Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Sometime down the road.

Mr. HARKIN. I understand. The Senator is right. His amendment doesn't touch crop insurance. I understand that. I am concerned about this idea that somehow farmers will get these market signals and they will plant accordingly. I still think there has to be a role for the big bad government to play through the Department of Agriculture, through us here in the Senate and House, to help to try to stabilize it somewhat, and to provide for some constancy out there in terms of what to expect in terms of price supports. I guess it is my own personal belief, based upon my studies and being here for a long time and looking at what has happened to agriculture, we could get into a period where we have some violent swings. Then I think we might be in a situation where we would find--I am loath to say this to my friend from Indiana because it always sounds as if we are doing the bad foreign baiting type of thing--if we don't do this, the foreigners will do it. I don't necessarily buy that, but to a certain extent I think we get into a situation where we have those fluctuations like that. We might encourage more of our competitors around the world to be growing these crops and maybe taking some of their marginal lands out of production in growing crops, which I don't think would be good for the environment or anything else. I wonder about that also. Again, as I said, those are just the concerns I have with the amendment of the Senator in terms of land prices and violent swings in commodity prices. And perhaps we just have a different philosophy on what the role should be. I believe there should be a role for the Government to try to keep wild swings from happening and prop up these prices a little bit in the marketplace. I don't want to provide the ultimate security, but some security out there, to say, it will go down, but it is not going to go any lower than this.

Mr. HARKIN. That is true.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Indiana, I want to be honest, so for the record, according to my staff who did this research, about two-thirds of those receiving payments in Iowa get less than $7,000. The Senator's is one-fifth? Ours is one-third.

Mr. HARKIN. We have about 160,000 farmers or entities receiving payments. Iowa farmers who get more than $7,000 are about 55,000 out of that 160,000--that is about a third--farmers getting less than $7,000, 105,000; farmers getting more than $15,000 are just under 30,000; and farmers getting less than $15,000, fewer than 130,000. It would be 105,000 farmers getting less than $7,000, and about 55,000 would be getting more than that.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding without losing his right to the floor. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following list I will send to the desk be the only first-degree amendments in order to S. 1731; that they be subject to second-degree amendments which must be relevant to the amendment to which it is offered; that upon the disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 199, H.R. 2646, the House companion; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1731, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be advanced to third reading and the Senate then vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendment and request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees with a ratio of four to three; that S. 1731 be returned to the calendar, with this action occurring with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Under the unanimous consent agreement entered into some time ago, what is the next order of business?

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, in conversations with my friend from Montana and with the staff, I understand there is a budget score on these amendments that may be a problem. In discussions with the Senator from Montana, he has obviously raised some good points. Part of the bill addresses some of the problems already. I refer to page 213 of the bill, section 212. We provide for a study on economic effects regarding the Conservation Reserve Program. Our staffs are going to work together to develop further language, as I understand, that could be added to this section to for additional studies in the area that the Senator from Montana is concerned about, but that would not have a budget scoring implication. We will work together with the staff of the Senator to try to develop that language.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment closes a loophole in the Packers and Stockyards Act by including livestock production contracts under its jurisdiction. It also provides livestock producers the ability to discuss the terms of the contract with certain people, such as their attorney, banker, landlord, and government agency charged with protecting a party to the contract. It does not say they have to but they are so allowed. Basically, since 1935, poultry producers have uncovered production contracts under the Packers and Stockyard Act but other livestock were not--for example, swine and cattle were not. But production contracts are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the establishment. Yet they are not covered under the Packers and Stockyards Act. The two largest farm organizations, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Unions, as well as dozens of other farm groups, support this amendment. It does not create any regulatory burden. As I said, we have had this provision under the Packers and Stockyards Act since 1935. If we can help Dairy Queen franchisees and gasoline franchisees, and if the poultry people have lived under this since 1935, I think it is time we give the cattle producers and the pork producers in this country the same kind of protections under the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, during the 1996 farm bill debate, I successfully offered an amendment to limit cost-share funding under EQIP for large confined animal feeding operations, which is present law. I offered that amendment because of the special environmental concerns associated with these large operations. Again, let's keep in mind, as the Senator from Minnesota said, these are large CAFOs, operations larger than 1,000 animal units. That is 4,000 head of veal, or 5,400 head of swine, with an average weight of 185 pounds. So, again, we are talking about pretty large operations. I believe we need to help producers comply or avoid the need for regulations. I believe we should provide cost-share funds to these CAFOs to build structures that will contain waste to protect and improve water quality, and to protect the quality of the environment. However, as the Senator from Minnesota has said, EQIP was never designed to subsidize expansion of livestock operations. The underlying bill allows for the use of cost-share funds for existing and expanding CAFOs. This amendment, as I understand it, does not prevent the use of funds for existing CAFOs but prohibits cost- share funding for new or expanding CAFOs; that is, operations over 1,000 animal units, but with several exceptions like for operations that expand using innovative technologies. So this amendment still allows cost-share funding for existing and smaller facilities but does not subsidize growth of the very largest livestock operations that are not yet in existence. Remember, it grandfathers the ones that are already large. That is, the existing CAFOs are not limited or excluded. I believe this amendment is consistent with the underlying bill. It still helps all livestock producers now in operation. But, as the Senator said, we should not be in the business of subsidizing for further expansion. I do support the amendment and hope that it is adopted. I thank the Senator for yielding me time.

