Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I think I am probably running out of time.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for clarifying that. Again, I make the point that I think we do see some movement. I am still hopeful we can reach a decent compromise on these packages. I believe that is accomplishable. I think we can accomplish that. I might just say that I think the $400 million in disaster payments for this year, I say to my friend from Kansas, is still inadequate, too low. From all of the indications we get from disasters up and down the east coast, in the Mid-Atlantic States, plus some of the disaster we have had out in North Dakota and other places, and flooding, as we have had in my State of Iowa, $400 million is simply not going to be enough to handle the disasters this year. I think we need to work a little bit more on that in terms of disaster payments for this year. The $400 million you put in for the crop insurance, I applaud. We had that in our bill. I think that is a good measure. I am a little concerned about the payments for oilseeds. Here is where we get into the policy issue on the AMTA payments and LDP.

Mr. HARKIN. In examining this amendment now before us, the difference is about $800 million, give or take a little bit. So while the package yesterday was about 6.9, this raises it to about 7.7, if I am not mistaken. My opinion on this, Mr. President, is that while we are making some movements here, I think things are working right. I yield again to my friend from Kansas.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I just respond to my friend from Oklahoma by saying that they can still go ahead and have the hearings and everything else after we adopt the sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Nothing prevents the committee from going ahead and meeting and having the blue-ribbon panel appear, and proceed with hearings. But we ought to express ourselves here as to the health issues that confront us. I also point out to my friend from Oklahoma that I was reading the blue-ribbon panel's page here on this, and I thought I might read the pertinent parts because it is not quite exactly as my friend from Oklahoma said. On page 6 it says: ``Recommendations for Blending Fuel for Clean Air and Water.'' Based on its review of the current water protection programs, and the likely progress that can be made in tightening and strengthening those programs by implementing Recommendations 1-9 above, the Panel agreed broadly, although not unanimously, that even enhanced protection programs will not give adequate assurance that water supplies will be protected, and that changes need to be made to the RFG [the reformulated gasoline] program to reduce the amount of MTBE being used, while ensuring that the air quality benefits of RFG, and fuel supply and price stability, are maintained. The next paragraph said: The key elements of that package, described in more detail below, are: Action agreed to broadly by the Panel to reduce the use of MTBE substantially (with some members supporting its complete phaseout), and action by Congress to clarify federal and state authority to regulate and/or eliminate the use of gasoline additives that threaten drinking water supplies. . . So I think it is quite clear where they are headed on that: To reduce MTBE use substantially. Some members even wanted its total elimination. Mr. President, what we are talking about here is a health issue. I find it astounding----

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend from Kansas will yield for a couple of questions so I can better discern what we have here. I ask the author of the amendment exactly how this differs from the last package, the Cochran amendment, which is set aside right now. As I look at it, the difference between this package and what we voted on yesterday, the Cochran amendment, is $400 million for crop insurance premium reductions and $400 million for disaster payments for 1999 crop losses. Is that correct?

Mr. HARKIN. Well, I have looked at other things in the bill and I can't find any differences other than that.

