Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for being a great member of our Senate Agriculture Committee. Senator Dayton has been a personal friend of mine going back 20-some years. It was absolutely a bright moment when he came to the Senate and got on the Agriculture Committee. I thank him for all his input on this farm bill. I say without hesitation many of the provisions in this bill that help our dairy farmers, help conservation, got our loan rates up for our farmers bears the imprint of the Senator from Minnesota, and I thank him for that.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, it would be a huge mistake to walk away from this bill--for farmers all over the upper Midwest. It would be a mistake for farmers in Michigan, and especially in New England. In New England, the dairy farmers have been helped immensely: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island--all of the dairy States. One other group has been helped immensely, and that is the small specialty crop farmers, those who grow blueberries, potatoes, and other kinds of vegetables, including apples, and there are many in New England. They will be helped immensely. As the Senator from Michigan stated, we have a $200 million annual floor on purchases of specialty crops. That is what the farmers in New England grow. They have never had anything like this. It wasn't in the Freedom to Farm bill. If this conference report is defeated, that means New England farmers will not have anything. They will have nothing. Under this farm bill, they are going to be a part of our agricultural structure for the future. It would be a shame to walk away from this today--walk away from the farmers in New England, the farmers in Michigan, or in the upper Northwest. It would be a shame to walk away from the great strides we have made in nutrition. I pointed out earlier that the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, under which we are operating, didn't even have a nutrition section. That was taken up in welfare reform later. This time around we have kept nutrition under the farm bill. We have made a huge increase in the nutrition programs. It would be a shame to walk away from that. When you look at the broad aspects of America, this conference report deserves to be supported. Again, if somebody asks me can I defend and support everything in this bill, the answer is no. But this is a compromise bill. This is a large country. What benefits one area may not benefit another. All of the support we have in there for specialty crops, the support we have in other areas that do not affect my State, I support it because I recognize that farmers in New England and all over the country need help and support. We need to promote better consumption of fruits and vegetables in this country. That is what is strong in this bill. So it is a good bill for America. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum as we await the arrival of those who want to speak on the farm bill, either in opposition or in support. I ask that the time during the quorum call be divided equally.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield 4 additional minutes to the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I say to Senators, we have a list of Senators who wanted to speak and be heard on the farm bill. I don't see anyone here right now. I know it is the lunch hour, but now is a good time to come over and speak on the farm bill, if anyone so desires. In the interim, I rise to point out that there was some mention made earlier today that somehow farmers in the Midwest and some of the Plains States would be better off if there were basically not this bill but the Freedom to Farm bill. There was a bill introduced in March for an emergency package for this year--that was S. 2040--that would have spent $7.35 billion in this fiscal year. And some have asserted that farmers would be better off if we could just pass an emergency package rather than this farm bill. I asked my staff and the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute to do an analysis of the conference report we have before us, comparing that to what farmers might receive under an emergency package as envisioned in S. 2040. According to the FAPRI analysis of the conference report, Kansas farmers, for example, would receive a total of $1.04 billion in commodity program payments for this crop year, 2002. But they would receive only $795 million this year under Freedom to Farm, plus the emergency payments that would be made under S. 2040 for the same period. The same is true for Iowa. We estimate that Iowa farmers would get $1.7 billion for this crop year under this conference report but would have received only $1.56 billion under S. 2040, the bill that was introduced in March to put through an emergency package--sort of an emergency package on top of the Freedom to Farm bill. In any case, farmers would be better off this year under the conference report. I want to make it very clear that this bill will apply to this crop year. FAPRI also did an analysis looking ahead at between now and 2007 and comparing what farmers would get in certain States under this bill to what they would get if we continued Freedom to Farm. For example, my Iowa farmers will have a $485 million gain, on average, between 2002 and 2007 over the Freedom to Farm bill. That is a 52-percent increase. Illinois farmers will get a $486 million gain, on average, during these years. That is a 57-percent increase for Illinois. Kansas farmers, under this bill, will see a $402 million gain, on average, between 2002 and 2007 over the Freedom to Farm bill. That is a 91-percent increase for Kansas farmers. I think that is the highest of any State I have seen, in terms of the difference between Freedom to Farm and what we have in this bill. Minnesota farmers get a $335 million gain, a 55-percent increase. Nebraska farmers get a $380 million gain, on average, under this bill over the Freedom to Farm bill. That is a 68-percent increase for Nebraska. I ask unanimous consent to have this analysis done by FAPRI printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I will yield to the Senator from Michigan shortly, but I would