Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I am always delighted to respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are still on the agriculture package. After having had this last vote, I think it is the wish of the Senate that we move ahead on this bill so we can go to conference. Again, I remind Senators, as others have reminded them today, time is running short. We would like to finish this bill if at all possible today so that we can go to conference tomorrow, hopefully finish the conference tomorrow at some reasonable time, and come back with the conference report either late tomorrow or early on Thursday so we can finish the conference report and get it to the President before we leave at the end of the week. It is going to be touch and go because the checks have to get out in September. We will not be here in August. We will be on recess in August. We do have to complete our work on the bill and get it to the President. This Senator is convinced that if we get this bill done today, we could probably finish conference tomorrow. I don't anticipate a long conference with the House. We would have to work out some disagreements on spending levels. I believe that could be done fairly expeditiously. If any Senators have further amendments they would like to add, I hope we can reach some agreement on time limits. I hope there is not going to be any effort to string out the bill or to delay it. We just can't afford to delay this bill. We have to get it done, and we have to get to conference. We have to get the conference report back and get it to the President. I am not saying Senators should not offer amendments. I am just saying if they offer amendments, let's do so right now. Let's have some reasonable time agreements, and then let's finish the bill so we can get to conference tomorrow. I hope we can move ahead expeditiously and finish this bill yet today.

Mr. HARKIN. And the ranking member.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. All we are saying is that we have a tough situation in agriculture. There is no reason why we shouldn't provide 100 percent of payments. That is what we did in our bill. I point out the House bill initially started out at $6.5 billion. An amendment was offered to put it at $5.5 billion, and it passed by one vote. Two of those who voted sent me letters, which I have included in the Record, saying they want a more comprehensive bill, one that includes the Senate's provisions. I say the responsible thing to do is to meet the needs of our constituents, our farmers, and our farm families around the country. We also made the bill broader. In other words, we didn't just look at the program crops. We looked at a lot of other crops: the crops in the Northwest, the peas and lentils and chick peas, we looked at apples and what is happening to our specialty crops there. There are a lot of other farmers in the country who are hurting and who need assistance. We included them, also. I don't see why we should leave them out. We made 100 percent of payments but we reached out. We also put in some strong conservation measures. The Lugar amendment leaves out all of the conservation provisions we put in the bill. The people that need that conservation are all over this country, anywhere from Georgia, to Washington State and California, to New York and Maine. These conservation moneys do two things: They help our farm income, and they help our farmers. But they also help all in society by cleaning up our water and cleaning up our air and soil runoff. The conservation funding would lie dormant for the Wetland Reserve Program, the Farmland Protection Program and the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program. I think we are doing the responsible thing. I believe if we were to pass the committee-passed bill--and I believe the votes are here--and go to conference with the House, we can be back from conference with the House, I would hope, no later than tomorrow night, perhaps by Thursday. We would have a good conference report, one that could be broadly supported. I believe the President would do well to sign that bill. Again, we will probably have to make compromises in conference. I understand that. I point out to all who will be voting, there is three times the amount of help to specialty crop producers in our underlying bill as in the Lugar amendment. To my friends on both sides of the aisle, I say we included moneys for crops all over this country. We didn't just single out one or two. I am hopeful we can table the amendment offered, I know in good faith, by my friend from Indiana. But we have to meet our needs. We have to meet the needs of our constituents. I make one final point: The committee bill is in full compliance with the budget resolution. We did exactly what the Budget Committee allowed us to do: $5.5 billion is spent before September 30; the other moneys in the next fiscal year. That is exactly what the budget resolution allows. