what we mean or do not mean by the word ``control'' have a lot of case law behind them. For those who were worried about excessive lawsuits and the actual enforcement of the provision being tied up in the courts, rest assured that the perceived problem has been fixed. I know that the lobbyists for the American Meat Institute will dream up some red herring argument that might attack me, as they have on this amendment, but that is OK. They do not represent the independent producers; they represent just the packers, bottom line. For those producers who manage their risk through forward contracts and marketing agreements, the new language will not affect contractual relationships. Almost all producers who sell hogs or cattle under marketing agreements or forward contracts materially participate in the management of the operation and, thus, pay self-employment taxes. These independent producers will not have to change their business practices at all. The revised amendment I have offered will inject greater competition, access, transparency, and fairness into the livestock marketplace. Small and medium-sized livestock operations will gain greater access to markets that will have greater volume and be subject to less manipulation. The revised bill clarifies that arrangements that do not impose control over the producer can still provide all the benefits of coordination and product specification. I have worked on the second-degree amendment with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, and also with Senator Johnson, the original cosponsor with me of the original language before the holidays, and the Iowa Farm Bureau and the American Farm Bureau Federation. We are all confident this amendment does exactly what we claim, which is to limit packer ownership but avoid impacting risk-management tools available for independent producers. I will read, for my Senate colleagues, a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation that states, with confidence, we have accomplished our goal and have overcome the blue smoke that the American Meat Institute and the packers have raised against the original Johnson-Grassley amendment: The American Farm Bureau Federation supports Senator Grassley's amendment to clarify the issue of ``control'' under the packer ownership prohibition. This would allow producers to forward contract, pursue marketing arrangements, develop branded products, schedule animals to their plants, and to receive value-based premiums. We urge you to support the Grassley amendment to clarify ``control.'' Packer ownership has resulted in an increase in packer market power by allowing the packers the opportunity to stay out of the cash market for extended periods of time, often reducing farm gate demand and driving down prices paid to producers. This has resulted in the inability of independent producers to access the market. These transactions concerning packer-owned livestock are not part of the publicly-reported daily cash market. Narrowing the volume in the market makes it more subject to manipulation and often results in lower prices paid to producers. We urge you to oppose the Craig amendment and support the Grassley amendment calling for clarification to the prohibition of packer ownership included in the Senate farm bill. I can't lay it out much more clearly than the statement I just read from the American Farm Bureau. I should also state that in addition to the Farm Bureau, over 135 other organizations have also signed a letter in support of my second degree amendment. Just a few of those groups are the Livestock Marketing Association, National Farmers Union, National Farmers Organization, National Family Farm Coalition, R-CALF USA, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America, United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society, National Catholic Rural Life Conference, and the Organization for Competitive Markets. The packers are an important piece in the rural economy, but only a piece, not the whole pie. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether packers should be packers or packers should also be products. Is it our intent to let packers compete with producers on an even playing field? Is there any question who will lose? I yield the floor. The reason we keep sows in farrowing stalls is to protect the piglets. Sows are extremely important for the health and well-being of the piglets, but if we let the sow out of the crate we stand the chance of getting the piglets crushed by the sheer weight of the sow, or worse, and watch the sow grow fatter. Let us build a strong farrowing stall for the packers and facilitate the health and well being of our independent producers. Support the Grassley second-degree tomorrow. amendment no. 2542