Mr. HARKIN. I understand the Senator from Montana will be in the Chamber very shortly. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time does the Senator from Minnesota have?

Mr. HARKIN. Yes. That is why this amendment I have offered is much more limited in scope than the broad issue they were talking about.

Mr. HARKIN. I think that letter is just opposed to the whole competition title that we had in the chairman's mark of the farm bill last fall.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we are. It is now February 6, 2002. That comes as no shock to anyone. We are back on the farm bill--where we were back on December 6, 2001. Again, we are trying to get this bill finished before it gets too late in the planting season. I am hopeful that we can work out some arrangements to do that. The beginning of a new session always marks an opportunity for a renewed effort to solve the challenges before us. In a spirit of cooperation, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this new farm bill without further delay, in order to provide farm families in rural communities critically needed stability and insurance for this year and in the future. There is widespread agreement that farm families and rural communities are in dire need. The Senate has dealt with the farm bill for 12 days already. Again, I want to underscore that rural America cannot survive under the current Freedom to Farm bill. It will suffer severely if the farm bill here is further delayed. I look forward to working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to get the bill finished deliberately but quickly, and we will work our way through amendments. I hope that maybe even this afternoon sometime we may reach an agreement on a finite list of amendments, with a reasonable amount of time to debate them. Then we can work through that list of amendments and, hopefully, within 2 or 3 days, go to third reading and passage. I believe we can get the conference done in adequate time to have the bill enacted for this crop year. A tremendous amount is at stake in this farm bill, not only for farmers but for rural and agriculture- related businesses, rural communities, conservation, trade, nutrition programs, and renewable energy. The Department of Agriculture recently predicted a 20-percent drop in net farm income for this year if we do not take action on this new legislation--20 percent. Farmers are struggling as it is. They most certainly cannot afford to take a fifth off their net income. I understand that after the farm bill the Senate will take up an energy bill. During debate on the energy bill there will be a lot of discussion about CAFE standards, and about drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which I am sure will be a hotly contested issue. Well, this farm bill has a new energy title in it. As it is written now, the energy title calls for an investment of half a billion dollars in mandatory money over 5 years to spur production of renewable energy. Even if we do drill for oil in ANWR, we will remain dependent on foreign oil unless we begin making significant investments in the production of renewable energy. Moreover, a greater emphasis on renewable energy in our nation's energy policy will also create new markets for agricultural products. We need to develop these new markets, and I submit that one of the biggest opportunities we will have to do this in the future will be in the area of renewable energy. It has been said that anything that can be made from a barrel of oil can be made from a bushel of corn, soybeans, cottonseed oil, or any number of other crops that we grow in this country. I visited a project in northern Iowa last week involving agriculture- based industrial lubricants. It is a project sponsored and supported by the University of Northern Iowa. I actually visited a farm where they have set up equipment. They bring in raw soybeans, crush them, take out the oil, and they mix it and put it through another machine I can't describe, and they get grease, like axle grease. It looks just like that--the same thing you use in your grease gun when you are greasing a car, or an axle, or anything such as that. I understand the Norfolk Southern Railway has begun using this product to grease the railroad tracks. Trucking companies are using it for the fifth wheels on trucks, where they put a lot of grease. The beauty of this is it is all biodegradable. I understand some railroads, because of the grease going down the railroad track lines, have to put down liners underneath the tracks. This agriculture-based industrial lubricant is a new product that can take the place of all the grease we use, it is made out of soybeans and it is biodegradable. All the hydraulic fluid required by machinery could one day be made out of soybean oil. And then there is ethanol. We haven't even scratched the surface in terms of the use of ethanol. Fuel that is 80 percent ethanol--developed over the next 10, 15 years--can drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help clean up our atmosphere. Again, that is biodegradable, and it is renewable every year, with every corn crop. So I think if we really want to become more energy independent and less dependent on the Middle East for our oil, it is not drilling in ANWR that will accomplish that--at