Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. And the Iowa Soybean Association in applauding the completion of the bill and urging its passage and signature by the President. I ask unanimous consent the letter from the Iowa Soybean Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes--and more if he needs it--to the Senator from Georgia. He has been a very valuable member of our Senate Agriculture Committee. I take this opportunity to thank him personally for his diligence, his effort, and input into our committee deliberations, and also on the floor. I daresay that many of the good provisions that we have--especially dealing with getting the whole peanut program changed over to what it was in the past to meet new challenges for the peanut growers in America--would not have been there without the efforts and strong input from the distinguished Senator from Georgia. I yield to him 10 minutes or more if he needs it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Rural America is waiting for this bill. I urge my colleagues to send this critical legislation to the White House without further delay. Again, I am proud that we have got this bill through. When we look back to 1996, that farm bill was signed into law about 6 months after the previous farm bill expired. I am proud to say we have this farm bill before us 5 months before the present farm bill expires. I would like to go through, as briefly as I can, the various titles of the farm bill. First, I will go through the commodity programs. Then we will take up the different areas of energy and conservation, and some other aspects dealing with trade and WTO just to set the record on where we are with this conference report before us. The conference put together a balanced package that includes three elements of support: direct payments, countercyclical payments, and marketing assistance loans. The first chart I have in the Chamber shows the protection levels for different commodities: corn, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, and barley. This is not all of the commodities; this is just representative of many of the commodities we cover. The income protection levels are shown in green on the chart for the present 1996 farm bill, plus the emergency payments are in kind of a purple color. What it shows is that for all these major crops, the farm bill before us will provide much higher income protection levels than the existing farm bill. For example, on soybeans, the income protection level under the farm bill before us is $5.80 per bushel. Under the farm bill we are now operating under--the old farm bill; the 1996 farm bill--it is $5.04 a bushel. And going on through all the rest: for wheat, the income protection is $3.86 a bushel under this bill. It is only $3.24 under the previous farm bill. The next chart shows the commodity program spending by crop-year. There has been some talk that we are somehow cheating farmers out of money, that we are spending less. But that is not true. This chart shows the spending by crop-year from 1996 on through 2002. The total includes AMTA payments, the marketing loss assistance and countercyclical payments, LDPs, marketing loan gains, and certificate gains. We have bundled everything together to show the total income. After enactment of the 1996 farm bill--and we had all these emergency procedures--the high water mark was $19.73 billion in 2000. Last year-- 2001--that dropped to $16.17 billion. And in 2002, we bring it back to $17.91 billion in spending for the total amount of crops. So you may hear arguments that the total spending this year is less than before, and that simply is not true. I have heard some talk that a typical farmer would get less this year than they got under the farm bill before, the 1996 farm bill, plus the double AMTA payments they got last year. So we took an Iowa farmer--I did not do any other State--with 1,000 acres, growing corn and soybeans. And it was assumed that the loan rate would be frozen at the current levels for the 1996 farm bill, which basically the Secretary did. For that typical Iowa farmer, under the farm bill now before us, the payments would total about $83,884. Under the old farm bill, it would total about $73,987--a difference of about $10,000. So a typical Iowa corn farmer this year is going to be a heck of a lot better off under this bill than if we were to continue with the old bill, even plus all of the double AMTA payments and the emergency payments. This chart shows an even more drastic difference. Again, the $83,884 is the payment to that typical Iowa farmer this year. The $57,947 would represent the 1996 farm bill and a loan rate that was at the lowest rate. In other words, if the Secretary lowered the loan rate, that would be the payment to an Iowa farmer. I must say, there has been a lot of talk that the Secretary has talked about lowering their loan rates. That would be $1.67 a bushel for corn, for example, and $4.92 for soybeans. What we did in this farm bill, Mr. President, as you well know, is we not only raised the loan rates but we removed the ability of the Secretary to lower those loan rates. That provision has been in the law, and this is how low we would go if the Secretary exercised it. In this farm bill, the Secretary does not have that discretion. I am going to talk about the WTO aspects in a moment, but let me comment a little bit further about the present farm bill. We continue the planting flexibility in the current farm bill. The 1996 farm bill allowed farmers to plant however they wanted to, on whatever acres they wanted. Farmers liked that, so we have continued the planting flexibility. The producers will be eligible for direct and countercyclical payments as long as they comply with soil conservation and wetland protection, use the land for an agricultural or conserving use, and do not plant prohibited fruits and vegetables on base acres. The countercyclical program is a major improvement over the 1996 farm bill. Owners of farmland will have a one-time opportunity to update their crop acreage base and to partially update their payment yields for countercyclical payments. The countercyclical program is designed to supplement farm income during times when commodity prices are low. As I said, we have rebalanced the commodity loan rates to minimize market distortions. Loan rates under the conference agreement are not as high as in the Senate-passed bill, but the loan rates in this bill will provide an adequate level of support for crop producers without stimulating surplus production. We have tried to assure that producers can choose to produce alternative crops, such as minor oilseeds, dried peas, lentils, and small chickpeas. Producers will be able to demonstrate minimal price supports for these alternative crops, which can