Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, TAP is a critical program that provides reimbursement for trees, like cherry trees and apple trees, which have been destroyed by natural disaster.

Mr. HARKIN. I think all of our colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry and in the Senate would agree that the Senator's strong backing was absolutely instrumental in obtaining the $2 billion specialty crop purchase program.

Mr. HARKIN. I would be happy to yield to the senior Senator from Maryland.

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, and thank you for your hard work in getting this important farm bill, with its strong conservation title, passed.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, before I yield time to the Senator from Nebraska, I wish to respond to my friend from Virginia with whom I have a good relationship. We have worked closely on this. Let us be frank. I wish we could have had the whole Senate bill passed, as we passed it once before. As you know, we had to work these issues out in conference. As concerns the Chesapeake Bay, this has been a concern of mine for a long time, especially in terms of the agricultural runoff. That is why I was supportive of the provision that the Senator mentioned. But the House would not accept the carve-out of EQIP for the Chesapeake Bay nutrient reduction pilot program. Experience being the best teacher around here, we put it in the conference report. There is a new authority for the Secretary under a section called Partnerships and Cooperation. In which the Secretary can designate special projects and enter into agreements with non-Federal entities to provide assistance. This could well help with the Chesapeake Bay. In fact, the Partnership & Cooperation authority was specifically crafted with programs like the Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Pilot Program in mind. I want to read the language: The managers intend for the Secretary to use this authority to help producers avoid the need for further Federal and State regulations to protect both water and air. The Secretary is strongly encouraged to be proactive in establishing partnerships in critical areas such as the Chesapeake Bay.'' The Chesapeake Bay is the only specific region mentioned in the entire Partnerships & Cooperation report language section. That is intended to give the Secretary notice of the special status of the Chesapeake Bay. I wanted the Senator to be aware of this report language. I also say to the Senator, as long as I am chairman of this committee, we intend to make sure the Secretary follows through on this. This is one of our national heritage spots. It is one of our national treasures, the Chesapeake Bay. We fully intend that the Secretary will use her authority to enter into those arrangements just as we specified. It is the only area specified in the report. We did not specify any other area than the Chesapeake Bay. That is just under that program. They draw on the existing conservation programs. Secondly, we increase the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which the Senator mentioned, from $2 billion to $11 billion, a 5\1/2\- fold increase. Under the EQIP program, farmers in the Chesapeake Bay area could receive funds and help for mitigating the runoff of nutrients. The third part that will help the Chesapeake Bay is the new program called the Conservation Security Program that is in this bill. It is a new entitlement program--open to all producers. For example, if a farmer in the Chesapeake Bay wants to cut down on nutrients, wants to cut down on fertilizer, wants to stop soil runoff, wants to have resource management improvements there at a non-degradation level, and, to be the best manager of that land, that farmer could qualify to receive a payment from the Government by entering into an agreement with the Secretary. So I say to the Senator from Virginia, there are at least three parts of this bill which will be helpful in mitigating and stopping the runoff of nutrients and soil in the Chesapeake Bay area. I am sorry we could not get the specific carve-out, but I can assure the Senator as sure as I am standing here--that under those three provisions in the conservation title will provide producers in the Chesapeake Bay more opportunity for conservation in the next 6 years than there has been in the past. That is all I can assure the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if there are any Senators who wish to speak on the farm bill, now would be the time to do that; otherwise, we might be wrapping this up very soon. But we will run the clock a little longer to give any Senators an opportunity to come over and speak. Whoever, pro or con, they will be recognized to speak. With that understanding, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask the time be divided equally.

Mr. HARKIN. And how much time does Senator Lugar have?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time does this side have left?