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is not easy to say the amendment offered by my good friend from Indiana should be defeated because he is my good friend and I know he is doing this in good faith. We have talked about this and I know he feels deeply this is the way we should go. Quite frankly, as we all are friends on the Senate floor, we differ sometimes on how we ought to proceed and what is needed to meet the needs of our constituents. I respectfully dissent from that position that my friend from Indiana has taken. I believe the $5.5 billion passed by the House is inadequate. I am not just saying that. Read the letters I have had printed today from the American Farm Bureau, the National Wheat Growers, the National Corn Growers, the National Soybean Association, and on and on and on. Every one of them is saying it is inadequate; that we have to provide the same payments to our farmers this year as we did last year. I have heard talk that the markets have improved. That is not true. The livestock sector has gone up a little bit; that is, the livestock sector but not the crop sector. We hear the aggregate income has gone up. Mr. President, say we are in a room of 10 people and we are talking about prescription drug benefits for the elderly. We have 10 people in the room and you put Bill Gates in the room. All of a sudden you say the aggregate income in the room is $1 billion per person so why do you need benefits under Social Security? That is what they are saying. Yes, aggregate income has gone up because of the livestock sector, but that has not happened with the crop sector. Because of the increase in the price of fuel and fertilizers, farmers today are in worse shape than they were last year. The House bill provides 85 percent of the support level we provided last year and the year before. The bill the committee reported out--and it was not a straight party line vote either --the bill we reported out provides for 100 percent of what they got last year and the year before. As I said, all of the groups we have received letters from support this position. I ask that by unanimous consent a letter from the National Cotton Council of America be printed in the Record, along with a position paper from the National Barley Growers Association, and a letter dated today from the Oil Seed Federation, the American Soybean Association, the National Sunflower Association, and the U.S. Canola Association.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes off my time to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am surprised to hear the Senator from Texas talk about how this does not comport with the budget resolution. The Senator from Texas is a member of the Budget Committee. The Senator from Texas must know full well the budget allows $5.5 billion for the Agriculture Committee to expend in fiscal year 2001. The Budget Committee also gave instructions to the Agriculture Committee that the Agriculture Committee could expend up to $7.35 billion in fiscal year 2002. The reason that a point of order does not lie against this bill is not because of what the Budget Committee chairman said but because of the way the budget was written and adopted by the Senate when under the control, I might add, of my friends on the Republican side. I didn't hear the Senator from Texas say at that time when the budget was adopted we shouldn't be doing this--that we should only adopt $5.5 billion for 2001 and nothing for 2002. I didn't hear the Senator from Texas at the time the budget was adopted get up and rail against that. So there it is. We have it in the budget that this committee is authorized to expend up to $7.35 billion in fiscal year 2002. I say to my friend from Texas, we didn't do that. We didn't expend $7.35 billion; we expended about $2 billion of that $7.35 billion that will be spent in fiscal year 2002. The Senator from Texas surely knows we are not spending any 2002 money in 2001. We are spending 2001 money prior to September 30, but the other $2 billion, about, is spent after October 1, which is in fiscal year 2002 and is allowed under the budget agreement adopted by the House and the Senate. I didn't hear the Senator taking issue at that when the budget was adopted. We are only doing what is within our authority to do. Again, the Senator from Texas also went on at some length to read about some of the programs in the bill. I refer to last year's bill when we passed emergency assistance. There was a lot of extraneous stuff put in there because it was felt it was needed. Carbon cycle research was in last year's bill; tobacco research for medicinal purposes; emergency loans for seed producers; water systems for rural and native villages in Alaska; there is the Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species in last year's ``emergency'' bill, along with crop insurance and everything else. I point out to my friend from Texas, there are no new programs in this bill, not one. In last year's bill there was a new program put in that probably, I suppose, we could have said should not have gone in the farm bill, but I thought it was reasonable and it was put in at that time on a soil and water conservation assistance program which was a brand-new program included in the emergency bill last year. I did not hear last year the Senator from Texas getting up and saying that the emergency bill should not include those. He is saying that this year. Again, we made no changes, and we made no policy changes. There is one technical correction included, and I had to smile when I heard the Senator talk about the paperwork reduction in the school nutrition program. Actually, that was requested by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. They actually requested we do that to take care of a problem in paperwork. We said it sounds reasonable. We might as well do it. Why not take care of it? Again, there are no new programs, no new changes. All there is is one technical change in the CRP program, but in last year's emergency package there were a number of technical fixes and changes. There were new programs, as I pointed out. There were changes in eligibility. All that was done. We do not do that, basically, in this bill. There are no new conservation programs. All we are doing is funding the ones that are out of money. I do want to at least address myself very briefly to another issue. I heard some of my friends on the other side say: Yes, we do have a dire situation in agriculture; yes, farmers are hurting; yes, it has not gotten any better since last year. But because Mr. Daniels, the head of OMB, has said he would recommend