make all the difference to their lenders. The conference report includes allotments to limit U.S. sugar production to keep production in line with demand and ensure that the sugar program can operate without cost to the Federal Government. The conference report also includes a major reform of the peanut program to help U.S. peanut producers and processors survive in a changing world market and trade environment. This bill complies with all of the WTO commitments. I would refer to this chart in the Chamber. There has been some talk--and we may hear some talk in the ensuing 12 hours of debate--about the possibility that we could violate WTO. We have looked at this very carefully. Under a worst case scenario, there is only minimal possibility that we violate our WTO agreements. Right now, as you well know, we have a provision under WTO that puts things in amber boxes, green boxes--and I don't need to belabor what that is all about. Let's just say, under the green box, you can spend as much as you want. That does not violate any of our trade agreements. Under the amber box, for specific payments, we have a $19.1 billion cap. In other words, if we go above $19.1 billion in any year in spending, then our trade partners could, if they want, take us to a dispute settlement panel in terms of violating the WTO agreements. So here, under the amber box, as you can see, is the $19.1 billion, as shown on the chart, that we are allowed in a year. Right now we are spending about $11 billion a year in that amber box. The likely effect of the bill before us--the conference report before us--is about $12 billion a year under likely scenarios. Under a situation with very low prices, such as we saw in 1999, when payments went up, we faced absolutely devastating circumstances and the rest of the world had strong production--under that, we get about $16.7 billion under the amber box. So we are still nearly $3 billion below the ceiling we are allowed under the amber box. Under the green box, we are about $13.3 billion. We have come up, with our conservation programs, to about $16.3 billion under the green. That doesn't violate anything. It just means we are giving farmers more non-trade-distorting protection under the green box, which is not only allowed but encouraged under WTO. We are giving them more support under the amber but not to the extent it is very likely that we would violate our trade agreements. I will get to conservation. But before I do, I wanted to specifically talk about the fact that we will not in any way be violating our WTO agreements. When the Senate considered this bill, it adopted stricter commodity program payment limitations. The House bill not only did not reduce payment limits, it expanded them. In conference we argued aggressively for the Senate's position of stronger payment limitations. The House conferees took an extraordinarily strong stance against lower payment limits. So it should be no surprise to anyone that the conference report contains a compromise. Under existing law the limit is $460,000. The House bill had a payment limit of $550,000 for an individual or a married couple. The Senate bill contained a $225,000 limit for an individual or $275,000 for a couple. For the past several years, under the previous farm bill, the limit has been set at $460,000. So the conference agreement includes a limit of $360,000 for an individual or a couple--well below the House bill level. Again, the present level is $460,000. The House went to $550,000. We reduced that down to $360,000--much closer to the Senate-passed level of $275,000. I just saw a press report the other day that a Congressman, a Member of the other body, had specifically lambasted this bill because of the high payment limits. He pointed out that Ted Turner, Scottie Pippen and--I forget who else he mentioned--a couple of other wealthy people could still continue to get all these big payments. Nothing could be further from the truth, I am sorry to tell the Congressman. In the conference report, we changed one other provision, another reform in payment limits. We include a new eligibility test that will prevent any individual or entity--that is very important, individual or entity--with an adjusted gross income of $2.5 million or more from receiving any commodity or conservation payments--$2.5 million. If that person is actively engaged in agriculture and their income all comes from agriculture, then that does not apply. But for someone like Scottie Pippen and Ted Turner-- obviously their income comes from other places--they not only would not be eligible for the payment limits, they are not eligible for any payments, period, zero. So that was another reform we made. In addition--this is most significant--under our compromise, the USDA will be required to track payments through entities such as partnerships and corporations, cooperatives, so that we can determine exactly what amounts an individual is receiving. This transparency will provide much more accurate data for Congress in order to make better informed decisions about payment limit issues in the future. Again, for the first time ever we are going to have full transparency. The Secretary is required to come up with a methodology so that we can track payments through any kind of partnership, cooperative or corporation, so that we can find out exactly who is getting what. We have never had that before. The conference report also establishes a commission to review who receives benefits and to recommend changes in the law regarding how payment limits operate. As I understand it, the Senate will get three, the House gets three, and the President appoints four. That is how the commission will be set up, if I am not mistaken. Some will argue and will continue to argue that the Senate conferees brought back too little on payment limitations in this conference report. However, this is the reality: If we Senate conferees had issued an ultimatum on our position, we would not be here today with a conference report on the farm bill. That was clearly indicated to us by House conferees and, quite frankly, by some on our own side. I am greatly disappointed this conference report does not contain stronger payment limitations. But failing to produce this farm bill would have been far worse for farm families, rural communities, and our country as a whole than getting the compromise we did on payment limitations. Simply put, it would have been irresponsible to walk away from this new farm bill over the failure to reach a compromise on payment limitations and thereby forfeit the desperately needed farm income protection our bill contains for farms of all sizes, including small and modest-sized farms. As far as this Senator is concerned, this bill is far from the final word on payment limitations. We will