like to say, for the benefit of Senators, that we had a list before of speakers on the farm bill. If there are any Senators who wish to come to the floor to speak on the farm bill, that list is vacant right now, so we do have time on the bill right now for any Senators who wish to come over and speak. If they will just contact us, we can get another list put up, so we can get an appointed time for Senators to speak on the farm bill. With that, Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Michigan. And I thank her for all of her great work on this farm bill. I say to her constituents, the people of Michigan, there isn't a person who has fought harder for their interests than Senator Stabenow, especially in agriculture, and especially when it comes to the specialty crops. I point out that I believe Senator Stabenow holds a record. Senator Stabenow is the only member of the Agriculture Committee who served on the agriculture committee in her State legislature, served on the Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives, and is on the Agriculture Committee in the Senate. We are proud to have her.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are awaiting the arrival of either a proponent or an opponent of the bill. Whoever gets here first gets to go first. In that regard, I am informed that the ranking member has no objection to entering a quorum call with the time being equally divided. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time of the quorum be equally divided between the proponents and opponents.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are awaiting the arrival of the next Senator to speak. In the meantime, I might just correct one thing that was said here, I think, on the floor. I believe the Senator from Maine said that trade, conservation, and research would equal 10 percent of the bill that we have--only 10 percent. Actually it is much more than that. Conservation alone is 22 percent of the funding in this bill; that is, $37.1 billion out of $173 billion. If you take all the noncommodity titles--research, conservation, trade, forestry, all the other noncommodity titles--it equals about 30 percent of the funding of the bill. I wanted to make that correction. I want to go back to nutrition one more time and address the issue of funding. In the committee, when we passed our farm bill, there was support for a $5.6 billion nutrition title. It was supported on both sides. When that title was passed in our committee, it was passed unanimously. The bill then came on the floor and there were a number of amendments made. Many of them I cosponsored. They added additional funding. By the time we finished the bill, the nutrition title was $8.4 billion. Keep in mind when the bill left the Senate floor, the CBO rescored the bill and they had made a mistake. We didn't make the mistake. The CBO had miscalculated about $6.1 billion. So even before we went to conference we had to cut basically $6.1 billion out of our bill, which we did across the board. We did not focus on nutrition or any other noncommodity aspect of the bill. We just had to do it, basically, across the board. The House-passed bill had $3.4 billion for nutrition. The President, in his message, what he wanted was a $4.1 billion increase in nutrition. The bill before us has $6.4 billion for nutrition. That is $1.2 billion higher than we passed in our committee. It is almost double what the House had. So I believe we did a very good job in fighting for the nutrition program. Do we always provide more money for the neediest people in our society? Sure. As we go ahead as the Agriculture Committee, we will be looking to make sure that next year and the year after the people who rely upon food stamps and other feeding programs are not left behind. But I think we did a great job getting the $6.4 billion for nutrition. I received a letter yesterday from a number of food-related, hunger- related groups--51 groups. They said they are writing to express their support for the nutrition title. The conference report makes critical steps forward for some of the populations most in need of help: legal immigrants and working parents with children. Additional provisions that will substantially simplify the program are also critically important. We also applaud your additional funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program. Food banks, food shelves and food pantries facing growing requests will be better able to meet the need. Given the scope of the hunger and food insecurity problem facing our nation's people, we believe that passage of the Farm Bill Conference Report with its investments in the nutrition safety net must be a very high priority for the Senate. As I said, this was signed by 51 groups. I will not go through them all: America's Second Harvest, American School Food Service Association, American Public Human Services Association, Bread for the World, Children's Defense Fund, Coalition on Human Needs, Congressional Hunger Center, the Food Research and Action Center, FRAC, the National Council of La Raza, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, Volunteers of America. Those are among the 51 groups. I ask unanimous consent this letter and those 51 groups' names be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, after consultation with the ranking member, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized in this order and for the amount of time stipulated: Senator Dorgan be recognized for 20 minutes; after that, Senator Brownback for 10 minutes; after that, Senator Hutchinson for 15 minutes; then Senator Hollings for 10 minutes; Senator Feinstein for 10 minutes; and Senator Thompson for 15 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are awaiting the arrival of our next speaker. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. I have other Senators lined up who have 2:30 appointments.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes off of the time of Senator Lugar to the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel. At the completion of the statement of Senator Hagel, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. Carnahan, be recognized for 10 minutes.

