Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for pointing out the letter we received from the Office of Management and Budget, which is not signed, but it is from the Office of Management and Budget and says: ``The President's senior advisers would recommend he veto the Senate bill we have before us based upon improvements in agricultural markets. Stronger livestock and crop prices means that the need for additional Federal assistance continues to diminish.'' I grant that livestock prices are a little bit higher. Are crop prices better than last year? Yes, but last year was a 15-year low. So it has come up a little bit. We are still at a 10- or 12-year low in crop prices. Simply because they were a little bit better than last year's disastrously low prices does not mean we don't have a need for additional farmer assistance. We do need it desperately. It seems to me if that is the advice the President is getting, he is getting bad advice. I hope the President--he is the President; he does make the final decision--will look at the low crop prices we have all over America, and not only low crop prices, that is just looking at one thing. Crop prices may be marginally better than last year, but the input costs have skyrocketed. We all know what has happened to fuel prices and fertilizer prices. They have skyrocketed. So the gap between what the farmer is receiving and what he is paying out continues to widen, as indicated in the chart of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. The President's advisers do not really know what is happening in farm country. The Senator from North Dakota read from the report of the Agriculture Committee. I reemphasize that the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, a Republican, Larry Combest from Texas, along with 17 members of the House Agriculture Committee, said their bill was inadequate for two reasons: One, it is not sufficient to address the needs of farmers and ranchers; second, the scope is too narrow, leaving many needs completely unaddressed. He points out that earlier this year 20 farm groups pegged the need for the 2001 crop-year at $9 billion. The farmers represent, according to Larry Combest's letter, the views of 17 members of the Agriculture Committee. The farmers they represent had every reason to believe the help this year would be at least comparable to the help Congress provided last year. Producers who graze their wheat, barley, and oats, as well as producers who are denied marketing loan assistance--either because they do not have an AMTA crop or they lost beneficial interest in their crops--need help, too. As this process moves forward, the letter continues, we will work to build a more sturdy bridge over this year's financial straits, straits that may otherwise threaten to separate many farmers from the promise of the next farm bill. If all we are going to do is adopt the farm bill the House passed, there is no bridge. They are saying they hope the Senate might do something else so we can work on building that bridge. A letter dated March 13, 2001, to the Honorable Pete Domenici, chairman of the Committee on the Budget, is signed by 21 Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle: Senators Cochran, Hutchison, Breaux, Landrieu, Bond, Sessions, Lincoln, Shelby, Bunning, Helms, McConnell, Craig, Cleland, Inhofe, Thurmond, Fitzgerald, Miller, Frist, Thomas, Hutchinson, and Hagel. It says: Specifically, since conditions are not appreciably improved for 2001, we support making market loss assistance available so that the total amount of assistance available through the 2001 Agricultural Market Transition Act payment and the Market Loss Assistance payments will be the same as was available for the 2000 crop. Further, the letter says: In addition to sluggish demand and chronically low prices, U.S. farmers and ranchers are experiencing rapidly increasing input costs including fuel, fertilizer and interest rates. Further reading from the letter: With projections that farm income will not improve in the near future, we believe it is vitally important to provide at least as much total economic assistance for 2001 and 2002 as provided for the 2000 crop. I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I am informed on this go-round I will be chairing the conference. I spoke with both the chairman and ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee today. They said we can go to conference and wrap it up in short order. I think that is true. Given a good morning or afternoon, I believe we can work this out and come back with a package that will be widely supported, but we cannot get there if we cannot get to a final vote on the bill.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the parliamentary situation is we are now on the motion to proceed to the agricultural supplemental bill. Is that right?

Mr. HARKIN. We are on the motion to proceed to the Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001?