continue to examine this issue. We will get our commission established. We will continue to look, through the transparency, at exactly who is getting these payments. At some point down the road, I am sure this committee will come up with further legislation to refine and reform payment limitations. We made some important strides in this bill regarding specialty crops. Not only did we provide funding for farmers' market nutrition programs and for commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the School Lunch Program, a portion of which are specialty crops, we also directed USDA to increase their average spending on specialty crops by setting a floor of $200 million annually for the amount of funds that must be devoted to the purchases of fruits and vegetables each year. This is vitally important, both for our specialty crop producers, and for the health of our kids and low-income individuals. Before we didn't have a floor. Some years we went as low as $100 million a year in the level of spending for fruits and vegetables. This bill sets a floor of $200 million minimum. We can go higher than that, but we can't go lower than that. I believe that is going to be good for our fruit and vegetable farmers and also good for nutrition of all Americans. Mr. President, on the dairy issue--this is one that always perplexes and bedevils us in this country, but I believe we have come out with a dairy provision that represents, as best as possible, all the interests across our country. I think it is a significant victory for our smaller dairy farmers. We maintain a permanent $9.90 price support for milk. We established a new 3.5-year national dairy program to provide assistance to all U.S. producers. This national dairy program will provide a payment based on the difference between $16.94 and certain prices in the Northeast, but I will try not get into the convoluted details of it. Basically, we said that for up to 2.4 million pounds of production per dairy farm per year, we will support your prices up to about $16.94. So really, this is targeted to helping our smaller dairy farmers. That 2.4 million pounds of production per dairy farm per year is about 137 cows--or 125 to 140 cows. That is really our smaller dairy farms. The conservation section is one of which I think all of us can be proud. It is the one section that President Bush highlighted in his comments when talking about this bill. In addition to producing food and fiber, America's farmers and ranchers play a critical role as stewards of our natural resources for today and for future generations. The conservation title in the farm bill recognizes conservation as a cornerstone of sound farm policy, adding $17.1 billion in new funding. It is an 80-percent increase above the baseline. This reflects a strong commitment to helping agricultural producers and landowners conserve and improve water, air, plants, and wildlife. The bill strikes an important balance between conservation programs that idle land, such as the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program, and programs that focus on lands of production, such as the EQIP program-- Environmental Quality Incentives Program--and the new Conservation Security Program. Together all the programs in the conservation title provide the full array of options to producers who voluntarily incorporate conservation practices on their lands. The Conservation Reserve Program is expanded to 39.2 million acres from the current cap of 36.4 million acres. The WRP program--Wetlands Reserve Program--cap is more than doubled to 2.275 million acres. EQIP funding--so important to our livestock producers, our dairy farmers--is increased 5.5 times, from a 10-year baseline of $2 billion, to $11 billion. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program is so important to our sportsmen all over America for increasing and preserving wildlife habitats all over this country. Funding for the WHIP program is increased 14 times--fourteen-fold--to $700 million, from a total of $50 million over the life of the last farm bill. Funding for the Farmland Protection Program, to provide protection for farmland around some of our urban areas and keep it in farmland rather than being developed--funding for the Farmland Protection Program jumps nearly thirty-fold--nearly 30 times--from the $35 million in the last farm bill, to nearly $1 billion in this bill. The farm bill contains important, new programs as well as increasing funding for existing ones. To address the growing need for water conservation, the bill contains $600 million for a national ground and surface water conservation program, including $50 million for producers located in the Klamath Basin in California and Oregon. The new Grassland Reserve Program will help conserve and restore 2 million acres of grassland across the country. This important new program is funded at $254 million. The bill also contains $275 million for the Small Watershed Dam Rehabilitation Program, to restore ailing dams across the country. Many of these dams out in Iowa, and in Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, are rapidly deteriorating. This program will rebuild those dams to preserve, to protect the safety of those living near them and save our precious water. Finally, an important, new component in our conservation bill is the new Conservation Security Program. Through the CSP, all agricultural producers who can receive payments for implementing conservation on working lands. By encouraging producers to address critical resources on their operation at a non-degradation level, CSP will lead to substantial, new environmental benefits and help maintain those gains already made. The time has come to recognize farmers and ranchers as good stewards of the land, the basic stewards of our Nation's natural resources. The importance of maintaining the conservation achievements of the past cannot be over-stated. Paying good stewards to maintain their good work is clearly the right thing to do. And now we can do that through the Conservation Security Program. In order to ensure successful implementation of the conservation programs, we include funding for technical assistance, including for education, monitoring and assessment activities, directly from the conservation programs. Without strong technical assistance, conservation programs could not be fully implemented. This farm bill recognizes that and provides for funding for technical assistance. Overall, the conservation title provides a balanced approach to conservation--the largest increase in a farm bill ever--and provides critically important resources for our agricultural producers. I will point to this chart, which gives an official representation of what we have done in conservation. Under the 1996 farm bill, we have