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad that we have an opportunity to vote on judges today. One of the judges scheduled to be voted on today is Judge Michael Melloy, who has been appointed by the President and who will hopefully be confirmed by the Senate to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. First of all, before speaking about Judge Melloy, I thank Senator Leahy, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for bringing the nomination to the committee in the form of a hearing last month and accommodating me on changing the date of the hearing so it could be convenient for me to be there and for immediately putting it on the agenda of the committee. I thank also all the committee members, each of whom had an opportunity to hold over this nomination for another meeting--under the rules that is an automatic holdover--for not doing it so that this nomination could be advanced very quickly. For my colleagues who aren't on the Judiciary Committee, I would like to say a few words about Judge Melloy so you can see what an excellent candidate we are putting on the federal appellate bench. Judge Melloy, who originally hails from Dubuque, IA, has had a very distinguished legal career. He graduated magna cum laude from Loras College in Dubuque, and received his law degree from the University of Iowa. After practicing at an Iowa law firm Judge Malloy was appointed United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, a position be held for approximately 6 years. In 1992, he was appointed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Here Judge Melloy has served as a fine judge. He has also been active on numerous legal committees, including the Eighth Circuit Judicial Counsel, the Gender Fairness Task Force of the Eighth Circuit, and the Bankruptcy Administration Committee of the Judicial Conference. As you can see, Judge Melloy has excellent legal qualifications and experience, and he has been a dedicated public servant. He possesses all the qualities that we want to see in a federal judge, intellect, temperament, judgement, and a true commitment to the rule of law. He comes highly recommended by his peers. I know for a fact that Judge Melloy will serve our country well as a judge on the eighth Circuit court. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Judge Michael Melloy's nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Then, to be fair to everybody, I ask that the time I spoke be taken off our time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak to my colleagues about our trade policy with Mexico and a very specific dispute we have with them, a dispute that affects agriculture, definitely, and, within agriculture, the production of corn. Few trade policy developments in recent years have been more significant for the United States than our flourishing economic partnership with Mexico, a partnership that results from trade agreements that have been worked out and are working very well for both countries. The comprehensive free trade agreement, in which we both participate and which has contributed so much to the prosperity and economic freedom in both countries, stands as a model of hemispheric cooperation. I am greatly troubled by a recent Mexican action that targets the corn-refining industry. I fear this may disrupt and even seriously damage our bilateral trade relations. On January 1 of this year, Mexico, through congressional action-- meaning their Congress--imposed a totally unwarranted discriminatory tax of from 10 to 20 percent on soft drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup. The United States is a major supplier of high fructose corn syrup. We export it directly to Mexico, and it is produced in Mexico by wholly owned subsidiaries of U.S. firms. These companies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Mexico, providing many jobs to Mexican workers. Much of the corn used to produce high fructose corn syrup is grown in my own State of Iowa. We are No. 1 of the 50 States in the production of corn, as well as soybeans. I do not like to attribute bad motives to my neighbors, including Mexico, but we not do these sorts of retaliatory things like are being done in Mexico. So I don't suppose I should attribute bad motives to my neighbors because we don't do that to our neighbors in Iowa. Obviously, I don't like to do it to a country with which we share a hemisphere and a rich cultural heritage, considering the fact that such a high percentage of the American population is Hispanic. I want to get back to strictly the facts. The fact is that Mexico applies this new tax only to soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup, not soft drinks containing sweetener from cane sugar. Cane sugar is something that Mexico produces in great abundance. Those soft drinks are exempt from this tax that is applied just to soft drinks made with high fructose corn syrup. In my judgment, this discriminatory application of the tax clearly violates Mexico's World Trade Organization national treatment obligations. If the Mexican tax stays on the books for the rest of the year, the corn growers and corn refiners in Iowa and throughout the United States are going to be badly hurt. I fear that some of them may have income and their income will go down and, obviously, will jeopardize their farms and at least their livelihoods. Now, estimates are that corn refiners will lose about $244 million just this year alone. Our farmers will lose another $66 million in the sale of corn. As surplus high fructose corn syrup production mounts, other losses will pile up as well. So even though President Vicente Fox brings progressive political leadership to Mexico--a leadership that I greatly admire and respect-- it looks as if some nonprogressive members of the Mexican Congress are still employing the old, tired politics of the past, the old politics of protectionism. The Mexican congressional motto is: If you can't compete fairly or efficiently, try to muscle your competition out of the market. This is just the sort of ``beggar thy neighbor'' trade policy of the past that we have worked so hard to overcome, both with the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement and with the creation of the World Trade Organization. So it is very discouraging, then, just as we start the real work on a new round of World Trade Organization trade negotiations, in which we hope to further liberalize world trade, and especially trade in agricultural products, to suddenly find ourselves fighting a harmful protectionist measure imposed by one of our closest neighbors and trading partners, and a neighbor that we want to call ``friend.'' Currently, Mexico is our third largest agricultural export market. This market grew an astounding 15 percent just last year. If the present trade continues, Mexico will probably surpass Canada as our second largest agricultural market within 2 or 3 years. I know this robust growth in competitive agricultural exports has caused some friction between our two countries, but we cannot and must not handle our differences by resorting to the ``beggar thy neighbor'' policies of the past. One response to Mexico's unfair and illegal tax on high-fructose corn syrup would be to enact a similar tax on a Mexican product, the drink referred to as Mezcal. So far, I have not pursued this sort of retaliation. I still hope that Mexico will respect its international trade commitments and repeal this legislation, and repeal it permanently. Mr. President, let me make this very clear. I think it is legitimate that my patience and the patience of the agricultural interests in the United States is limited. It ought to be that way. Minister Luis Derbez, who is Mexico's secretary of the economy, stated that his government is committed to resolving this issue by February 15. That is this week. I accept Minister Derbez's word, but now is the time for the congressmen and the ministers of the cabinet of Mexico to resolve this issue, before we do any more damage to America's hard-working farming families and our trade relations with our friend, the country of Mexico. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on October 20th, a significant event took place that I am afraid was lost in the crush of events. Deputy Sheriff Keith Flink was recognized by the National Order of Benevolent Elks' Drug Awareness Program and the Drug Enforcement Administration with the first ever Enrique Camarena Award. His efforts to educate the young people of Iowa deserve to be highlighted. The Enrique Camarena Award honors law enforcement officials who perform above and beyond the call of duty in drug enforcement. Enrique Camarena was a DEA agent who was kidnaped, tortured, and murdered by drug traffickers while working undercover in March of 1985. Agent Camerena believed that one person could make a difference. The memory of his sacrifice made for his country has been memorialized through the celebration of National Red Ribbon Week, and now through the National Enrique Camarena Award that was established by the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks. The award was established to recognize and honor an individual who has made a significant contribution in the field of drug prevention and who personifies Agent Camarena's belief that one person can make a difference. Last fall, Deputy Sheriff Keith D. Flink from Odebolt, IA, was the winner of the first Enrique Camarena Award. Deputy Sheriff Flink has spent over 30 years working in law enforcement, and working with young people to teach them the dangers of drugs and alcohol, mostly on his own time. I think the time and commitment that Deputy Sheriff Flink has given to his community is best reflected in a letter his children sent the Award Selection Committee. I would like to have printed the full text of the letter in the Record following this statement, and add my praise to theirs for the hard work their father has done in Sac County. It is important that each of us remembers that it is the activities of people like Deputy Sheriff Flink that really make a difference. The people of Odebolt, the citizens of Sac County, are aware of this. The Elks recognized the value of his contributions by giving him this award. And we, as a nation, should always remember that while the ``big things'' that was as a country stand for are important, it is the everyday activities that make a difference. We should never forget, never become too busy to recognize the accomplishments of everyday heros like Deputy Sheriff Keith Flink. The letter follows: October 1, 1999. Enrique Camarina Award Selection Committee. Dear Selection Committee: My brothers and I heard our father, Keith Flink, has been nominated for the Enrique Camarina Award. After hearing this, we wanted his dedication and achievements to be known. He has achieved many great things in life by doing tasks above and beyond what is expected. He is so concerned with the safety of all people that he has no problem teaching about ``the war on drugs'' while not on duty. There are so many times he will work the night shift, sleep for 3 or 4 hours, and get up to give a presentation on his own time. He does this with no complaints because it is very important to him to get everyone to ``say no to drugs''! He has also done a lot of research to give great, effective presentations to the citizens in the area. As you can see, he is very dedicated to his job on and off duty! Our father has taught us a lot about life. While growing up, we always saw him practicing what he truly believed. He still does this through all the volunteering he does for the safety of the community. He is a true leader by the work that he does and the positive example that he sets for society. My brothers and I are very proud of our father and would be honored if he was the recipient of the Enrique Camarina Award. He definitely deserves it! Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Jeana Boyd, Justin Flink, Jory Flink.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield myself the remaining time on our side. We have an opportunity to do what has been a part of farm programs for 70 years: try to target the safety net for farmers to medium and smaller family farmers. We have an opportunity to save the taxpayers some money that would go to big corporate farms. We have an opportunity to bring money into the Food Stamp Program, and we are adjusting the formulas to reflect higher payments for shelter and for utilities and for heating homes so that the Northeast of the United States will be able to help some of their low-income people to a greater extent than they have been through the present formula, the Food Stamp Program. That is the use of the money. The most important thing is targeting assistance to the family farmers. The legislation before us disproportionately benefits the Nation's largest farmers and in most cases nonfamily farmers. In fact, this farm bill unnecessarily increases payment limitations established in the present farm program which already allows up to $460,000. We have a chance to do a very good thing from the standpoint of bipartisanship that has traditionally been such a part of the farm program. We have had several bipartisan amendments--for concentration and arbitration, and now for the payment limitation. Let's see what we can do to develop a bipartisan farm bill. Voting for this amendment will be one more bipartisan amendment to be adopted.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield myself 8 minutes. Madam President, today in New Hartford, IA, at a local cooperative, the price of our corn would be $1.79. The price of our soybeans would be $3.96. So, obviously, with these historically low prices, we have to have a farm bill, a farm safety net. I want my colleagues to know I take into consideration the plight of the family farmer when I support legislation such as this. Since there was the accusation that this might be social engineering, I think I ought to start with my explanation of a family farm. It could be a 30-acre truck farm in New Jersey. It could be several thousands of acres of ranchland in Wyoming, where it takes 20 acres to feed a cow- calf unit. A family farm, to me, is a farm, not judged by size, not judged by income--a family farm is determined by, first, whether or not the family controls the capital; second, the family does most or all the labor--and I would include in that those people getting dirt under their fingernails most of the time--and, third, that they are going to make all the management decisions. That is as opposed to the nonfamily farm. It could be a corporate farm, but I don't want to denigrate the word ``corporate.'' Anyway, a corporate farm, a nonfamily farm, is where somebody provides the capital, they hire the management, and somebody else does the labor. So we are talking about, in our family, where I don't get to help much but I try to help, my son does most of the work. He has an 18- year-old son in high school who helps. And once in awhile in the spring and in the fall, there is a neighbor, a young neighbor man who works in town, who will come out and maybe work into the night 1 or 2 hours a night, for that person to earn a little more money but also to help bring the crop in quickly, because you have to. That is the kind of family farm I talk about when I talk about the family farm. I don't denigrate anybody else's definition of a family farm. I just want you to know what I am talking about. When I talk about targeting farm programs to medium and small family farmers, I am not talking about something that is new. I am doing it in what is my understanding of the historical approach of farm programs for 70 years. The first 40 years of that 70 years we didn't have dollar limitations, but we really had lost--when 30 percent of the people were farming, we had a lot of small family farms. There was not any need to put a dollar limit on it. But in 1976 we put a $50,000 limit on it. In 1996, there was a $40,000 limit. Then there were people who figured out, How can I get around the $50,000? How can I get around the $40,000? You can't write a bill, with the English language the way it is, that is perfect, that covers every instance. So we come back now and come back in a way that I think is historically targeting the farm program towards the medium and smaller farmers. I don't disagree with everything Senator Lincoln said, because she said there are some groups out there trying to hit family farmers pretty hard while they claim to defend the family farm. But I want Senator Lincoln to understand where I am coming from and what I define as the family farm. I don't want to be doing something by subterfuge as do people who really want to hurt the family farm. I simply believe that $225,000 is enough. But, more importantly, I have to ask the question: If we don't do this, where will it stop? The 1996 farm bill, even with the $450,000 limit, had other ways in which you could get up to $460,000. The managers' amendment in the bill that is before us sets this at $500,000. The House version is even worse. A Republican version, let me say, is