a veto, we can't meet the needs of farmers out there. I ask my colleagues, who knows agriculture better, Mr. Daniels or the American Farm Bureau Federation? Who knows agriculture better, the National Corn Growers Association or Mr. Daniels? Who knows agriculture better, the National Farmers Union or Mr. Daniels? Who knows agriculture and their needs better, the National Wheat Growers Association or Mr. Daniels at OMB? I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle who understand that we have some real unmet needs out there, we really have some farmers all across America who are hurting, as we have heard from all of their representatives. I say to them: Call on the President. Don't let Mr. Daniels speak for you. I say to my friends who understand agriculture, who understand the needs out there: Call up President Bush and say we need this package. I have heard Senators on the other side--not all of them, but I have heard some of them say we need this assistance; we need the kind of money we are talking about; but because there has been a threat of a veto, we cannot do it. I daresay that if Senators who hold that view were to call up the President and say: Mr. Daniels is wrong on this; we need this money; farmers desperately need it, I, quite frankly, believe the President would listen to the Senators here who represent agricultural States rather than Mr. Daniels. I don't know what Mr. Daniels' background is. I don't know if he is a farmer, if he comes from a farm or not. I don't know, but I don't think he understands what is happening there in agriculture. Last, there was a statement made--I wrote it down--``political grandstanding.'' I resent the implication that what we are doing is political grandstanding. We took a lot of care and time to talk with Senators on both sides of the aisle. I talked with Representatives in the House of Representatives. We met with farm groups to try to fashion a bill that did two things: It met the requirements of the Budget Act and, second, met the needs farmers have out there. I really resent any implication that there is political grandstanding. We may have a difference of opinion on what is needed out there. I can grant there may be some differences of opinion on that. But that is why we have debates. That is why we have votes. But in no way is this political grandstanding. This is what many of us, I think on both sides of the aisle, believe is desperately needed in rural America. Since it is desperately needed, I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will contact the President and tell him this is one time he needs to not listen to the advice of Mr. Daniels but to listen to the advice of our American farmers, their Representatives here in Washington, and the Senators who represent those farm States. I yield the floor. I see my friend from Nebraska is waiting to speak.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, to sum up--and I will come back to this later on--we looked at the Nation as a whole. We looked at all farmers in this country. All farmers need help, plus there are others in rural communities who need help. There are conservation programs, as was pointed out by a letter I read from the 130 Members of the House, that need to be continued beyond the end of this fiscal year. We addressed all of these needs, and we did it within the confines of the budget resolution. Each Senator on that side of the aisle or on this side of the aisle who is opposed to our bill could raise a point of order. But no point of order lies against this bill because it is within the budget resolution. Therefore, there is no reason for the President to veto it, unless he simply does not want our apple farmers to receive help, or to extend the dairy price support program, or to help some of our peanut and cottonseed farmers, and others who need this assistance, or perhaps he doesn't think we should have a nutrition program. Quite frankly, we have met our obligations to provide for the full AMTA payment for fiscal year 2001--the full AMTA payment. The House bill only provides 85 percent. I say to my fellow Senators, if you want to provide the same level of assistance to farmers this year under AMTA as we did last year, you cannot support Senator Lugar's amendment. That will wipe it out and make it only 85 percent, which is what the House bill does. I hope after some more debate we can recognize that we have met our obligations in the Senate Agriculture Committee. This is the right course of action to take for this body and for the President to sign. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a letter from the American School Food Service Association. Dear Senator Harkin: Specifically, we strongly support section 301 to preserve entitlement commodities during the 2001-2002 school year for schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program. That is in our bill, and it is not in the House bill. It is signed by Marcia Smith for the American School Food Service Association. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a letter from the National Association of Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs. I am writing to express the strong support of the National Association of Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs to include $20 million for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot Program in S. 1246. For States and Indian Tribal organizations administering the SFMNPP, an early decision by Congress and administration to continue this small but vital program is of the utmost importance. States and Tribes faced a very short timeframe for application and implementation of this program last year and would be greatly benefited by quick action to renew this new but very popular program. It is signed by Mike Bevins, President of the National Association of Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a letter from the Food and Research Action Center. We urge you to continue your leadership in support for the nutrition programs contained in S. 1246. Our bill does it. The House bill doesn't. It is signed by James D. Weill, president of the Food and Research Action Center. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have another letter, dated today, from the American Farm Bureau Federation: Dear Senator Harkin: The American Farm Bureau Federation supports at least $5.5 billion in supplemental Agricultural Market Transition Act payments and $500 million in market loss assistance payments for oilseeds as part of the emergency spending package for crop year 2001. Our bill does that. Senator Lugar's amendment does not. They state further: We also believe it is imperative to offer assistance to peanut, fruit and vegetable producers. In addition, it is crucial to extend the dairy price support in this bill since the current program will expire in less than two months. All over this country agriculture has been facing historic low prices and increasing production costs. I ask unanimous consent that this letter, dated today, from Mr. Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, be printed in the Record. Again, I point out that our bill meets these needs. The House bill does not. Our bill provides the assistance to peanut, fruit, and vegetable producers, and we do, indeed, extend the dairy price support program beyond its expiration date in 2 months.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a release from the National Farmers Union, in which they say: The National Farmers Union today applauded the Senate Agriculture Committee on its approval of $7.4 billion in emergency assistance for U.S. agriculture producers. I ask unanimous consent that the material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have another piece from the National Corn Growers Association in which they say the National Corn Growers Association is optimistic about the Senate Agriculture Committee's $7.5 billion emergency aid package. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I have a letter from the National Corn Growers Association: Dear Chairman Harkin: We feel strongly that the Committee should disburse these limited funds in a similar manner to the FY00 economic assistance package--addressing the needs of the 8 major crops--corn, wheat, barley, oats, oilseed, sorghum, rice and cotton. . . . Again, we urge the Committee to allocate the market loss assistance payments at the FY99 production flexibility contract payment level for program crops. Our bill does exactly that. The House bill only puts in 85 percent. I ask unanimous consent the letter from the National Corn Growers Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I have a letter dated July 11 from the National Association of Wheat Growers that said: However, given current financial conditions, growers cannot afford the reduced level of support provided by the House in H.R. 2213. Wheat farmers across the nation are counting on a market loss payment at the 1999 PFC rate. Thank you for your leadership and support. Dusty Tallman, President of the National Association of Wheat Growers. What is in our bill provides to wheat farmers across the country a market loss payment at the same rate they got in 1999. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. These are two people who voted for the House-passed bill, which only passed by 1 vote, I might add. So I would say there is a lot of support in the House of Representatives for what we have done in the Senate Agriculture Committee. I believe what we have done truly does provide that bridge. I will close this part of my remarks by just saying we have a limited amount of time. We need to get this bill out. We need to go to conference, which we could do tomorrow. If we can get this bill done today, we can go to conference tomorrow. I believe the conference would not last more than a couple of hours, and we could have this bill back here, I would say no later than late Wednesday, maybe Thursday, for final passage, and we could send it to the President. I believe his senior advisers notwithstanding, the President would listen to the voices here in the House and the Senate as to what is really needed. I also ask unanimous consent to print a news release in the Record that was put out by the American Farm Bureau Federation dated June 21. It says: The House Agriculture Committee's decision to provide only $5.5 billion in a farm relief package ``is disheartening and will not provide sufficient assistance needed by many farm and ranch families,'' said American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. We believe the needs exceed $7 billion. This is according to Mr. Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Then I have a letter also today saying: Dear Senator Harkin: I am writing to you today to express my support for the comprehensive approach you have taken in drafting the Senate agricultural economic assistance bill. In providing important funds for nutrition and conservation, the agriculture economic assistance package recognizes that the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee goes beyond the critically important task of providing economic support for producers of commodities. I urge you to ensure that the bill reported out of the Senate retain these vitally important resources and look forward to working with you to ensure that any bill sent to the President is similarly cognizant of the broad array of issues before the Agriculture Committees of the House and Senate. Eva M. Clayton, Member of Congress. I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I respond to my colleague