a total 10-year baseline of $21.4 billion. That provides $19.4 billion for land idling programs, like CRP and WRP, and only about $2 billion for conservation programs directed toward working lands to help farmers become better stewards. The new farm bill tries to restore a balance that ensures strong land-idling and working lands programs. Of the nearly $17.1 billion in new funds, we put $14 billion in new funds in working land programs and $3 billion in new funds in land idling programs. That gives us a more balanced approach. In this farm bill, we have a total of $38.5 billion for conservation. Of that total, there is about $16.1 billion that will go to conservation on working lands and about $22.4 billion that will go to land idling. Again, you get back a historical balance of what we had in the past and recognize that as farmers produce crops across our country they are stewards of the land. There are some people who seem to think that if you raise corn or soybeans or rice or cotton--whatever--if you are growing crops or raising livestock, then you are destroying the land, the soil, the water and other natural resources. Well, that could be true, depending on how you farm. If you farm up and down the hills, in the gullies, and you don't put in grass strips or buffer strips, or you don't ridge till, perhaps, or no till, you are right; you can lose a lot of soil. If you do it in the right way, you can grow crops and you can preserve soil, water and wildlife habitat, our natural resources. That is why we directed much of the new funding toward working lands programs--to help farmers be those good conservationists, yet still produce the food and fiber we need for our country. This balance was struck while ensuring that programs like WRP and CRP remain strong. Mr. President, as I said, we have strong spending for the existing programs: Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program; Farmland Protection Program; Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; and Environmental Quality Incentives Program. These are all the programs that are in existence in the present farm bill. We strengthened and expanded them, as you can see. The Farmland Protection Program is increased from $35 million to nearly $1 billion--$985 million. The wetlands reserve has been increased from 975,000 acres in the 1996 Farm Bill to 2.275 million acres. Even with the addition of 100,000 acres through a appropriation bill, that is still more than double the current level. EQIP has been increased from $2 billion to $11 billion. We heavily boost existing programs. We added new programs. The Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program was not in the last farm bill. We have $600 million in this bill for that program. For the Conservation Security Program, there is a $2 billion estimated cost. For the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, there is $275 million. For the Agricultural Management Assistance Program for certain under- served States, there is $50 million. We have a provision that helps at-risk natural desert terminal lakes. We need to protect and preserve those lakes. There is $200 million in the bill for that program. I want to put up the last chart again. I heard and read some reports that because of the new conservation programs we put in this bill, especially the Conservation Security Program and others, we are taking money out of EQIP or we are hurting funding for existing conservation programs. In fact, there is a conservation group--I am sorry, I cannot remember the name now--that basically is saying that we are taking money out of these programs. Again, the facts are just the opposite. We have increased many existing programs. As I said, the Wetlands Reserve Program has been increased from 975,000 acres to 2.275 million acres. EQIP has a 5.5- fold increase. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program has a fourteen- fold increase. The Farmland Protection Program has nearly a thirty-fold increase. We are not taking money away from any of these programs. We enlarged the pie. When people say we are hurting existing programs, that simply is not true. We are providing more options for producers and opening conservation programs to all those producers who are currently left out of conservation programs because they are already doing the right thing. Or, out of commodity programs because they do not grow a covered crop. The CSP reaches all of those producers--it expands the conservation programs and is money well spent. Let me talk about trade. The trade title offers major gains to agricultural producers and agricultural export industries. The Market Access Program will be ramped up to a $200-million-a-year program by 2006. This is the level that has been sought by supporters of the MAP program. It represents a 122-percent increase over the current funding level of $90 million a year. The trade title also provides additional funds for the Foreign Market Development Cooperators Program--otherwise known as the FMD Program-- from $27.5 million to $34.5 million annually. The trade title of the farm bill also expands use of U.S. commodities in food aid shipments both under the existing Food for Progress Program and to continue the pilot International Food for Education Program, otherwise known as the International School Lunch Program. The bill provides an increase in transportation spending for the Food for Progress Program from its current level of $30 million to $40 million and increases funds to cover administrative costs for these organizations running the projects within country from $10 million to $15 million. The conference report provides $100 million to be available next fiscal year to continue support for existing projects under the GFEI Program established in 2000. Lastly, there are two other issues I want to mention. The nutrition title is a very strong part of this conference report. We can all be justly proud of that title. The House bill provided $3.6 billion in new funding for nutrition. The Senate bill had $8.4 billion, as we reported it out of the Senate. The compromise is $6.4 billion for nutrition and food assistance. That is a level that is much closer to the Senate position and not quite as close to what the House had in their bill. We restore food stamp benefits to legal immigrant adults who have lived in the United States for at least 5 years, and to legal immigrant children and the disabled without residency requirements. President Bush wanted the first part of the provision, and we complied with his wishes and put it in the bill. The second part of the provision restoring food stamp benefits to children and the disabled without a 5- year waiting period originated in the Senate. We provide transitional benefits for people moving from welfare to work, and we increase the benefits for families with children. We have simplified some food stamp program rules and have reduced the administrative burden for States. We have increased funding for commodity purchases and distribution to these programs. The nutrition title is certainly a part of the bill we can all proudly support. Again I thank all of the members of the committee. I especially commend Senator Lugar for his contributions to this title, both in the committee and on the floor, and as we went through conference. I want to remind everyone that the food and nutrition assistance programs affect our entire country. A lot of people say this is just the urban portion of the bill. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Hungry people do not know city boundaries. They live in our small towns and communities. They live in the most rural areas in our country--in all parts of our country. In fact, ten percent of America's households face hunger. They include the working poor, single working mothers with children, seniors forced to choose between paying for food or paying for prescription drugs, families forced to choose between heating and eating. The cornerstone of our safety net, the Food Stamp Program, is the most effective and efficient program ever for low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled. It is a critical work support program, one that boosts low-income families' wages and helps them make ends meet every month and put food on the table. We have successfully addressed these issues head on and have produced a nutrition title that stands out in several respects: We have improved accessibility; we facilitate the transition from welfare to work; we reduce paperwork and redtape; and, as I said, we correct one of the harsh aspects of welfare reform, and that is, we restore food stamp benefits to legal immigrant children and the disabled right away and to legal immigrant adults who have been here at least 5 years. The title includes other important provisions as well. It includes funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program to help food banks and food pantries meet the needs they face, and it re-authorizes a number of other commodity distribution programs. It includes funding for both the WIC and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Programs. It provides additional money for commodities for schools with a focus on speciality crops. Again, our bill also directs USDA to increase their average spending on speciality crops by setting a floor of $200 million a year for the amount of funds that must be devoted to fruit and vegetable purposes. We succeeded not only in maintaining but enhancing the nutrition safety net for families around the Nation. I say to my colleagues, yes, you may pick one or two parts of this bill you do not like, that you wish were different; but think about the families in this country who rely upon food stamps; think about those making the transition from welfare to work, the fact they need additional assistance as they provide more income for their families; think about the children and the disabled all over this country; think about the people who go to food banks and food pantries who need this just to keep food on their table every month. That is in this bill. Do we want to vote this bill down and send it to a conference and never have it come back? Because that is what will happen. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, when they vote on this bill, think about the tremendous work we have done and the increases in nutrition we have provided. The credit title reauthorizes farm money programs. We provide greater access for beginning farmers and ranchers by doing a number of things, such as increasing the percentage that USDA may lend for downpayment loans for beginning farmers and extending the term of those loans. We also take the opportunity to improve a number of the administrative provisions in farm lending programs. There is a very strong rural development title in this farm bill. Rural communities really are part of the backbone of our whole agricultural structure, but they have not fully shared in our Nation's prosperity. For too long they have lagged behind. Rural America needs facilities and services that meet the standards of the 21st century from basic services such as sewer and water, to full broadband Internet access. Without them, the quality of life in rural communities will be impaired and businesses will not thrive. One of the largest obstacles facing rural businesses and job growth is the lack of adequate equity capital. To help generate the investment needed in rural America, this bill funds a new rural business investment equity program. While many rural businesses are not directly associated with agricultural ventures to increase the value of agriculture, commodities in rural areas hold great potential as an engine for growth. When these value-added enterprises are owned by agricultural producers, there is a double benefit of economic growth and increased farm income. This bill provides $240 million for value- added agricultural product market development grants to help develop solid new enterprises owned by producers for adding value to agricultural commodities. This program can also be used to support farm-based renewable energy projects, an important new provision to help stimulate a wider variety of value-added enterprises owned by farmers. The bill includes $360 million to reduce significantly the backlog in the applications we already have on hand for drinking water and wastewater projects, crucial basic needs for rural Americans. We also have critical provisions in this bill which will help ensure that rural America is not left behind in the information age. Currently, the Rural Utilities Service has a small pilot program that provides loans to those that want to provide broadband services to areas that do not have it. The farm bill would authorize this initiative and provide $100 million in mandatory spending over the next 6 years. This would translate into at least $400 million a year in direct loans for private and nonprofit entities to provide high-speed Internet service in rural America. This is a critically needed service that will not come to rural Americans anytime soon if we wait for the market to take care of it. A recent report found less than 5 percent of towns of 10,000 or less have access to broadband technology. In Iowa, more than 50 percent of rural communities do not have access to broadband services, according to the Iowa Utilities Board. This loan program provides the incentive needed to ensure all Americans have the opportunity to be full participants in our digital economy and the information age. I might add that this provision on broadband access was in the