even worse--$550,000. That doesn't even include the back-door things that can be used, such as through generic certificates that can go way above these already high limits to bring in the millions and millions that have been talked about here for some units. I think we have to be very concerned in agriculture when we say we want a safety net for farmers. A sound safety net for farmers is good for everything that Senator Hutchinson said about social and economic stability. It is all about national security as well. But we are spending lots of taxpayer money. We have to maintain urban support for our farm safety net. Maybe you can say if we pass this bill that we might not have to worry about it again for 10 years. But if you go on for 10 years with the bad publicity about what farm programs have been receiving because 10 percent of the farmers are getting 60 percent of all the benefit, where are Senator Lincoln and I going to be, if we are fortunate to be in the Senate, when the next farm bill comes up if we lose public support because of the outrageous payments that are being received? We have to start asking ourselves: When is enough enough? How long will the American public put up with programs that send out billions of dollars to the biggest farm entities? All this does is damage our ability to help people we originally intended to help--the small- and medium-sized producers. Look back at the intent of our first farm bills. We have never intended to subsidize every single acre and every single bushel. Our intent was to bolster the agricultural economy and keep people on the farm. Lowering limits to these reasonable levels that Senator Dorgan and I have done will not chase one small- or medium-sized producer off the farm. But the large entities will have to look to the market for their additional income above the $275,000, if you include a spouse. If you do not believe me, let us turn this question over to farmers and ask them their judgment. You have heard my colleague, Senator Lincoln, talk about letters of opposition from certain farm commodity groups. But what do farmers actually think? I had an opportunity during the break in January to hold 10 or 11 town meetings in my State just on the agriculture bill. I went through this amendment as intellectually honestly as I could, explaining to my constituents really what I wanted to do. I had 1 farmer out of those 10 meetings who said he disagreed with what I was trying to do. Do you know what happened after that meeting? People evidently didn't want to say it publicly. They came up to me afterwards and said they heard this other farmer say that he disagreed and that you shouldn't have these limits. He is an example of the very reason you have to have the limits that are in the Dorgan-Grassley amendment. Probably more to your liking, if I don't talk about just Iowa, or my 10 town meetings, last year 27 of the Nation's land grant colleges from all the Nation's regions came together to poll farmers and ranchers on their opinions on the farm bill on the issue before us today. On this amendment, there was enormous consensus. Nationwide, 81 percent of the farmers and ranchers agreed that farm income support payments should be limited to smaller farmers. Even when the results from farmers with less than $100,000 income were excluded, 61 percent of the Nation's farmers agreed that farm income support payments should be targeted to small farmers; that is, support across regional lines. I will maintain the rest of my minute and yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Arkansas is going to yield time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, how much time do we have?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota. Senator Lugar would be the next person I would go to, and then Senator Nickles wanted some time. I want to make sure he knows I reserved him some time, too. We are going back and forth, I know, but that is the order I want my side to know that I am yielding time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Republican leader of this legislation, Senator Lugar.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I take the opportunity at this point to yield to the Senator from Nebraska 5 minutes or as much as he might use of that amount.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I'm a strong supporter of Chapter 12. I wrote it; I believe in it. But I believe it belongs in the bankruptcy bill which is currently in conference. I hope that the Majority Leader will step up to the plate and help move this conference along. The bankruptcy bill contains many provisions that would make life better for farmers and it would be a serious mistake not to enact the bankruptcy bill soon.