Mr. HARKIN. The other point--and, again, I ask the Senator; maybe he can't figure it out now, but maybe his staff can pencil it out--as I look at the bill, you have reduced the livestock and dairy portion of the Cochran amendment from $325 million to $250 million.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time do we have?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, I compliment and thank my colleague from North Dakota for crafting this new proposal and for all of his hard work on behalf of farmers and ranchers all over this country. Senator Dorgan has, indeed, been a leader in this Senate in focusing attention on the fact that so many of our farmers and ranchers are in dire straits, and that we need a substantial package of relief and help to get them through this winter and into next year. What Senator Dorgan has now sent to the desk is, hopefully, a reaching out to our colleagues and friends on the Republican side to join us in this effort. The proposal we had yesterday that I had offered was $10.7 billion. This is now $1 billion less. So we have come down $1 billion. We have taken some money out of places which, quite frankly, this Senator thinks is going to be hard to explain to some farmers. But in order to try to reach an agreement with our colleagues on the other side, for at least a meaningful package, Senator Dorgan and I and others have crafted this new package that is $1 billion less than what we offered yesterday. This may, indeed, be the Senate's last chance to vote on a meaningful package of support for our farmers and ranchers. Again, the amounts that are in this package are pretty close to the minimum of what we are going to need. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we have the proposal again before us that, as I understand it, is about $400 million more than what it was yesterday. I don't know, the Senator from Mississippi might correct me on that, but I think it is about $400 million more. I think that includes crop insurance.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. That is a step in the right direction to put that $400 million for the Crop Insurance Program. That was in our initial proposal. I am delighted to see it in this one. But I must say the entire package is still not enough. Will it help? Sure, it will help. Heck, $100 would help. I have farmers out in my area who would take $100. One thousand dollars would help. Yes; this will help. If I might analogize it a little bit, it is the kind of help that if a person is out there drowning in deep water, and you throw him one of those little life preservers, the drowning person grabs ahold of the life preserver, only to find out there is a slow leak in it. It is going to keep that person alive for a while, give him a few more moments of life on Earth. Then the air is going to go out. That is sort of the way I see the Republican amendment before us now. It will help. It will get some farmers through. It is going to leave a lot behind. I think it is going to hold out some false hopes. The last thing our farmers and ranchers need now is false hope. They need real hope that we are going to significantly address the problem. Again, I point out that the amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi includes payments that go out to farmers all as agriculture marketing transition adjustment payments, so-called AMTA payments. These payments are based upon old-fashioned, outdated ag policies. What I mean by that is that the AMTA payments are based upon something known as base acres and proven yields. Base acres has gone out the window; we don't have that any longer; and yet they reach back, years back, to take base acres and proven yields in order to make the payments. I want to forewarn my colleagues: You are going to see a lot of stories in the paper this fall and this winter about people getting these payments who aren't even farming, aren't even raising a crop. But they are going to get them because several years ago, 10 years ago, they had some base acres and they had an established proven yield. They may not even have that any longer, but they are going to get a payment. They are going to get an AMTA payment. Yet a young producer who may not even have been in business 10 years ago, who started up in this decade, does not have base acres, does not have proven yields, but they are out there struggling to get by, they are not going to get the same AMTA payment. They will get a modest LDP this fall that is already in the bill, but this amendment offers no further relief under the loan deficiency payments. To be sure, I understand that Senator Cochran's amendment has a $500 million payment to soybeans and oilseeds. Again, that is helpful. But under our LDP program the payments to soybean producers would be in the neighborhood of about $1 billion, not $500 million. They deserve some help also. I shouldn't just say soybeans. I mean all oilseeds, whether it is safflower or canola oilseeds, would also get more under the LDP payment than they would under the AMTA payment. That is why I believe the Cochran amendment is still insufficient and why I believe the amendment sent forward by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, again may be our last best hope to get meaningful help to all the farmers--all of them, not just a few. I thank the Senator for yielding the time.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from Mississippi for letting us have this additional time. Again, I rise to support the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota and my colleague from Iowa. Sure, there are some things in this with which I do not agree. I do not think it all ought to go out in AMTA payments. Obviously, the body has spoken. The Republicans have the votes on that. So it is done. There is a better way of putting it out through the LDP system, but that is a moot point right now. What we are down to is really how much we are going to put out there and whether or not we are going to dribble it out or do something meaningful. We keep coming down from the amendment we offered the other day for about 10.7; then we came down to 9.8, and I guess this now is about 8.5.