Senate farm bill. We provided this money for broadband in the Senate farm bill as it was marked up in committee. We kept it through floor debate. The House farm bill did not have this provision, but were able to keep the Senate provision on broadband in conference. I feel very strongly that this is one of the most important aspects of this bill in terms of rural economic development. We also provide a program of $10 million per year for firefighter and first responder training. That is very important for our rural communities. In research, the bill continues the process we began in 1998 of trying to increase the amount of money directed toward agricultural research. Over the life of the bill, funding for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems will increase from $125 million per year to $200 million per year. We have included a new title in this farm bill that began in our committee, came through the floor, and survived in conference. It is a new energy title which has never been in the farm bill. It is the first time it has ever been done. Not only do we have an energy title, but it includes over $400 million in mandatory spending, for renewable energy, biofuels, energy efficiency, the development of biowaste programs, as well as research on climate change. The energy title will help reduce the use of oil and gas by promoting alternative energy sources on farms and in rural communities. The energy title is a major victory for our farmers and rural communities, for national security, energy independence, and the environment. Think again about this bill and what may happen. If this goes back to conference, if the conference report is defeated, there goes the energy package and all that we have to start producing renewable forms of energy. In competition, the conference report includes a number of provisions that address the issues of fairness and transparency in the agricultural marketplace. The measure includes two important measures affecting livestock and poultry producers. The first provision amends the Packers and Stockyards Act to provide protections from unfair practices for swine contract producers. The second provides that all livestock and poultry producers have the right to discuss contracts with close advisers and family members. In a major victory, the agreement includes a provision that will finally provide consumers with the information on the country of origin of meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, and peanuts. This has been championed by consumers and family farmers alike. A country of origin label will provide crucial information sought by advocates for years. After months of fighting, we were not able to retain the provision that prohibits packers from owning livestock. The House was simply intransigent on this issue. Not one House conferee indicated support for the Senate ban on packers ownership. We had our votes in the Senate, but the House would not budge. As I could detect, not one of the House conferees on this issue supported the measure. Although we lost the ban on packer ownership, we got country of origin label and we now put swine production contract growers under the Packers and Stockyards Act. And farmers have the right to discuss their contracts with their advisers, their families, their bankers. However, I will say for the record, the ban on packer ownership is not a conclusion; it is just the beginning. As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, for however long I am privileged to have the chairmanship, we will continue to fight intensely against unfair practices in agriculture markets and, perhaps looking down the road, we will have specific legislation targeted just at this one issue of ensuring that packers cannot own livestock prior to 14 days before slaughter. In conclusion, this is a sound, comprehensive farm bill that will benefit all Americans--rural, urban, and suburban. It restores a sound system of countercyclical income protection for our farmers. It makes the greatest investment of any farm bill in history for the conservation of our natural resources. It promotes our exports. Our nutrition provisions go a long way to keep Americans from going to bed hungry at night. We include rural development policy that will promote economic growth, jobs and a higher quality of living in small towns and rural communities. We continue our strong support of agricultural research, and for the first time ever, an we include an energy title that will promote the development and use of farm-based renewable energy and other products. All in all, this is a strong new farm bill for this new century. As I said at the beginning, I know people will say they don't agree with this or that. I have indicated some issues I don't agree with in the bill, but it has to be looked at overall. It is a product of compromise and hard work over a long period of time. We are a large country. What is best for my farmers and farm families in Iowa may differ for farm families in Washington State or Mississippi or Alabama or Florida. We don't grow citrus in Iowa; that is in Florida. We have to balance all of the interests of this country to come up with a bill that meets the legitimate needs of our farmers and farm families and our people in our small towns and communities, that provides a safety net, provides a better ability for our farmers to have a better income and a better life, yet reaches out to make sure people who need food assistance get the food assistance they need. This conference report is on the verge of becoming law. The only thing that is needed now is a Senate vote. The President has already said that he supports it and will sign it, and that he wants it on his desk promptly. As I said, this conference report restores predictability and stability. It will replace this ad hoc system of emergency payments that every year we have come out here on the floor and passed. Those who propose to send this bill back to conference are proposing to take the new stability and predictability away from America's farmers and ranchers and rural communities and throw the entire situation into turmoil and chaos. Those who would defeat this and send it back to conference will introduce a whole new dimension of uncertainty into American agriculture at just the time that farmers, ranchers, and rural America are within a hair's breadth of a new 6-year farm bill. The conference committee has been dissolved. If this bill were to go back, we would have to reconstitute the committee. Beyond that, there is no indication that a new conference would lead to any different result than what we have before us now. It is not in the interests of our farmers and ranchers to have no new farm bill. They do not want to watch as we struggle on through the summer on the farm