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

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Mississippi, under the previous order, has 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that after he finishes, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, be recognized for 10 minutes off of Senator Lugar's time, and Senator Hutchison of Texas be recognized for 10 minutes off of my time.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield 30 seconds.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota, after which I ask unanimous consent, if there is no one on the opposite side who shows up, that the Senator from Montana be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, Risk, and Waste Management be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 1:30 p.m., to hold a hearing to review S. 1850, the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2001. The hearing will be held in SD-406.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the bipartisan farm bill conference report now before us has been approved overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives by a vote of about 2 to 1, and President Bush has pledged to sign it, calling it a significant piece of legislation and, of course, touting the great efforts we made to reach agreement. Now we have the crucial bill before us, and the Senate has the opportunity to join the House and the President with our approval of this legislation. The President said he wants this bill on his desk promptly, and I hope we can do that. I intend to do all I can to make sure that happens. I am sorry we could not have taken this up last week and passed it on Thursday. The President could have signed it this week. But, as I understand, the other side insisted on having a minimum of 12 hours of debate on this. If that is what they want, that is certainly their right. So we are going to have another 2 days of debate on this farm bill. As the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am proud to sponsor it. I am proud of all the hard work the conferees and our staff have done. I am proud of the work that the farm groups, conservation groups, anti-hunger, and others across the country have done in seeing this bill through to the end. I am proud of those who lent their ideas in support of this bill. I am especially proud of all the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee on both sides of the aisle who worked diligently last year through some very trying times--need I mention the period of time after September 11 when our attention was focused on the terrorist threat to our country? But the members of our committee, including the Presiding Officer, continued to work to make sure we met the business of our country's agriculture and to make sure we came up with a farm bill that addressed a broad variety of needs all over America. I compliment and commend all of the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, as I said, on both sides of the aisle who worked very hard to get this bill both through the committee and to the floor of the Senate. I compliment all the conferees for making sure we have a good product--a product that was reached by compromise between the House and the Senate. The bill is truly a product of cooperation and collaboration across party lines--and across the Capitol between the two Houses. I commend my colleague and ranking member, my good friend, Senator Lugar from Indiana, for all of his courtesy and cooperation throughout the process of developing this bill. To be sure, we have some very substantial disagreements on the conference report. But Senator Lugar and his staff have been closely involved and have made major contributions throughout the provisions of this bill. I also thank Chairman Combest and Congressman Charlie Stenholm for all of their hard work and cooperation through the course of a challenging conference. I compliment publicly Congressman Combest for his fair and diligent leadership and for his chairmanship of the conference committee as we worked through this bill. This conference report reflects a tremendous amount of work and careful consideration by both the Senate and House of Representatives. The House Agriculture Committee began hearings on the new farm bill in 2000. Our committee began hearings on the new farm bill, under the leadership of Senator Lugar, in January of 2001. When the leadership changed hands, under my chairmanship we continued to hold an aggressive schedule of hearings over the summer. We marked up the bill in November and reported it to the Senate on November 27. Final Senate action was delayed because we were repeatedly unable to obtain cloture before the holiday recess. But we came back and passed the bill on February 13. Since then--up until May 1--we have been in conference. We began the conference with a very large number of critical issues in disagreement between the Senate and the House on this comprehensive, complicated, and far-reaching bill. We worked long and hard and made our way through disagreements to produce this new, strong farm bill. I will be the first to admit that this conference report is not any one person's idea of perfection. It is, however, a very good bill. It is a solid, balanced piece of legislation, a product of the crucible of rigorous debate, hard work, and tough negotiating. The conference report also reflects the necessary give and take of the conference on a major piece of legislation and the imperative of reaching compromises and settling differences for the sake of the larger objective of getting the bill completed and passed. The bottom line is that there is far too much at stake in this bill for farm families, rural communities, and our Nation as a whole, for us to let this bill die over a stalemate or to send it back and deadlock in conference. For anyone looking for faults to criticize, they are there. I could get points for several myself. Each of us could. But given the rigor of the negotiations and the strongly held views on each side, I can assure you that further negotiation--if this bill were to be sent back to conference--would not and cannot produce an outcome appreciably different from that which is now before the Senate. I can say that if this conference report is defeated and sent back to conference, there will not be a farm bill this year. As I said, each of us can look and say: Well, I don't like the specifics, or, I don't like these two items which I voted for in the Senate, or which I voted for in committee, and it is not in there. Yes, we can all do that. We can pick it apart. But, again, if you look at the overall aspects of the farm bill for commodities, for nutrition, for conservation, and for rural development, when you look at it in its broad aspect, this is a bill worthy of support. This trial by fire of going through the procedures means we have a comprehensive and forward-looking bill. This bill restores sound farm income protections. It offers predictability and stability to agricultural producers, suppliers, and others. It greatly strengthens our commitment to conservation, to investing in jobs, to economic growth, and to the overall quality of life in rural communities. And, for the first time ever, we have an energy title in this farm bill to boost farm-based renewable energy. Last week, President Bush said this bill has ``the strongest conservation provisions of any farm bill ever passed by Congress. The final provisions of the farm bill are also consistent with America's international trade obligations, which will strengthen our ability to open foreign markets for American farm products.'' That is a quote from President Bush. (Mr. WELLSTONE assumed the chair.)

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I think all has been said that needs to be said, at least for today, on this farm bill. I guess we are going to have 6 more hours of saying it all over again tomorrow. So I see no need to stay here any longer. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. HARKIN. On this side. How much time on the other side?

