Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I rise in support of the amendment. I am proud to support this amendment with my colleague from Minnesota. During the 1996 farm bill debate, I successfully offered an amendment that limited cost-share funding under EQIP for large confined animal feeding operations. That was the 1,000-animal unit limit that has existed under the farm bill since that time. I offered that amendment in 1996 because of the special environmental concerns associated with these large operations. CAFOs, as they are called, confined animal feeding operations, CAFOs, these are operations of greater than 1,000 animal units. What that means--that is 455,000 broilers, 4,000 head of veal, 5,400 head of swine of an average weight of 185 pounds--these numbers are for the average number of livestock confined for 45 days over a 12-month period. So it is not 5,400 swine for the year. It is how many are confined for 45 days in any 12-month period. It could be double or triple that number of hogs over the year. That is a lot of animals. Again, these are large operations. Over the last several years we have seen an increase in the development and enforcement of Federal, State, and local environmental laws regulating waste from animal feeding operations. I believe we need to help producers comply or avoid the need for regulations. We should provide cost-share funds to these existing CAFOs to build structures that will contain waste to protect water quality and to protect the environment generally. However, EQIP money was never designed to subsidize the expansion of livestock operations. The underlying bill allows the use of cost-share funds for all existing operations, and that is fine. But, it also funds for new CAFOs and expanding operations to CAFOs. That is what is wrong because obviously, if you can use the money to fund expansion, it gives you an incentive to get larger. This amendment, the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, does not prevent the use of funds for small operations or for existing CAFOs. But it prohibits cost-share funding for new or expanding confined animal feeding operations; that is, operations over 1,000 animal units. It limits the subsidization of the growth for the very largest livestock operations. I believe this amendment is consistent with the underlying bill. It still helps livestock producers who are now in operation who need to meet ever stricter environmental standards. We have put more money into EQIP. We have expanded the EQIP program over six times above the baseline over the next five years--from $1 billion to $6.2 billion. So we are putting in a lot of money. I think this is a good way to invest this money protecting the environment, helping the livestock producers meet the more stringent environmental standards. Again, we have more money, but that money ought to be used for the ones that are there now, the ones that need this help now. We have taken the cap off of limiting funds to large CAFOs in the underlying bill, we have gone above 1,000--again, that is fine. But we don't want people to see the EQIP funds as an incentive. We don't want people to say: Gee, I have 800 animal units, I can go up to 2,000, 3,000 animal units now and the Government is going to come in and help me build these structures. If they want to expand and build facilities on their own, we don't prohibit that, but we don't want to use Government money to encourage that. So it is a good amendment. I think it should be adopted. I understand some other people may want to debate it, but the order is we are going to lay this aside for other amendments; is that correct?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota has been laid down?

Mr. HARKIN. This is the amendment on the Environmental Quality Incentives Program that would allow cost-share funds to all existing livestock operations, but would limit it for the largest ones that are new or expanded after this bill is enacted; is that right?