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

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are endeavoring to get a list together in order of prospective speakers on the farm bill, to go back and forth. It is my intention, after I make a few comments, to recognize the Senator from North Dakota. I assume then we will go over to the Senator from Arkansas. Then we will go back and forth as the day progresses. I feel constrained to respond, at least somewhat, to the comments just made by my friend from Kansas. I listened to his well-written speech, and well-delivered speech. Frankly, I wonder if the person who maybe had some input in writing that had been around over the last few years. I want to point out some of the errors that I believe were just mentioned. First of all, in the commodity section of the bill that we have under the Freedom to Farm bill that was passed in 1996 there was no countercyclical payment, every year we had to rush in with emergency supplemental payments, and it also capped loan rates. The only things it had basically were a capped loan rate and these AMTA payments. The AMTA payments were based on unreal, optimistic assumptions that prices were going to be high forever and ever. Thus, every year we had to come in, rush in here, with emergency supplemental payments--every single year--because we had no countercyclical payments under that bill. I just heard the Senator from Kansas say that in 9 of the last 17 years somehow his Kansas farmers would not have gotten a payment under the conference report we are debating. I do not know how that happens because the target price under this bill for wheat is $3.86. The only way that would happen in 9 of the 17 years would be if prices were very strong. So in 9 of the last 17 years, if prices were high--the Senator is right, we do not give Government money if the prices are high. That was the failure of the ``freedom to fail''--the Freedom to Farm bill, because what it said was: If prices are high, we are going to pay farmers money, and if they are low, we are going to pay them the same amount of money. That was the fallacy of Freedom to Farm. What we are saying is, if prices are high, God bless you, that is what we want, the market is where the farmer should get his money. I do not know the data of the last 9 of 17 years. But if his argument against this bill is that because of the commodity section, his farmers, in 9 of the last 17 years, would not have gotten a countercyclical payment, that can only mean then that in 9 of the last 17 years prices were high, or at least higher than $3.86 a bushel minus the fixed payment. I have my staff checking that right now because I don't think that is the case. I just looked here at the income protections. In the last farm bill, for wheat, the income protection was $3.24 per bushel, including emergency supplemental payments. Under this conference report, it is $3.86 per bushel. Let us take a look at the bill we are trying to replace, the 1996 farm bill. The prices paid by farmers for their inputs is this green line. The prices farmers have received for their crops is this red line. When the 1996 farm bill was passed, the price farmers received was going up. Evidently, those in charge of passing that bill assumed the prices farmers received would continue to skyrocket. After enactment of the 1996 farm bill, look what happened. Down it came, and it is continuing to go down. That is the price farmers have received. The gap has widened between what they have to pay for inputs and what they get for their crops. That is why this conference report is so necessary. I can only assume that in urging the defeat of this conference report, the previous speaker wants to keep on with the 1996 farm bill, fails to address the gap between cost of producing a crop and the price for that crop. That is the choice we have today. Either adopt this conference report or stick with Freedom to Farm. That is the choice we have. I think this graph illustrates why we have to turn the corner. Our farmers can't continue to exist with the present Freedom to Farm bill any longer. I wish to point out wheat growers, who are so prominent in the Plains States. Last year the loan rate was $2.58. The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to lower that level. Under this bill, the loan rate will be $2.80 for wheat for 2002 and 2003. And the Secretary has no authority to lower that. I can't see how a wheat farmer will be better off with a lower loan rate compared with the $2.80 loan rate. It doesn't seem to make sense to me. The other failing of the 1996 farm bill is that it really didn't do anything for conservation. This bill does a lot for conservation. Look at the Conservation Reserve Program in the 1996 farm bill. It is capped at 36.4 million acres; we go up to 39.2 million acres. The Wetlands Reserve Program: 975,000 acre cap; we go up to 2.275 million acres. Farmland Protection: $35 million for the life of that bill; we go up to $985 million. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, which is so necessary and wanted by our sportsmen--our hunters and fishermen: We preserve our Nation's wildlife habitat. The 1996 farm bill had a measly $50 million for the entire United States. We go up to $700 million over 6 years in this bill. For the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the 1996 farm bill had a total of $1.93 million for 7 years. We go up to $11 billion over 6 years to help our livestock producers and crop producers meet environmental standards. Again, those who would vote against this conference report would say let us go back to the 1996 farm bill. We have done so much more for these existing conservation programs in this bill than was done in the 1996 farm bill. Lastly, I point out that we have a new conservation program that wasn't in the 1996 bill: the Conservation Security Program, funded at $2 billion. We also provide $600 million for Ground and Surface Water Conservation. And the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program is so important in Plains States. It wasn't in the 1996 farm bill. Agricultural Management Assistance wasn't in the last farm bill. Desert Terminal Lakes was not in the last farm bill. In terms of conservation, this bill takes a giant step forward in conservation, which is another reason why it should be supported. The last farm bill that we are trying to replace basically had one leg. That leg was AMTA payments. No matter whether we have good prices, there were AMTA payments. This bill, in terms of commodity for farmers, has four legs: a target price program; we have a loan rate which the Secretary cannot lower; we have the direct payments; and we have conservation payments. So we have four legs to the stool for our farmers, producers, and ranchers. Lastly, I am amazed at how many people who supported the Freedom to Farm bill said it was the best thing ever and are now telling us they can't wait to get rid of it. They can't wait to get a new farm bill. How many times have I heard from those who supported the Freedom to Farm bill that we need this new farm bill, we need it now, we are waiting too long, and we have to have it now? This bill was before us 5 months before the Freedom to Farm bill expired. I point out that the Freedom to Farm bill didn't pass until 6 months after the previous Freedom to Farm bill expired. We have done our work in a manner that I think benefits this whole country. As I have said many times, can I defend everything in this bill and say it is perfect? No. But when you look at this country, at the South, the Northeast, the West, the Midwest, and when you look at nutrition programs, the last farm bill didn't even have a nutrition program. Yet we have put in $6.4 billion in new spending for nutrition programs in this bill. The last farm bill didn't even have one. We have covered those who need help and who need food to make sure they do not go to bed hungry at night. We have covered that. We have a new energy program in this farm bill. We need this farm bill now. We need it now, and we can't send this back to conference. If this bill fails today, there will be uncertainty for our farmers. They need this bill, and they need it now. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota 20 minutes.