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. HARKIN. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. HARKIN. These three farm groups in Iowa all support this farm bill. I listened to the debate on the floor. I listened to my colleague from Iowa earlier. This is the first opportunity I have had to respond. My colleague and I have been friends for 28 years now, I guess it is, since we both came to the House in 1974. We worked very strongly together on issues of concern to our State and Nation. We do not always agree on things, I understand that, but we do work together. I think we have a pretty big disagreement on this farm bill. I say to my colleague from Iowa--he went on about the trade portions of the bill and whether or not it is going to violate WTO. I want to set the record straight one more time. This bill will strengthen our position in the WTO negotiations. It will strengthen it. If we go down towards zero in amber box payments, that weakens our bargaining position. The closer we get to $19 billion, that strengthens our position. It strengthens it basically because of what Senator Conrad from North Dakota was talking about--how much the European Union supports its agriculture. Second, my colleague from Iowa said there was a one in five chance that we would violate the WTO. That is a statistic that has come from the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute. That said they estimated about a 19-percent chance, I guess, of this violating the WTO. FAPRI also said the present law, the law we have been under since 1996, has a 14-percent chance of violating WTO. So the present law is 14 percent, this is 19 percent; that is a very modest change, a very modest amount difference. So we should not be worried about that. We are well within the bounds of WTO. I reaffirm that this farm bill is for our farmers. We stick up for our farmers. We stick up for our ranchers. We stick up for our people in rural America. Through the process of our committee and the House process and the conference committee process, we work out what we believe is best for our producers, our farmers, and our ranchers--not what is best for Germany, France, Brazil, or China. That is their business. As long as they do it within the WTO, it is their business. How we seek to address our problems and to help our producers is our business. It is not the business of France, Germany, Italy, England, Brazil, China, or Japan. That is our business. I hope people understand and recognize that, yes, we have a WTO, but our first obligation, as we held up our hand and swore our oath of office here, our first obligation is to our people, to make sure we take care of our people first. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Next, a letter from the Iowa Farmers Union. They also sent a letter of support urging passage of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, earlier today I asked unanimous consent to have some letters printed in the Record, letters of support for the bill. I have three others I would like to have printed. The first is a letter from the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation saying they urge strong passage of the conference report for the 2002 farm bill. I ask unanimous consent the letter from the Iowa Farm Bureau be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for his kind words. I thank my friend and my colleague from North Dakota for two things: First, for his great leadership as head of our Budget Committee and for giving the guidance and direction and providing the budget for what we need to do; and for being on the Agriculture Committee and providing his expertise on budget matters as we work through the farm bill, both in the committee, on the Senate floor, and in conference. He has been great. I compliment the Senator. I can say without fear of contradiction that many times we might have been persuaded to go in a different direction--let's say on the farm bill in the conference--had it not been for the Senator from North Dakota, whose expertise and knowledge of the budget came to the forefront and carried the day for us so we got the bill that we got. I thank my friend from North Dakota for, again, being there every day. The Senator said I was there every day. He knows because he was there every day that I was, on the farm bill conference. I thank him for that. I also thank the Senator for always pointing out in these negotiations, when we are talking about trade, what the Europeans are doing compared to us. We cannot ever forget that. This farm bill that we passed, this is for our farmers, for our ranchers. This is not for the European farmers and the European ranchers and the South American farmers. This is for our farmers. We ought to make no excuse for it, none whatsoever. We are sticking up for our producers in this country. I have one last thing to say to the Senator from North Dakota about the chart he had up recently about the money we are spending on agriculture. I think I read an editorial, maybe it was in the Wall Street Journal--or someplace else--going after how much money we are spending on agriculture. I asked to get a run here from CBO on their baseline projections from now for the 10 years of this farm bill compared to the total outlays of the Federal Government. If you take the outlays of the Federal Government for the next 10 years, CBO says that comes to $22.245 trillion. Add up all the spending on agriculture for everything; that comes to $206.2 billion--.93 percent of all the spending the Federal Government is going to do in the next 10 years goes for agriculture. That is a small price to pay, I say to my friend from North Dakota, for having the best food supply, the most productive capacity in the world, the cheapest food, and the safest food anywhere in the world. I think when the American people see that, they will say: Yes, this is the kind of farm bill we need. Ninety-three percent? I say to my friend from North Dakota, I believe the average American will say that less than a penny out of every dollar to keep our farmers in business is a very small price to pay. I thank the Senator from North Dakota, again, for his wisdom, guidance, and judgment on these matters as we work through this farm bill.