Mr. HARKIN. No. Amendment No. 2603 To Amendment No. 2471

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again for the benefit of those in their offices, Senators who are here today, the farm bill is open right now for amendment. Under the agreement made by the leaders, yesterday, I guess, or the day before--obviously there are no votes today. We can still take the amendments. They can be laid down, we can debate them with whoever is here, and they will then be in line for voting when we come back on Tuesday, or further debate, also, when we come back. I say to my friend, I see my friend from Kansas is here. Maybe my friend from Kansas has an amendment he would like to offer on the farm bill and get it in line so we could, perhaps, vote on this mythical Cochran-Roberts amendment that I keep hearing about but I can't see. It is sort of ephemeral--sort of out there somewhere, but we can't seem to get our fingers on it. Maybe we could get the Cochran-Roberts amendment over here today, lay it down, and start discussing it so we can have it here next Tuesday. I urge any Senators who have amendments to come over to the floor and lay them down. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I send this amendment on behalf of myself, Senators Grassley, Feingold, Wellstone, and Enzi. I will just take a few minutes to describe it because I know Senator Cochran and Senator Roberts are waiting to speak. With this amendment, I would like to continue on one of the important themes I have stressed throughout the farm bill debate, competition issues in agriculture. In fact, the occupant of the chair, the Senator from Missouri, spoke about that a few minutes ago, about needing better competition in agriculture. We had a competition title in the original farm bill. I thought it was extremely important. That was defeated but for one provision, country of origin labeling. That succeeded on an independent vote in committee, but the rest of the title did not make it through committee. Some of us vowed to resurrect a number of provisions on the floor, not the whole title but a number of key provisions that were in the competition title. Beyond the amendment I speak about, two amendments were agreed to yesterday which I cosponsored. Senator Feingold introduced an amendment which prohibits forced arbitration in livestock and poultry contracts. That amendment was adopted. After that, Senator Johnson from South Dakota offered an amendment that prohibited the ownership of livestock by packers. That amendment was adopted. The amendment I offer today will address one more issue in the competition arena and that is livestock production contracts and the right of a farmer to discuss those contracts with his closest advisers. As I said, the cosponsors are Senators Grassley, Feingold, Wellstone, and Enzi. The American Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union, as well as dozens of other farm, community, and religious organizations, support the amendment. And for good reasons. Farmers are concerned about competition. A 1999 Iowa State Extension Service Rural Life poll indicated that 89 percent of Iowa farmers thought there was too much power concentrated in the hands of a few large agribusiness firms. A similar poll recently released by Kansas State University that targeted 27 farm and ranch States found that 77 percent of producers favor maintaining or strengthening current antitrust laws. To address just a small part of that concern, the amendment I introduced today will provide some minimal protections to livestock production contract growers. The amendment does two things. First, it closes a significant loophole in the Packers and Stockyards Act. Presently, the act protects farmers who sell livestock to packers. The Packers and Stockyards Act also protects those who grow poultry for others under production contracts. That was adopted in 1935. So since 1935, it has applied to production contracts in poultry. But the act does not protect those who raise livestock under production contracts for packers in other areas, such as for swine and cattle. Again, in 1935 production contracts were not a big issue in livestock. It was a whole different world at that time. Since that time we have seen the growth of production contracts, both in hogs and now extending into cattle. The amendment would close this loophole so farmers who raise livestock under production contracts will be protected by the prohibitions against unfair and deceptive practices under the Packers and Stockyards Act. Second, the amendment will allow a producer to share his or her contract information with their business adviser, landlord, executive or manager, attorney, family, and State and Federal agencies charged with protecting parties to the contract. I understand in some States farmers already have some of these rights, but many farmers tell me they feel intimidated to share their contracts with even their trusted advisers, with their banker. That is because the contract specifically says that none of the terms of the contract are to be discussed with anyone else. So the farmer feels very intimidated about discussing that--and, frankly, could face either a lawsuit or the loss of the contract if, in fact, that farmer does discuss that with an with a banker. Again, as I have said, the first part deals with production contracting. Right now these arrangements--production contracting arrangements--are like a franchisee-franchiser relationship. It is becoming more prevalent in hogs and growing in the cattle industry. When we passed the Packers and Stockyards Act in 1921, the industry was different. Livestock was owned by the farmers. They took it to the stockyards. The packers bought the livestock at the stockyards. That is why we passed the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act, because the packers and stockyard owners were collaborating and conspiring to drive down prices for farmers. So Congress passed the Packers and Stockyards Act to prohibit these unfair practices in 1921. The act currently addresses relationships only between packers and those who sell livestock to packers. It does not address production contracts. Right now, as I said, more and more of these production contracts are becoming common. An Iowa State study indicates that 34 percent of the hogs in America are raised under production contracts. Current law does not address this current situation, and this amendment closes that loophole and provides protection to livestock production contract growers. Again, because of their relatively weak bargaining position, farmers feel intimidated under these contracts. The amendment would specifically limit livestock contractors from engaging in unfair, deceptive, and unjustly discriminatory practices, section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act; and second, it gives the farmers the right to discuss terms of their contract with certain people: a legal adviser, a lender, an accountant, an executive or manager, a landlord, a family member, or a Federal or State agency with responsibility for enforcing a statute designed to protect the party to the contract. Importantly, this amendment doesn't require anyone to share any information. It doesn't require that the contract be made public in any way. It does not affect the confidentiality clauses that state farmer can't share the information with a neighbor, or with the contractor's competitors. They can still do that. It is important to note the distinction. Again, this amendment takes a couple of small steps to protect farmers against unfair and deceptive conduct in the livestock and poultry contracting business. It will provide some protection for these growers and bring them more in line with the poultry growers since 1935. They have had this protection since 1935. It is time now to extend it to our cattle and to our swine producers and other livestock producers in America. I yield the floor.