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

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

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleagues for giving me this time. The big meat processors lost out. We got country-of-origin labeling, as well a crucial amendment to the Packers and Stockyards Act that brought swine production contractors under the Packers and Stockyards Act. So now farmers who have swine production contracts have the same protections against unfair practices as poultry growers and livestock owners. This provision makes sure that the Packers and Stockyards Act evolves with the changing industry. We were also able to keep a provision to make it clear that farmers who have marketing and production contracts have the right to discuss those contracts with their close advisors and family, no matter what the contract or the meatpacker says. Let me say this about payment limits. Do I wish we could have done more? Yes. But I want to point this out: Right now the payment limitation is $460,000, the maximum that any one person can get or any one entity can get under the freedom to farm bill. The House came with $550,000. They raised it. We brought it down to $360,000. It is $460,000 now. We brought it down to $360,000. We were at $275,000 in the Senate. The House was at $550,000. So we actually came in closer to the Senate at $360,000. As I mentioned, we cut out the Scottie Pippens and the Ted Turners and all those people who were getting payments. That has ended. We set up a commission that will have members appointed from the Senate, from the House, and from the administration, to advise us on further processes that we should do to address the issue of payment limitations. And this is another thing we did: We provide for transparency. From now on, we will be able to track every payment made to every farmer, track it right from the beginning right down to who gets it. Right now, people hide behind entities, such as partnerships and co-ops and corporations. Now, with transparency, we will see who gets what, for the first time ever. So now we have transparency in all of our programs, transparency in the EQIP program, transparency in the commodity price support program. So, yes, we have turned the corner on competition. Maybe we did not get to the goal of where we want to be, but we have turned the corner. From now on we are going to have transparency. We are going to have a better handle on exactly who is getting what. I conclude my remarks by saying: You can vote no on this bill. I could pick out two or three things, if I wanted to, and vote no myself. But this bill moves us forward, to turn that corner, to turn away from the Freedom to Farm bill and what it stood for, and to chart a new course for the future. We can vote no on this bill. All that means is we go back to Freedom to Farm, with none of the provisions I just mentioned applicable. They would all be gone. Is that what we want to do? Step back in time? Step back to where we were? I don't think so. The bill is not perfect, but it is a good, strong, fair, and equitable bill for farmers and ranchers all over this country. It is fair and equitable to our consumers because they are still going to continue to get the most reliable, safest, cheapest food anywhere in the world. We meet our social obligations in ensuring that we provide food and food stamps to those most needy in our society. That is why I urge Senators to vote for this bill and move it ahead. I thank all of our staff members who have worked so hard on this bill. In particular, I thank Mark Halverson, my staff director. When this is all over, I will tell him he has to go to bed and get some sleep because I don't think he has slept in about a month or two or three. I thank Charlie Rawls, our general counsel; Bob Sturm, chief clerk, who made sure everything was set up for us in our meetings, took care of all the paperwork; Rich Bender; Karil Bialostosky; Seth Boffeli; Kevin Brown; Alison Fox; Amy Fredregill; Sara Hopper; Ellen Huntoon; Eric Juzenas; Susan Keith; Jay Klug; Stephanie Mercier; Frank Newkirk; Doug O'Brien; Vershawn Perkins; Erin Peterson; Lloyd Ritter; Terri Roney; John Moreland; Bob Soukup. I thank all of those. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute to continue to thank my staff.

Mr. HARKIN. This expansion of authority should not be viewed by anyone as a loosening of financial feasibility standards at the RUS. Simply put, if there is not a reasonable likelihood of repayment, the loan should not be made. That is how the RUS and the REA have operated for 65 years and that is how the agency should operate with this new authority.

Tom Harkin

Speeches

Manage analytics