bill, and into the fall, to try to patch something together. They want and they need this bill now. If we delay this bill any further, we stand a high likelihood that we will lose some of the money in the budget that we used to write this bill. We would lose an important part of the $73.5 billion that should go to agriculture. If we do not have this in place. We will have to have yet another emergency bill, which will leave even less money to write a new farm bill. Again, if we pass this up, we forego the opportunity for better conservation, for better rural development, and a better safety net for our farmers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of letters in support of the farm bill. First, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of the President of the United States be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand that the conference report before the Senate is the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. As I understand the unanimous consent agreement, there are 6 hours of debate evenly divided today and 6 hours of debate evenly divided on tomorrow.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to enter a statement by the Secretary of Agriculture, the Honorable Ann Veneman, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I have a letter signed by 30 organizations. I will not read all of them, but I will read a couple of paragraphs. The organizations listed below extend our gratitude to members and staff of the Farm Bill Conference Committee for their tireless efforts in achieving a workable compromise. . . . It is imperative that the Senate also take immediate action and adopt the farm bill conference report. As I said, this is from 30 organizations, from the Agricultural Retailers Association to the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, the American Sugar Alliance, the American Sugarbeet Growers Association, American Sugar Cane League, Co-Bank, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Cotton Council, the National Farmers Union, the National Grain Sorghum Producers, the National Milk Producers Federation, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Sunflower Association, Ocean Spray, Inc., Rice Millers' Association, South East Dairy Farmers Association, the Southern Peanuts Farmers Federation, the U.S. Canola Association, U.S. Rice Producers Association, the United Egg Producers, and the Western United Dairymen--30 broad-based farm groups supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent several statements from different U.S. commodity groups and broad-based groups be printed. I have a letter from the National Farmers Union that I ask be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent a statement from the National Association of Conservation Districts, on behalf of the Nation's 3,000 conservation districts, urging us and our colleagues to pass the bill be printed in the Record. I also have letters from The Nature Conservancy, Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, the National Rifle Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Quail Unlimited, The Wildlife Society and Wildlife Management Institute encouraging Senators to support final passage of this bill.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent a letter from the Coalition for Food Aid, Adventist Development & Relief Agency International, Africare, ACDI/VOCA, CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Counterpart, Food for the Hungry International, International Relief & Development, Mercy Corp., OIC International, Save the Children, TechnoServe, and World Vision--a letter supporting this bill, asking for its immediate passage, be printed in the Record. That is from the Coalition for Food Aid.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the American Public Human Services Association letter, on behalf of food stamp program directors around the country, asking we give immediate passage to this legislation, be printed in the Record. I also want to mention other letters we received in support of the nutrition title of the farm bill. These include letters from the Food Research and Action Center, America's Second Harvest, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the American Dietetic Association.

Mr. HARKIN. This letter is from the Environmental And Energy Study Institute pointing out the important energy title in this bill, asking this bill also be passed as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. This is a letter from the Farm Credit Council asking we get this bill passed immediately. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have a broad array of producer groups supporting this bill, a broad array of human services organizations that recognize what we have done in this bill for nutrition and for food support and organizations involved in trade and export supporting this bill. We also have support from conservation and wildlife groups who work with producers participating in the conservation programs. Those involved in rural economic development broadly support this bill for the work we have done to invest in our rural towns and communities. I am not saying every single person or organization supports this bill. What I am saying is, if you look at the broad array of the groups I mentioned, you will see there is broad and deep support for passing this bill and sending it to the President as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself the time I consume. First, I thank my colleague and friend from Minnesota for all of his work on this farm bill and for being such a valuable member of our committee. It was the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, who first offered the country of origin labeling in committee and won it in committee and we kept it on the floor. Consumers need to thank Senator Wellstone for making sure our they will have the right to know where their meat and fish, fruits and vegetables come from. And for the record, another great champion of country of origin labeling, and he has been for years, is Senator Johnson. These two have fought tirelessly to bring this measure into law. We were able to keep it in there. I think the Senator is right, this is going to be a very important provision for our producers in this country--and for our consumers. So I thank him for that. I thank the Senator also for all his strong work on conservation and on rural development. Again, I say without any fear of contradiction that the people in Minnesota--people in rural America, but I say Minnesota because that is the State the Senator represents--and the people who live in small towns and communities all over rural America have no better fighter for their interests and no better friend they can count on consistently than Senator Wellstone