Mr. HARKIN. The vote on the motion to invoke cloture will take place at what time, Mr. President?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to, again, respond to my friend from Pennsylvania and to a Statement of Administration Policy that we have just received. It is not from the President. I don't really know what to make of this letter. It said they opposed the bill that we have before us because spending authorized by the bill would exceed $5.5 billion, the amount provided in the budget resolution and the amount adopted by the House. It is the amount adopted by the House, but it is not the amount provided in the budget resolution. The budget resolution provided two amounts: $5.5 billion this year and $7.35 billion next year. We stayed within the $5.5 billion for this year. Then we had $7.35 billion for next year. The administration is saying we can't spend what the budget resolution provides. The administration has nothing to do with this. This is something that is internal to the Congress. If we are meeting our budget obligations, why should the administration care? Evidently, the administration must be opposed to how we are spending the money. How are we spending the money? In the next fiscal year we are spending money on a lot of our specialty crops such as apples. I mentioned in my earlier talk about how our apple farmers are being hurt. We heard that the livestock sector is rebounding. But that doesn't mean the crop sector is rebounding. Far from it. We have specialty crops in peas and lentils. I mentioned apples. We have a lot of other specialty crops that are in dire need of assistance all over this country. This bill is much fairer region to region than the House bill. The House bill focused on a few crops but not on the entire country. That is why I do not understand the administration's objection to this. They say the bill provides funding for a number of programs that have nothing to do with farmers' 2001 incomes. It sure as heck does. Ask all the apple farmers in Washington State, in Maine, in Pennsylvania, in New York, and in Massachusetts. It has a lot to do with the 2001 income.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to have a couple of minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. At 5:30 today, for the benefit of all Senators, there will be a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the emergency agricultural assistance bill?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer for clarifying that. As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I will take this time to discuss what is in this bill and why we should proceed to the bill and not wait any longer. We have this week to finish, and I understand then the Senate and the House will be going out for the month of August, at the end of this week. This bill really ought to be done this week. Then we have to go to conference with the House, bring the conference report back and send it on to the President. I am hopeful we will do that because most of the monies that are provided in this bill, which are allocated by the Budget Committee, really do need to get out. The fiscal 2001 funds need to get out prior to September 30. It will take awhile to get the money out in September, although I have information that certainly the Department of Agriculture can get this money out in the month of September. However, if we have to come back in September to complete action on this bill and then go to conference, back and forth, then there might be a problem. We do have to get this bill done this week, and that is why I am sorry some in the leadership on the Republican side decided to engage in extended debate on the motion to proceed. Otherwise, we would be on the bill right now. In about 3 hours we will invoke cloture and then be on the bill, and hopefully we can wrap it up very soon. The need for assistance to America's farmers and ranchers, and the communities in which they live, is very critical. Without the assistance in this bill, tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers are in danger of going out of business. This package is designed to do the best we can to address the many problems in agriculture across the Nation while staying within the limitations of the budget resolution. I want to underscore that. This package is in full compliance with the budget resolution. There are no points of order that will lie against this bill because it is in accordance with the budget. It is fully in accordance with the budget resolution. If we compare today's market situation for the crop sector with what it was in the mid-1990s, crop farmers are expected to receive at least $16.7 billion less in net income based on both lower farm prices and higher input costs. The help from existing Government payments only makes up about half that gap, leaving a financial shortfall of a little over $8.5 billion. That is compared to where it was in the mid-1990s. This package we will have, we hope, before us this evening will offer direct payments and other benefits to a range of crop producers, but it still will not make up that entire gap. Even with this package, farmers, in terms of their net income, adjusting for inflation, will not be where they were in the mid-1990s. Farmers are in dire need of assistance. The bill we have before us provides considerably more assistance than the House bill. It is a substantial package, and it is considerably larger than the House bill. Again, I point out the needs are great and they