from Michigan, she is absolutely right, there is nothing in the House bill providing any help for the tremendous loss, 30-some percent loss, that apple producers have experienced in this country. We are talking about apple producers from Oregon, from Washington, Michigan, to Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, all who experienced tremendous losses. Under the AMTA payment system, they don't get money, but they are farmers. They are farmers. Many are family farmers and they need help, too. So I think, I say to my friend from Michigan, what Larry Combest and the 17 others who signed the ``additional views'' on the House bill said was that the bill was too narrow in scope. There are a lot of other farmers in this country who are hurting, who need some help. So, yes, I say to my friend from Michigan, we provided $150 million in there to help our apple farmers. That is a small amount compared to the $7.5 billion in the total package. But it is very meaningful. It will go to those apple producers, and it will save them and keep a lot of them in business for next year, I say to my friend from Michigan. I especially want to thank the Senator from Michigan for bringing this to our attention. To be frank, I don't have a lot of apple growers in Iowa. We have a few, but not to the extent of many other States. It was through the intercession and the great work done by the Senator from Michigan that this was brought to our attention, the terrible plight of our apple farmers all over America. I thank her for sticking up for our family farmers. I just have a couple of other things. The Lugar amendment, the House bill, strikes out all the money we have for conservation. It strikes all the conservation money out. Earlier this year--June 14 of this year--130 Members of the House of Representatives, including many members of the House Agriculture Committee, wrote a letter to Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm. They said: We believe conservation must be the centerpiece of the next farm bill. They talk about the farm bill, but, they said: We should not leave farmers waiting while a new farm bill is debated. We urge you to work with the House Appropriations Committee to increase FY 2002 annual and supplemental funding for voluntary incentive-based programs. In particular, we urge you to use 30 percent of emergency funds to help farmers impacted by drought, flooding and rising energy costs, through conservation programs. Currently, demand for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program exceeds $150 million. Demand for the Farmland Protection Program exceeds $200 million, demand for the Wetlands Reserve Program exceeds $350 million, and demand for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program exceeds $150 million. That is signed by 130 Members of the House. I have to be honest; we didn't meet 30 percent of the emergency funds but we did put in about 7 percent, if I am not mistaken--a little over 7 percent. The Lugar amendment gives zero for conservation--zero. Again, these are family farmers. Many of these farmers do not get the AMTA payments that go out, but they are farmers nonetheless and they need help. Certainly we need to promote conservation because a lot of these farms simply will lie dormant if we do not provide this assistance in this bill. There are two other things I want to point out. I have a letter I received today from some Members of the House--two Members. The House bill passed by 1 vote. The House Agricultural Committee passed out the Lugar amendment. What Senator Lugar is putting out there is the House Agriculture Committee bill. It passed by 1 vote. I have a letter from two members of that committee who voted on the prevailing side. Listen to what they said: Dear Chairman Harkin: Although we supported H.R. 2213--The Crop-Year 2001 Agricultural Economic Assistance Act--as it passed the House of Representatives, we applaud the comprehensive approach you have taken in the aid package passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee to address the many diverse needs of agricultural and rural communities. By including additional funding for conservation programs, nutrition, rural development and research, many farmers in rural communities who do not benefit from the traditional commodity programs will receive assistance this year. In particular, the $542 million you included for conservation programs will help reduce the $2 billion backlog of applications from farmers and ranchers who are waiting for USDA assistance to protect farm and ranchland threatened by sprawling development and critical wetlands and riparian areas for wildlife habitat, water quality, and floodplains. Signed by Representative Ron Kind and Representative Wayne Gilchrest. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to my colleague from Michigan, a valuable member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. HARKIN. The bill reported from the Agriculture Committee meets everything in this letter, signed by all these Senators, sent to Senator Domenici. We have met the need. We have provided for the same market loss assistance payment this year as provided last year. The House bill that Senator Lugar has introduced as an amendment provides 85 percent of what was provided last year; the Agriculture Committee bill provides 100 percent. I hope Senators who sent this letter earlier to Senator Domenici recognize we met these needs; we provided 100 percent, exactly what they asked for, the same as available for the 2000 crop. As Senator Conrad pointed out, the gap, as pointed out in the letter, in rapidly increasing input costs, fuel, fertilizer, and high interest rates, still means farmers have a big gap out there between prices they are receiving and what they are paying out.