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota. I certainly commend the Senator's role of reversing the trend towards larger farms and greater concentration in agriculture. I have been pleased to work with Senator Wellstone to address a number of concerns related to concentration and consolidation in the agricultural industry. Most recently we worked together to secure passage of the bipartisan amendment to address vertical integration by limiting packer control over livestock. While the Senator from Minnesota and I share the goal of reversing that, I am concerned that this amendment would fall short of that goal. In short, Senator Wellstone's amendment would have the detrimental effect on many midsize family farmers who are struggling to comply with stringent new environmental regulations by slashing the amount of funding available to make responsible environmental improvements in rural areas. The reason I take some caution in addressing opposition to his amendment is that I complimented the Senator from Minnesota, as we were debating this bill in December, that he was going to offer this amendment. But when I held meetings in my State of Iowa during the month of January--I held several town meetings just on the farm bill-- I had this concern from people who are strictly family farmers who came to my meetings. They were very concerned about the CAFO regulations that they have to meet and the fact that if they have to meet those, they may not be able to stay in livestock. They did find EQIP provisions in the original farm bill to be helpful to meet those requirements so they could stay in agriculture. So I changed my mind, I need to tell the Senator from Minnesota. I say it apologetically, in the sense that I had encouraged him in the first instance. I think these stringent, new regulations proposed by EPA are meant to get help from the provisions of this farm bill in addressing water pollution from livestock operations. According to EPA's own estimate, the new regulations could cost producers from $280,000 to $2.4 million over 10 years. While the goals of the new regulations are certainly commendable, we obviously have to take the financial costs of the regulations into consideration. I drew the conclusion, after my meetings in January, that it was too much for many family farmers to absorb. Recognizing the dire situation of these farmers, last year the Senate supported the amendment I offered to the budget resolution to increase EQIP funding by $350 million in each of the next 10 years. This important funding will provide cost-sharing assistance to family farmers to help them comply with the new CAFO regulations. The Wellstone amendment would significantly reduce the level of EQIP funding available to family farmers. According to EPA estimates, over 1,000 livestock operations in Iowa would be ineligible for EQIP funds. Mr. President, again, I am in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota. Let me first say that I certainly commend the Senator's goal of reversing the trend toward larger farms and greater concentration in agriculture. I have been pleased to work with Senator Wellstone to address a number of concerns related to concentration and consolidation in the agriculture industry. Most recently, we worked together to secure passage of a bipartisan amendment to address vertical integration by limiting packer control over livestock. While the Senator from Minnesota and I share the goal of reversing concentration, I am concerned that this amendment falls far short of that goal. In short, the Senator's amendment would have a detrimental effect on many of my state's mid-sized family farmers who are struggling to comply with stringent new environmental regulations by slashing the amount of funding available to make responsible environmental improvements in rural areas. Mr. President, the future prosperity of Iowa's family farmers, and farmers across this nation, is currently threatened by stringent new regulations proposed by the EPA aimed at addressing water pollution from livestock operations. According to EPA's own estimates, the new regulations could cost producers from $280,000 to $2.4 million over the next ten years. While the goals of the new regulations are certainly commendable, the financial costs of these regulations will simply be too much for many family farmers to absorb. Recognizing the dire situation of these farmers, last year the Senate supported an amendment that I offered to the budget resolution to increase EQIP funding by $350 million in each of the next ten years. This important funding will provide cost-sharing assistance to family farmers to help them comply with these new regulations. The Wellstone amendment, however, would significantly reduce the level of EQIP funding available to family farmers. According to EPA estimates, over 1,000 livestock operations in Iowa would be ineligible for EQIP funds. Another 500 to 1,000 could be ineligible if they expand in order to remain competitive or to comply with the new rules by building new structures with new technologies. The bottom line is that if these family farmers are denied EQIP assistance, the result will be poorer management systems and practices, and the environment will suffer. The farm bill reported by the Agriculture Committee makes reasonable changes to the rules of the EQIP program by limiting eligibility by a simple and reasonable payment limit--not by the size of the operation. A payment limit puts livestock and poultry operations on an even footing with the program limits for row-crops. Without the technical and cost-sharing assistance provided by EQIP, many family farmers in my state will be forced out of business--leaving only the largest farms who can absorb the costs--and leading to even greater concentration in the industry. In this farm bill, we have made great strides toward reducing the level of concentration and vertical integration in agriculture. Unfortunately, this amendment would be a step backwards. Over 80 percent of Iowa's farms are individually or family-owned. It's these producers I have always sought to help. These are the people who produce our food and keep main streets in rural America in business. These are the farmers who depend on the assistance from the EQIP program. It is for these farmers that I will oppose this amendment and support a strong EQIP.