are urgent. Crop prices are low. Production expenses have gone up sharply. Farmers are in the classic cost-price squeeze. I do not want to cite all the provisions in the bill, but I would like to mention a few. We have included in the bill funding for the full level of market loss assistance that was provided last year. That means this bill will provide an additional payment in September at the rate of the 1999 Freedom to Farm payment for feed grains, wheat, rice, and cotton. That is what it was last year, and it will be the same this year. I want to make it very clear: I am not a big fan of the AMTA payment mechanism which is used for the market loss assistance payments. I believe there are real inequities in that formula, and we must change it in the next farm bill. Our staff and I looked very carefully at whether there could be an alternative payment mechanism for putting out the assistance before September 30 other than the AMTA formula. However, in view of this short timeframe for USDA to get the payments out and some other factors, the best available approach under the circumstances is to use the same market loss payment approach that has been used in recent years. The inequities have been in this since the start of the 1996 farm bill, the so-called Freedom to Farm bill. The market loss assistance payments were based on the AMTA formula, and basically this formula went back some 20 years to look at what the base acreage was in those basic commodities of feed grains, wheat, cotton, and rice. It was based upon the production pattern at that time and based on a percentage of the base acreage, times the established yield, times the set price that is in the Freedom to Farm bill, which equaled the payment. Here is where the inequity arises: Let us say we were neighboring farmers. My farm was in Northern Iowa and the Presiding Officer's was in southern Minnesota, right across the boundary, the same farming. Let us say that 20 years ago I decided I was going to put all my land in corn. I was not going to get involved in crop rotations. I just planted everything fence row to fence row of corn. So my base got high. The Presiding Officer, on the other hand, decided the best way to farm would be to involve himself in crop rotations, maybe a corn/bean- type rotation, or one involving hay and pasture. He decided it would be good to put in buffer strips or grassed headlands. That was 20 years ago. Let us advance to right now. Let us say now, however, the Presiding Officer and I are planting the same crop mix of corn and soybeans. We both have the same acreage of corn today, but because I planted so much 20 years ago and the Presiding Officer did not, I get more money from the Government because of what I did 20 years ago. That is an inequity. Farmers who practiced good crop rotations and conservation are penalized. Those that planted continuous corn or another crop get the highest payment. It is not fair. We also found other inequities. Some receive market loss assistance payments who are not even planting any of the grains--they did 20 years ago--but because they established their base 20 years ago they can be doing something else entirely, and they are still getting that payment. Yet another farmer who doesn't have that base history may be receiving nothing or very little. The AMTA payment mechanism is inequitable and has been since the beginning. It ought to be changed. In view of the short timeframe we have in getting money out before the end of September, there was no other way to do it. Hopefully, we will be able to change that in the next farm bill. The present farm bill has one more year to run. Before we get to that mechanism next year, we should come up with a different mechanism. There are a few other areas of importance. The bill has full funding for soybean and other oil seeds payments at last year's level; also money for cotton seed and peanut farmers; funding to help the specialty crop producers with assistance for commodity purchases and special assistance for apple producers. However, in this bill, the funds for specialty crops in terms of market loss assistance amount to $420 million. This amount, some say, is a lot. It is nearly identical to the $416 million we provided specialty crop producers in crop insurance and appropriations bills last year. America's apple growers are experiencing the worst economic losses in more than 70 years, having lost $1.5 billion since 1996, an estimated $500 million during the past year alone. Current apple prices, which are as low as 40 percent below the cost of production, are driving many of our family farmers out of existence. The average prices received by growers for fresh market apples in March of this year were the lowest in more than 10 years, 31 percent below prices in March 1999, 29 percent below the 5-year average. Again, apple farmers need some help. Quite frankly, what could be more healthful for our population and especially for our kids in school than an ``apple a day to keep the doctor away,'' as our mothers used to say. We have a commodity that is healthful, helps prevent illness and disease, yet the people who grow them are in serious financial trouble. I thought it was important in this bill to provide some help and support for apple farmers who are in dire straits. We also provide in the bill nutrition-related assistance mainly through helping provide commodities for schoolchildren, families, and seniors in need. The package includes a substantial commitment to