least not from the data I have seen--it is developing new markets for agricultural products in this country by supporting the development of renewable fuels made from agricultural commodities. We now have over 30 buses running in Cedar Rapids, IA, on soy diesel. All the trucks on the nation's highways could one day be burning soy diesel. When one thinks about the potential market for agricultural- based lubricants, fluids, and fuels, that market is the same as the market for the oil we are getting from the Middle East now. Maybe we cannot take up all of that market with renewable lubricants, fluids and fuels, but we can take up enough of it so the producers of oil in the Middle East will not have us by the throat any longer. We can have enough of that market that the Middle East will be a minor supplier, not a major supplier, of the energy we use in this country. There is a lot in this farm bill to start moving us in that direction. We have done our work in the Committee. We had an aggressive schedule of hearings on the farm bill. We had hearings here in Washington, DC, and in several States across the country. Then, of course, our timetable was set back by the terrorist attacks on September 11. Nonetheless, we moved ahead and started marking up the bill on October 31, voted to report the bill out of committee on November 15, and we were on the Senate floor November 29. We acted expeditiously to get this bill done. We went from markup on October 31 to the Senate floor on November 29, and yet we are still here today, February 6, 2002. It is essential that the new farm bill be completed without further delay before the planting of this year's crop. Again, if we do not pass it in time, this year's crop will be covered by the existing Freedom to Farm legislation and, Mr. President, as you know, we will probably have to come up with another supplemental payment for this year's crops. That is why we need a new farm bill and not more uncertainty. The longer the bill is delayed, the greater the risk the $73.5 billion in new farm bill funding will be forfeited. As I said, the planting season is here. The stimulus bill just went down, as I understand it, but this farm bill is also a stimulus bill a stimulus bill for rural America. President Bush was recently in Moline, IL, which is part of the quad- cities area, across from Davenport and Bittendorf, IA. Of course, Moline is the home of John Deere. A lot of Iowans across the river work at that Moline plant. We also have John Deere plants in Iowa. President Bush visited that plant a couple weeks ago. I was with him, as were other Senators and Congressmen. In a meeting with the CEO of John Deere, it was said by him or by some of the other people in the management of John Deere that they have laid off a lot of people. They have 300 people working at the plant who are working because of contractual arrangements with the union, but they are not building anything. I asked whether there is any hope that these people can start building again. The response was: Yes, we know there are orders out there or pending orders for new combines, tractors, planters, and other equipment, but the farmers are going to the bankers to get the financing to buy the equipment, and the bankers are saying: What is your income going to be like this year? What are you counting on? And the farmer says: I don't know, they haven't passed the farm bill yet. The message came through clear to me and others and, I hope, to the President that we have to get this bill done. It not only helps the farmers, but it helps rural America and it helps the workers in that John Deere plant, too. It helps them get back to work. That is why we need to get this bill through in as short order as possible. I believe bipartisanship has been the hallmark in our work of crafting this farm bill. At the outset, Senator Lugar, the committee's ranking member and former chairman, and I developed a set of objectives. We worked in consultation with other members of the committee on all titles of the bill that the committee reported out, with the exception of the commodity title, to be honest, where we recognized we probably would not find any agreement. Other than the commodity title, all reported titles were approved by voice votes. Of the votes on amendments to those titles, not one was along party lines. We did have a recorded vote on adopting the commodity title, as I said, and even that was a bipartisan vote. We have tried to come out with as bipartisan a bill as possible, and I believe that is what we have done. This is a balanced, comprehensive bill. It is a bill that does very well by commodities but also goes well beyond the commodity programs to address needs in the areas of conservation, trade, rural development, research, energy, which I mentioned earlier, credit, nutrition, and forestry. On the commodity side, we have maintained full planting flexibility, and we have restored a stronger countercyclical income protection system. The bill continues fixed direct payments but phases them down, not totally out, as a new countercyclical payment system is phased in. Also, farmers may elect to update their program bases and payment yields instead of using outdated ones, but they may keep the old bases and yields if that is more advantageous to them. We leave