of Minnesota. When it comes to the things we have in this bill that invest in rural economic development, rural equity funds, broadband access, taking care of the backlog on sewer and water grants, and providing for value-added grants for small towns and communities--all of these bear the imprint of the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone. I thank him so much for that on behalf of all who are interested in the environment and in conservation. I say to the Senator before he leaves the Chamber that he has this Senator's ironclad commitment. As long as I am privileged to chair this committee, we are not going to give up on the fight to ban packer ownership of livestock prior to 14 days before slaughter. We are going to get to that. We are also going to continue to fight on better payment limitations in the future. Again, the farm bill is before us. It represents a very balanced compromise. Again, we need to get this to the President as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 7, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. in SD- 366. The purpose of this hearing is to review the outlook for this year's wildland fire season as well as assess the Federal land management agencies' state of readiness and preparedness for the wildland fire season.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 7, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. in closed session to mark up the readiness and management programs and provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 7 at 4:00 p.m. in closed session to mark up the personnel programs and provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous conset that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 7, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. to hold a hearing to receive testimony from John P. Suarez, nominee to be Assistant Administrator of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency. The hearing will be held in SD-406.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 7, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing on environmental treaties. Agenda Treaties Treaty Doc. 106-32: An amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (the ``Montreal Protocol''), adopted at Beijing on December 3, 1999, by the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (the ``Beijing Amendment''). Treaty Doc. 106-10: An amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (the ``Montreal Protocol''), adopted at Montreal on September 15-17, 1997, by the Ninth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Treaty Doc. 103-5: A Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, done at Kingston on January 18, 1990. Treaty Doc. 105-32: An agreement Establishing the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, done at Apia on June 16, 1993. Treaty Doc. 105-53: A Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Niue on the Delimitation of a Maritime Boundary. Treaty Doc. 107-2: A Protocol to Amend the 1949 Convention on the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, done at Guayaquil, June 11, 1999, and signed by the United States, subject to ratification, in Guayaquil, Ecuador, on the same date. Witnesses Panel 1: The Honorable John Turner, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Environmental Scientific Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC. Panel 2: Mr. Thomas Grasso, Director, Marine Conservation Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC; and Dr. David Read Barker, President, Monitor International, Annapolis, MD.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 7, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``The Role of the Board of Directors in Enron's collapse.''

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Aging be authorized to meet for a hearing on national Family Caregiver Support Program: Getting Behind Our Nation's Families during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 7, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-430.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to recognize National Teacher Day and all the hard-working, dedicated teachers that spend every day preparing our Nation's children for tomorrow. National Teacher Day is an opportunity to let millions of teachers across the Nation know how much we value and appreciate their work. It is a chance to salute the dedicated individuals who touch the future by teaching our children. We recognize teachers like Jennifer Erbe, the 2002 Iowa Teacher of the Year. I had the opportunity to meet Jennifer last month and was impressed with her passion for children and her ingenuity in the classroom. She is one of Iowa's youngest teachers and we not only need to find ways to keep her in the classroom but to encourage more of our best and brightest young people to enter the profession as well. As we celebrate National Teachers Day, we must not forget that teachers need more than just a few kinds words about the work they do or a pat on the back. They don't need empty rhetoric about the importance of education but need us to provide the resources necessary to do the job right. Last year, we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education reauthorization and talked a lot about the need for education reform and quality teachers. We are demanding greater accountability, but also promised increased federal investments. Last year we provided education with a 16 percent increase. That was a good start. However, President Bush's first budget since the passage of his education reform bill provides only 2.8 percent increase in funding, the smallest increase since 1996. In my home State of Iowa, State budget cuts are forcing school districts to cut back on the number of teachers for the next school year. Some are laying off teachers. Others are not replacing teachers that will retire. The reality for Iowa children next fall will be larger classes and fewer opportunities. In the next 10 years, 40 percent of Iowa teachers will retire and we need to address that problem now. That is why these lay offs are so troubling, because they are hitting the very teachers that we were counting on to offset the impending retirements. We face many serious challenges in our nation's schools and no one worries more about the child that is getting left behind than the classroom teacher. We make sure all children succeed by providing high quality preschool programs, small class sizes, modern buildings and up- to-date teachers. Someone once wrote, ``If you can read this, thank a teacher.'' Our words are important and take the time to thank a teacher today. But let's not just offer kind words to our teachers, let's dedicate ourselves to make sure teachers have the tools they need in the classroom to get the job done.