agricultural conservation. Several of these programs are out of money. This package puts much needed funding into the conservation programs. There is funding for technical assistance that allows the Conservation Reserve Program to go forward. It has no money for fiscal 2002 presently. There is funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, and the Farmland Protection Program. Basically, it provides four conservation programs with funds. The demand exceeds the amount of funding by a factor of 5 or 6. In other words, there are five times more applications, applications that are approved, for the Wetlands Reserve Program than we have the money for. Some may ask, why fund them in this bill? The answer is, if we wait to fund them until later, several of the programs will lie dormant in fiscal year 2002 for several months, at least, pending a new farm bill or other legislation. We don't know when that may be completed. Keep in mind, the conservation provisions in the bill reported out of our committee constitute only 7 percent of the total package. I don't think that is too much to ask. Many farmers are hurting. Of course, we have the market loss assistance payments which I described as inequitable in many cases for many farmers practicing good conservation that don't have a high base. These conservation payments do two things. They help support their income, but it also provides a benefit for everyone in cleaning up our water and our air and saving soil. In that way, it is as much as an emergency need to those farmers and to us as the market loss assistance payments. Surely we can afford 7 percent of the entire bill to care for our land and water and deal with the critical conservation and environmental challenges in agriculture. For fiscal year 2002, CBO estimates conservation spending will be about 12 percent of USDA mandatory farm program spending. Adding $542 million, as we have in this bill, to the fiscal year 2002 spending on conservation, only raises that share to 13.5 percent. That is a very modest increase at best and still much less than is needed. Even with the money we included, of all of the USDA mandatory farm spending program, it will only be 13.5 percent next year for conservation. In 1985, I believe about 97 percent of our funding for conservation went to farmers on working lands and 3 percent went to land taken out of production. Today, I believe it is about 85 percent that goes for land out of production and 15 percent on working lands, overall, of all the conservation funding. What we are trying to do is get that balance a little bit more oriented to helping farmers actually working the land rather than just taking it totally out of production. I strongly believe we have a balanced package, one I hope will receive broad support in the Senate. It has been crafted to address needs across the country, from Florida to Washington State and from Maine to New Mexico and California. It has also been crafted to address the needs on both sides of the aisle. I come back to the issue of the budget and spending. We will hear a lot of debate about this on the floor this evening and tomorrow. Hopefully we can wrap up this bill up yet this evening. The budget resolution as adopted by the Congress provides for the Agriculture Committee to spend up to $5.5 billion in assistance to farmers in fiscal year 2001, which ends September 30th this year. That is what we have done. We have not gone over that. We have put $5.5 billion into the bill for 2001. The Budget Committee also allows the Agriculture Committee to spend up to $7.35 billion next year, in fiscal year 2002, starting October 1st. The Budget Committee did not say to the Agriculture Committee: You can't meet and decide how to spend it until after October 1st. We just cannot write legislation that outlays the money before October 1st. Now, a budget point of order would lie if we wanted to take that $7.35 billion and move it to before September 30th. We didn't do that. As we all know, we said we will spend the $5.5 billion this year, but because the needs are great and the fiscal year and the crop year don't coincide, we decided to meet in the committee and determine how to spend $2 billion of next year's money next year. So the $2 billion we decided to spend will be spent after October 1 of this year, in fiscal year 2002, and it is in full accordance with what the Budget Committee allowed us to do. Again, I point out the Budget Committee did not say to the Agriculture Committee: You cannot meet and you cannot decide how to spend that money this year. They just said: You cannot obligate it until after October 1. That is what we did. We met. We saw the need, and we said we are going to spend $2 billion of that after October 1, which is fully allowed under the budget resolution. There is no shifting from one fiscal year into another. I heard it in the committee when we were debating this in the committee and I have heard other people on the floor refer to the fact that we have gone way over what the budget resolution allowed; the budget resolution allowed us $5.5 billion and we are up to about $7.5 billion in this bill. I will continue to say as often as I can--it looks like I am going to have to say it a lot in the next few hours--we spend $5.5 billion in this year as the budget resolution allows. We spend $2 billion next year as the budget resolution allows. That is all we have done. We have the authority to do that. We are completely within the budget to do that. Again, regarding