that choice up to farmers. The bill continues marketing assistance loans with modestly higher loan rates for feed grains, wheat, and cotton. The soybean loan rate is reduced by 6 cents but that reduction is offset by new fixed and countercyclical oilseed payments which were not in the previous Freedom to Farm bill. Keep in mind, all of these loans are marketing assistance loans, so the higher loan rates will not build stocks and will, in fact, enhance our international competitiveness. When I hear arguments that somehow the higher loan rates will price us out of the market, I do not understand that. These are marketing assistance loans so that cannot be true. One key difference between the Senate bill and the House bill is the approach to farm income protection. The Senate bill puts a greater emphasis on countercyclical income protection. If commodity prices are not as high as predicted, which is usually the case, then the Senate bill offers the better income protection. There is a built-in price protection mechanism to increase payments if prices fall. Again, one of the biggest outcries I heard about the Freedom to Farm bill is that in the good years--the initial years under Freedom to Farm when farmers were making good money from the market--they were still getting Government payments. That did not seem to make sense to anyone. What we have done is phase those payments down, and we will have a countercyclical program so if prices go down, farmers will be held harmless. The majority of people in this country do not know a lick about agriculture but would support it. They say there are certain times when for certain reasons--whether it is trade, the strength of the dollar, or other factors--prices for agricultural commodities just go all to heck. I think most people recognize the cyclical nature of agriculture, that it is different from a hardware store, that it is very reliant on so many outside factors over which a person has no control. I believe most Americans would say: Yes, if these things happen and prices fall, you ought to support the farmers until we can get the prices back up. I find general acceptance of that. What I do not find is any support anywhere for the proposition that if farmers are doing well in the marketplace we ought to give them more money. I do not find any support for that anywhere. That is what we tried to do in this bill: to get off that old system and get onto a new system of countercyclical payments. Regarding international trade, the Senate bill will comply with our WTO commitments and will put our Nation in a strong position to negotiate new trade agreements. This bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to adjust support payments to make sure we do not violate WTO limits. However, there is only a very remote chance this authority will ever be needed. Under the expected market conditions for the next 10 years, the amber box limit ``amber box'' means that under WTO agreements we can only spend so much money on certain types of support--is $19.1 billion. Under all of the scenarios we have run on our bill, the most we can see is about $16 billion in amber box payments. Now I have heard--I will admit I have not heard it lately, but last December I heard a lot of talk from the administration and the Department of Agriculture that somehow what we had in our bill would bump us up against the WTO limits, and that would take us to court and all kinds of dire things would happen. At that time, I challenged those who were making such statements to come forward and give us the proof, give us the data, show us what they mean, how we were going to bump up against the $19 billion limit. Well, I have been waiting since then. I still do not have it. So I said at the time, if the administration keeps saying this, then I am simply going to have to call another hearing of the Agriculture Committee and we will have to have the Secretary of Agriculture down to tell us. If they have data, I would like to see it. I think the fact is that it is not so. Even if we do get up around $16 billion or $17 billion, so what? That is well within our limit. It seems to me there is some thought we ought to be down around $10 billion or less. I say, why? Do you think the Europeans would do that? Of course not. They are going to be right up to their limits under the WTO. Well, we are not even that close. We are still quite a bit under the limit. All I can say is, if we ever got to the point where our payments would bump up against that $19.1 billion, we would be in such bad shape that the WTO would be the least of our worries.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I am glad to yield to our assistant majority leader.

Mr. HARKIN. With a 30-minute time limit?

Mr. HARKIN. I wanted to make sure this wasn't a different letter. I thank the ranking member. Madam President, when I took the chair, I had yielded some time to Senator Grassley from Iowa. I thought he was going to talk on this amendment. He wanted to talk on something else. I think my time has expired on this side.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask the ranking member, is that the letter that came last fall or is it a new one? I am not familiar with that. If that is the one----

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a mild colloquy?