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Could I have 10 minutes?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 seconds. Let me say why the Senator from Nevada is wrong. Yesterday at about this time, morning business was imposed. We could have discussed the amendments and voted in the morning, and then when we came back at 2:15 after caucuses, there were opportunities to vote. It was announced there would be no more votes. If we are filibustering, how come the other side would not let us have time to vote on our amendments yesterday? Why piddle around the whole day? I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader announced yesterday he is going to kill this bill if he does not prevail on the first cloture vote. Of course, we know if he did get cloture, many good amendments that have been offered to try to improve Senator Daschle's skeletal bill will fall. We will not be able to vote on them. All we have asked for all along on this side, and even some Members on that side, is a vote on the bipartisan centrist-White House bill that I have offered as an amendment, along with Senator Snowe. In fact, that bill is a product of the work of people such as Senator Snowe and Senator Collins, and Democrats on this side of the aisle such as Senators Nelson, Miller, and Breaux. There is a long list of amendments. I do not think I will go through the long list of amendments that we will not have a chance to vote on, but I am going to highlight a couple because I think Senator Nickles did a good job of highlighting those most important amendments. Let me take a look at a couple that will be killed if Senator Daschle's cloture motion is invoked. My friend, the majority whip, who is with us, Senator Reid, offered, along with Senator Kyl, so it is bipartisan, an amendment that is designed to help the travel industry. We were told during the debate that this tax credit was very important. If it is that important, we ought to have a chance to vote on it. Guess what. If the Democratic leadership prevails on the first cloture motion, Senator Reid's amendment falls. I guess I can only assume that since this amendment is so important for Nevada and other States where there is a lot of tourism, the majority leader would oppose cloture. Surely he would not vote to kill his own amendment. That is what I would think. I am afraid I am probably being optimistic or maybe naive. Other Democrats have offered amendments, too. For those Senators, a vote for cloture is a vote to kill their own very important amendment. So I hope these Democratic Senators are not telling their constituents they are for something and then turning around and voting to kill it by supporting this cloture vote. Let us take a look at Senator Allard's amendment, one that is so important to have the United States competitive, particularly in manufacturing and information technology, the R&D tax credit. If cloture is invoked, that amendment is dead as well. We had 70 Senators vote for that amendment on a previous tax bill, as an example. So make no mistake about it, if the distinguished leader's cloture motion is supported, every one of these amendments will be killed, as well as the ones Senator Nickles brought to our attention. If the distinguished leader prevails on his cloture motion, then we end up with another conference with the House and that could take weeks or months to resolve. The best we can hope for is delay. That means delay for the unemployed, delay for the stimulus, not helping those who are dislocated because of September 11. By contrast, the Democratic leadership will not let us vote on the only plan that has majority support in the Senate. They are filibustering the only bipartisan stimulus plan and preventing unemployment benefits from reaching the workers who need them. That is what the second cloture vote is all about. The second cloture vote guarantees an up-or-down vote on the White House-centrist stimulus plan. A vote for that plan is a vote for a bill that the President will sign. He said he would sign it. If cloture is voted for, Senators are saying with their vote they want to send a bill to the President that he will sign in a New York minute. That means these things will happen and happen fast. Unemployed workers get checks. For the first time, unemployed workers get health care assistance. Payroll-tax payers get a rebate. Income-tax payers get a little more tax relief in their paycheck. Businesses, large and small, get stimulative accelerated depreciation, which is going to mean more jobs. So we have two cloture votes coming up very shortly. The first cloture vote is an effort by the majority to block further amendments to the bill, which will effectively kill the bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose that cloture vote. The second cloture vote is an effort by our side to force a vote on the bipartisan centrist amendment that the majority leader has been furiously blocking to this point. But we cannot get to this vote unless the majority leader fails his first vote. Therefore, Mr. President, these votes come down to a choice between action now or endless delay. If we want action now, Senators should vote for cloture on the White House-centrist agreement. If Members want delay, vote for cloture on the Daschle amendment. How much leadership time remains?