the use of fiscal year 2002 funds, this package simply reflects the reality of the difference between crop years and fiscal years. Most of the cost of farm programs associated with the crops this year, the crop that is in the ground in many of our States right now, some are being harvested--in wheat country, for example, some of the smaller grains are being harvested. Up in our area, we have not started yet, but that will happen this fall--but most of the crops are in the ground. The impact of the low prices will not really be felt until next fiscal year, 2002. That is just how farm programs work. I simply cannot see the problem in using some part of the fiscal 2002 money to help agricultural producers deal with the problems of the 2001 crop year. That is all we have done. We have done it in a way that is in accordance with the budget. Again, contrary to some of the arguments, we are not spending up next year's money. We are saving most of it to be spent at a later time. What we are spending is being used for its intended purpose: to fund programs within the Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction. So we had $7.35 billion for the next fiscal year. We have spent in this bill before us $2 billion of that $7.35 billion. That leaves about $5.35 billion for next year that we can use, either separate and apart by itself, or we can fold it into the farm bill if, in fact, we do pass a farm bill later this year. Let's discuss the package before the Senate today compared with what we did last year. In last year's crop insurance bill, there was a farm assistance package that included $5.5 billion for fiscal year 2000, plus an added $1.64 billion for fiscal year 2001. So the total package we passed last year was about $7.1 billion. This year's package is in that ball park. It is a little bit higher, but really very close to what we did last year. I just ask the rhetorical question: How could it have been fiscally responsible to provide that level of assistance last year, but it is irresponsible to provide that level of assistance this year? When it comes to America's crop producers across the country, their situation has not improved and probably has worsened during the last year. So the need is still there. The package is very similar in size to last year. If the situation is every bit as bad as last year, and we have a package of a similar size to last year, I cannot understand any objection to this. Again, there is a similarity to last year, but there is also a difference. When we approved a package of over $7 billion last year, we had nothing left over the next year in the budget resolution; that is, we enacted a bill during fiscal year 2000 and we used both fiscal year 2000 money and fiscal year 2001 money and we left zero dollars for 2001. That is what happened last year. This year, however, we are spending fiscal year 2001 money, a portion of 2002 money, and we will have $5.35 billion left over for next fiscal year, which we did not do last year. So, again, I repeat for emphasis sake: We now have $5.5 billion to spend before September 30 on farm assistance. We have already that much left for the remainder of fiscal year 2002. So we are, with this package, maintaining a budgetary position for fiscal 2002 very similar to the one we have for this year. Some will say: Should we now be spending the money that could be saved for the new farm bill? First, because of the difference between crop- years and fiscal years, spending on the new farm bill will really focus on fiscal year 2003 and later years, not fiscal year 2002. The farm bill we are under right now runs through next year. It runs through next year. So if our committee is going to be fashioning a new farm bill, really it is going to be focusing on 2003 and beyond, not for fiscal year 2002. So, again, if those who say that $7.35 billion should be left for the farm bill, are they saying that none of it should be spent next year? They are going to put it in 2003? There are a lot of farmers going to go broke next year if that is the case, and we will be in dire straits next year. Again, what we have tried to do is provide a smooth transition from this fiscal year to the next crop-year, and then to the next year beyond that when we will have a new farm bill. Whether the money is spent on a new farm bill or not, the objectives are the same: to meet the needs of farm and ranch families and address other priorities of farm policy. There are many farmers in this country who cannot wait for a new farm bill; they need the help right now. They are struggling to hang on. If we can get them some immediate help while saving some funds for the next farm bill, which we are doing, that seems to me to be the right thing to do. I want to take a moment to discuss a letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget concerning this legislation. In that letter, Mr. Daniels says he will recommend the President not sign a bill providing more than $5.5 billion in additional assistance for crop-year 2001. Again, I am not certain how we read this. I read this saying we have complied with that. We provide no more than $5.5 billion for crop-year 2001. Even though the letter refers to the 2001 crop-year, I can assume that the letter reflects some confusion between the fiscal year and the crop-year. I just went through all that, the difference between the crop-year and a fiscal year. Maybe there was some confusion in that letter. As is commonly done, this bill includes assistance