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 the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a technical modification of my amendment No. 2604.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will just take a couple of minutes, not so much in response to the Senator. But as I listened to my friend from Indiana--the very thought-provoking speech he made--I had some further thoughts. My friend, the Senator from Indiana, said that under the bill we have, we could expect more emergency farm assistance bills. I know he said farmers will be coming to the chairman saying: We have to have an emergency bill. If we continue on the present course, that will be true. But we have built into S. 1731 a countercyclical payment program that has an income support wherein we should not have to come back. I will say this: The reason we had--I believe for each of the last 4 years--to come in and provide for emergency funding for agriculture for farmers was because there was no effective safety net under Freedom to Farm. I would ask my friend from Indiana to go back before Freedom to Farm, to go back before that was enacted--and I could be wrong; I have not researched this thoroughly--but I cannot remember in all the years I have been here that we came in with that kind of annual emergency funding because of low prices for farmers. We came in, sometimes, with disaster payments for a drought, flood or a hurricane, or something like that, but we did not as far as I can remember--and I can be proven wrong--but I cannot remember coming in with legislation because prices and income were so low we had to pass emergency legislation to get money out to farmers broadly based all over America. That started with Freedom to Farm, when we took away that safety net. If we continue on with the Freedom-to-Farm type program, I dare say, yes, you are right, they are going to be coming to me and saying: We need emergency funding. That is why I feel so strongly about the safety net provisions we enacted in S. 1731 with the countercyclical type of payments. If prices are low--and the lower they go, the larger the payment. On the other hand, if prices are good, then there is not the need for payments that magnitude. So under that scenario, I really do not see why we would have to come in with emergency legislation other than some naturally occurring disaster or something like that, I say to my friend.

Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I am constrained, after listening to my good friend from Utah talk about nominating judges and vacancies--I cannot let the moment pass without pointing out that on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals there is a vacancy today. That vacancy is there because my friends on the other side of the aisle would not let us vote last year on the former attorney general of Iowa, Bonnie Campbell, to take that position as circuit court judge on the Eighth Circuit Court. She had a hearing, she came out of committee, but they would not let us bring her name up on the floor for a vote. She was perfectly qualified to be on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. As I said, we had all the hearings. She was supported by everyone. Yet they would not permit her name to come up for a vote before we left last year. Bonnie Campbell is not on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals today because of pure politics. Because the Republicans, those on that side, last year--I guess correctly--thought they were going to win the national election and therefore they didn't have to put through any judges on the circuit courts. So Bonnie Campbell--there is a vacancy there today because of politics. Not that she wasn't qualified. I always said bring her up for a vote; if people want to vote against her, vote against her--just the same argument the Senator from Utah made right now. I made the same argument last year. Bonnie Campbell is qualified. No one says she is not. Let's bring her up for a vote. Yet the leadership on that side prevented us from ever having a vote on Bonnie Campbell's nomination to be Eighth Circuit Court judge. I hope my friend from Utah doesn't want to preach too much to me, to this Senator, about politics being involved in circuit court judges. I know full well what happened last year. It is on the record. This Senator stood at the desk right back there, day after day, asking that Bonnie Campbell's name come up for debate and vote. Every time it was objected to by the other side. So I don't really need any lectures about politics being involved in judicial nominations.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time do we have on our side?

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask again my friend from Missouri, what is the definition of an agricultural producer? What is an agricultural producer? I wish the Senator from Missouri could enlighten us as to what an agricultural producer is.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the Senator from Missouri is right, and I misspoke. He is absolutely right that it is 60 days. So it cannot be 5 years. He does have to do it in 60 days. But my point is still valid that there is a hearing record for an agency decision, but then this sets up a whole new layer of bureaucracy and layer of decisionmaking, and there does not have to be a hearing on the President's reversal, preclusion or amendment of the agency action under this amendment. So, therefore, the President can wipe out whatever was done, and they do not have to have a hearing based upon what he wants to do. But the Senator from Missouri is right, it has to be done within 60 days. Five years, no. I misspoke. I was wrong on that, and I am glad to correct myself on that. Lastly, I would like to know if the Senator from Missouri could enlighten us as to the definition of agricultural producer. For the Record, if we could, exactly what is an agricultural producer? I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. We will find out whether or not the determination by the Secretary has to take place within that 60 days. I am not certain that it does. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I do not know. We are going to find out.

Mr. HARKIN. I will consult on that because I was told the way it was written it may not, but I will check on it and see whether or not he can do it after 60 days.

Mr. HARKIN. True. But, the President can still act to change a decision of the agency even if doing so goes against the underlying law that Congress passed, and the President can do this without consulting Congress. And the President will have taken this action after the agency has promulgated a rule and gone through the notice and public comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Years later, the Secretary of Agriculture can say: That action that was taken by that agency 5 years ago is an economic hardship, it has an adverse economic impact on farmers; therefore, I am going to recommend to the President that he reverse it and do away with it. Five years have gone by and now this action taken by the Secretary is every bit as important and vital in overturning the regulation as it was in promulgating it. Yet in overturning it under this amendment, there is no need for any public record, no need for any public hearing. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is right.

Mr. HARKIN. That is true.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I hope we can enter into some time agreement.