for the current crop-year, 2001. Some of this money will be spent in fiscal year 2002, but it will help cover the shortfall to agricultural producers for crops grown in the 2001 crop and calendar year. Again, there is nothing unusual about providing assistance in the next fiscal year for crops that were, in fact, grown in an earlier numbered crop or calendar year--that is the way farm bills work. The fiscal year ends on September 30. That is not when the crop-year ends, not in my area. The crop-year doesn't end for a long time after that. Some crop-years end about that time or before that, in certain parts of the country. So you cannot just base everything on when the clock tolls on the end of the fiscal year in terms of farm assistance. We do that all the time, provide that carryover. Again, having said that, I want to underscore that this bill is in full compliance with the budget resolution. No budget point of order lies against this bill. It is within the prerogative of the Senate to approve this legislation. It is within the prerogative of the Agriculture Committee to both spend up to $5.5 billion for this fiscal year, and up to $7.35 billion for the next fiscal year. I have to question the justification for Mr. Daniels' threat that he would recommend the President not sign this, and I must also question whether or not they are confusing crop-years and fiscal years. Is Mr. Daniels saying that Congress will not be allowed to deliver the assistance to agriculture that is clearly provided in the budget resolution? I am sorry. The White House and OMB have no jurisdiction over that. Is Mr. Daniels saying that the promise of assistance to farm families, which is clearly contained in the budget resolution, isn't worth the paper on which it is written? From everything I am aware of, President Bush and the White House were on board with the budget resolution that was put together by Republican majorities in the Senate and the House. That was the budget resolution which provided the wherewithal of the tax-writing committee to put through the tax bill. I recall Republican colleagues pointing favorably to the budget resolution and agricultural funding when the budget resolution went there also. We are now being told by the White House that the President may not sign it, even though it is fully within the budget resolution. Why? Mr. Daniels simply says $5.5 billion is enough. That is that. Maybe it is enough until September 30. But Mr. Daniels ought to go down and sit at some of the kitchen tables in the farmhouses and say, OK. Until September 30, and after that you are on your own. There is a lot of assistance that will be needed after September 30. The crop-years don't pay attention to when the fiscal year ends. Tell them that Congress won't be allowed to use the money in the budget resolution until after September 30. Finally, I must point out that Mr. Daniels is wrong to suggest funding is not needed for conservation. I went through that a little bit ago. The facts are, if we don't provide this funding, several programs will lie dormant for a number of months before they can be funded again. Again, it is not just payments to farmers for the loss of prices for their corn, wheat, cotton, rice, apples, and a lot of other commodities--peanuts, cottonseeds, and everything else we have. It is also to help farmers--maybe because of their planting history--who don't get much under the AMTA payments. Yet, they have been good stewards. These are good farm families. By providing them some help with conservation funding, we both are able to help them, and we are able to help the country as a whole by providing for cleaner water, cleaner air, and less soil runoff. This package is substantial, but it is very close to what we had last year in terms of spending. It is very close to what we had last year in terms of specialty crops. All in all, this package is not a heck of a lot different than what we had last year. It is a little bit more. Last year it was about $7.1 billion. This year it is about $7.5 billion. Most of that additional money is going for conservation, which is sorely needed around the country. It is a balanced package. It is balanced regionally. It addresses a lot of urgent needs. It fits within the budget resolution. I hope we can support it. I am hopeful that any amendments seeking to change it, to shift it, or to cut down on the payments will not be successful. Again, I am sorry we had to go through this exercise of filing cloture on the motion to proceed. We should be on the bill right now. We have been held up at least 1 day because someone in the Republican leadership on the other side decided to filibuster the motion to proceed to this emergency farm package. We had to file a cloture motion. At 5:30 today we will vote on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed. Again, I am hopeful it will be overwhelmingly approved, and that maybe yet we can even reach some agreement to wrap this bill up this evening. At least that is my desire. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time do we have before the vote?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know our time has expired.

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

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand that when we go into a quorum call the time should be divided equally between both sides. I ask unanimous consent that when we go back into a quorum call the time remaining be evenly divided between both sides.

Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry he is not there because he comes from a very important agricultural State. I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I have tried to make it clear, again, this Agriculture Committee, in accordance with the budget, spent $5.5 billion this fiscal year, before September 30. The Budget Committee allows the Agriculture Committee to spend up to $7.35 billion in fiscal year 2002, which begins on October 1. There are no instructions in the Budget Committee that say we cannot meet until after that to decide how to spend that $7.35 billion. There is no reaching forward. There is no moving money from one fiscal year to another, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania. This committee recognized that fiscal years and crop-years do not coincide. So what the committee did, because of the press of business, what is happening this fall, since we don't know when the next farm bill is going to be done, and in accordance with the budget resolution, was to obligate $2 billion of the $7.35 billion for next year to be spent in 2002. So the money is coming out of the $7.35 billion for fiscal year 2002. It is not being forward funded. There is no moving money from one fiscal year to the other. It was just a recognition that many of the problems that farmers face this fall, in November or December or January, are the result of the crop-year that came before it and the crop-years and the fiscal years do not coincide on the same date. I just say that to my friend.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding. I am sorry the Senator is still not a member of the Agriculture Committee. He was a very valuable member.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Production and Price Competitiveness will meet on August 1, 2001, in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the U.S. Export Market Share.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on July 31, 2001, in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss conservation on working lands for the next federal farm bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on August 2, 2001, in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss rural economic development issues for the next federal farm bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the leader for yielding. I say to my friend from Idaho that we enjoyed his being on the Agriculture Committee for a number of years. I am sorry that he is not now on the Agriculture Committee. Perhaps if my friend from Idaho were on the Agriculture Committee and had been involved in our debate and deliberations and the markup of the bill, he might not be holding this bill up because it was reported out on a unanimous voice vote. We only had one amendment to take it down to $5.5 billion. That fell on a 12-9 vote. Two things: There are farmers who are hurting all over this country-- not just in Iowa, or North Dakota, or Kansas but even in Idaho. Quite frankly, this Senator went out of his way to accommodate the wishes of Senators in this Chamber representing family farmers in their States to put into that bill what was necessary to meet some of those needs. In fact, I say to my friend from Idaho, there are provisions in the bill that will help his farmers in Idaho that are not in the bill they passed in the House. Second, I say to my friend from Idaho that the budget that was passed here allows in the 2001 fiscal year for the Agriculture Committee to spend up to $5.5 billion. It allows the Agriculture Committee to spend for the year 2002 $7.35 billion. The Agriculture Committee in the bill we are trying to consider here adheres to those limits. It is absolutely within the budget. The $5.1 billion goes out before September 3. The Agriculture Committee recognized that the crop-year and the fiscal year don't coincide. The needs that farmers will have this fall as a result of the crop-year happen in the 2002 fiscal year. I think a lot of us thought that we could under the budget go into that $7.35 billion in 2002 and spend it in 2002. None of that $2 billion is spent in 2001; it is spent in 2002. That is allowed by the budget. We could have gone up to $7.35 billion, but we didn't. We wanted to hold some in reserve. By taking that $2 billion, we are able after the first of the fiscal year, October 1, we are able to have help for farmers until we get a farm bill passed or until we are able to perhaps come again some other time and expend the rest of the $7.35 billion. I say to my friend from Idaho, this is within the budget the $5.5 billion we spend this year before September 30; the other $2 billion is spent in 2002, and there is nothing in the budget that prohibits the Agriculture Committee from saying in 2001 how we want that money spent in 2002. We have met all the requirements. There will be no budget point of order because we are well within the budget. I point that out to my friend from Idaho. He is no longer a member of the committee. I know that. I am sorry he is not. Maybe had the Senator been there he would have realized and recognized how we went about this and how we are not busting the budget in 2001.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on July 26, 2001 in SR-328A at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider nominations for positions at the Department of Agriculture. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to call to your attention the retirement of one of our country's finest public servants. Jess Aragon, the Budget Officer of the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration, is leaving after 33 years of Federal service. In his capacity as Budget Officer, he controlled the formulation, justification, and execution of some $10 billion of our taxpayers' funds in a manner that set him apart for his professionalism and courtesy. He has personally assisted the Appropriations Committee time and time again, and has been especially helpful when the chips were down and information was desperately needed to make our bills and reports come together. A native of Albuquerque, NM, Jess' career began with a four-year stint in the Air Force. Following this, he entered public service with the New Mexico State Employment Security Agency, after which he joined the Department of Labor. He and his wife, Myra, are retiring to San Juan, PR, and I, and the other members and staff of the Appropriations Committee, wish them all the best, and offer a heartfelt thanks for a career devoted to serving the American people.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on July 25, 2001, in SR-328A at 3 p.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to mark up the short-term farm assistance package.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on July 24, 2001 in SR-328A at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss livestock issues for the next Federal farm bill.