Mr. HARKIN. It is 8.8. So, again, I hope that Senators will see fit to at least endorse and vote for this package. The amendment offered by Senator Cochran has no money for section 32 purchases, which I think is going to be very important for our pork and cattlemen, to buy up some of this excess stuff we have and put it into food banks, school lunch programs, and things such as that. I also must say there is no money in the Cochran amendment for price reporting. Quite frankly, I still think we have an obligation to do something about the unmet needs from the 1998 floods we had that so devastated North Dakota and some other parts of this country. Quite frankly, in this amendment, this compromise proposal that Senator Conrad and Senator Grassley have offered, there is money for that. So I think it does represent a true compromise. It represents a sort of meeting between where we started yesterday and where the manager of the bill started. Again, I think there are some provisions in there I wish we could have changed, but we had our votes and we were not on the winning side of that. So I think we can at least now have an agreement to get the amount of money out there, even though it is through the AMTA payments, that is needed and to provide some of the money for some of the areas that the Cochran amendment has omitted. I thank the managers, and I thank Senator Conrad for yielding me this time. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. I beg to differ. The blue-ribbon panel's conclusions support the Senator's resolution. What we are talking about is phasing out MTBE, and encouraging the use of ethanol--an oxygenate that reduces air pollution and at the same time does not contaminate water supplies or adversely affect health. That is what we are talking about. I was responding to the point of the Senator from Oklahoma about what the blue-ribbon panel was saying. They were clearly saying that we ought to substantially reduce or eliminate the use of MTBE. They want to make sure we have a fuel supply that is not a health hazard to our people. That is what they are saying. That is really the issue before us. It is a health issue, pure and simple. Again, I find it astounding that people can argue and say: We have a lot of MTBE out there; forget that it is a possible human carcinogen; forget that it is highly polluting; let's go ahead and keep using it because, quite frankly, we don't have anything to replace it with right now. That is the sort of argument that is being used. I thought the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, laid out quite succinctly how dangerous MTBE is. We have been told, first by the Senator from Texas, that it is just a matter of leaking tanks. Well, that is not just it at all. Senator Durbin pointed out motor boats, motor skis, everything else, lawn mowers, motorcycles, airplanes, everything else that is using MTBE all leak a little bit, and every time it leaks, MTBE gets into the surface water and ground water. One might say: Well, it is the gasoline leak that is the problem, and not what is in the gasoline. But when you have a gasoline leak, most of the components in gasoline, tend to break down. MTBE breaks down very little and very slowly, and it permeates rapidly. It is highly soluble in water, when it gets in water. If you put some oil in water, it doesn't mix. It can be separated out. But when MTBE gets in water, because of its chemical properties, it permeates the water quite rapidly, and that is what makes it so tough to get it out. It is not like oil or gasoline in water at all. It is highly soluble in the water. As Senator Durbin pointed out, the U.S. Geologic Survey has found that MTBE is the second most commonly found contaminant in ground water. But it has been in widespread use for only about 7 years. The second most prevalent contaminant in ground water in the United States, in a matter of only 7 years. EPA estimates that MTBE already can be detected in 5 to 10 percent of water supplies nationwide. MTBE has been found to be leaking into groundwater at over 10,000 sites in California. A state report in Maine found that anywhere from 1,000 to 4,300 private wells could contain unhealthful levels of MTBE. And in New Hampshire, MTBE has been found in 100 public wells and water supplies. Five parts per billion is enough to contaminate water and make it taste and smell like turpentine. As I said, it is highly toxic. It is a poison. It permeates rapidly. I think I would like to review a little bit some of the history of why we are here. In 1990, when we passed the Clean Air Act, trying to reduce the pollutants in automobile gasoline, we wanted to get rid of the witch's brew--we always called it the witch's brew--of toxins that were basically used as octane enhancers, such as benzene, xylene and toluene, highly toxic, highly poisonous substances used to enhance octane and performance. In order to get rid of those toxics, while maintaining gasoline performance, something was needed to replace them. The oxygenates make a cleaner burning gasoline while improving octane and gasoline performance. So we came up with the oxygen content standard in the Clean Air Act so that we could have cleaner gasoline, and reduce the toxics and carbon monoxide emissions. The oxygenate in the fuel does that. It reduces carbon monoxide. We all know what carbon monoxide is-- a pollutant that makes you sick or kills you. So we came up with the oxygenate standard for that. We got rid of pollution and carbon monoxide. Both MTBE and ethanol were octane enhancers so they could be used to make cleaner gasoline and replace the witch's brew of toxics like xylene and benzene and toluene. Because MTBE is a derivative of petroleum, it was much easier to get the MTBE and to use it and to have it marketed more rapidly around the country than ethanol. That is why MTBE became the largest part of the oxygenate supply for the reformulated gasoline program. I freely admit that MTBE does do some good in reducing air pollution. I would never argue that it doesn't; of course, it does. But we have found that the downside is even worse in terms of its pollution of water supplies. So we say, are we on the horns of a dilemma? We have MTBE. It reduces air pollution. It keeps the octane up. But it terribly pollutes our ground water. Is there nothing we can do? Well, yes, there is. We can move toward using more ethanol. Now, ethanol is a renewable fuel that provides the clean air benefits, but it will not pollute ground water. Ethanol is so safe one can drink it. It is about 190 proof. That is what it is, basically 190 proof, good old corn alcohol. That is all it is. You can drink it if you want. It is pretty strong, but it won't hurt you. So we can replace it MTBE with ethanol. Senator Gramm talked about the vapor pressure, the fact that when you mix ethanol with gasoline, a funny thing happens. It becomes more volatile. True. Therefore, they say because it is more volatile, it evaporates and it causes ozone. Well, I have looked at that, and quite frankly, I think the conclusions about evaporation are outdated and not valid. First of all, it is true that the Reid vapor pressure does go up, so it is more evaporative. But if you look at the design and building of automobiles since that time, you find that automobiles are not like they were 20 years ago. The gas tanks have a sealing flap on them. All gas tanks have an airtight lock on them now, all cars built probably within the last 10 to 15 years. Almost all new cars use fuel injection. They don't have carburetors like the old cars used to have. There isn't that much evaporation from automobiles, even when they sit in the hot summer sun. It may be true of older cars, but not of the new cars that have been built within the last 10 or 15 years. Secondly, at most of the gas pumps in the United States now, they have a recapturing mechanism to recapture the fumes from the pumps. So those that say that because we mix ethanol with gasoline and it evaporates and causes ozone, that is based upon studies that I believe are not valid and are outdated. We do know one thing about ethanol. It reduces carbon monoxide tailpipe emissions. And carbon monoxide contributes to ozone formation. The air quality benefits of reduced carbon monoxide emissions has to be taken into account when talking about the evaporation of gasoline containing ethanol. So we have a proposition. We can replace MTBE with ethanol. We can enhance the octane. We can clean up the gasoline, cut the toxics and reduce carbon monoxide, and there is absolutely no pollution water pollution. But Senator Gramm and others have said, and the Senator from Oklahoma, we can't do that. The reason we can't do that is because we don't have an alternative in place right now to replace MTBE. If I read the sense-of-the-Senate resolution of the Senator from California, it doesn't say we have to do this immediately. It says: It is the sense of the Senate that the United States should, one, phase out MTBE in order to address the threats that MTBE poses to public health and the environment--phase it out. We didn't put a time limit on it, just phase it out. Well, let me, for the record, point out how we can, without disruptions in fuel supplies, replace MTBE with nonpolluting ethanol. We now produce about 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol annually. We use about 1.2 billion gallons of that in this country and we export the rest. We would need about an additional 2.1 to 2.2 billion gallons of ethanol production to replace MTBE. The current ethanol production capacity that we have in the United States right now is about 1.8 billion gallons annually. So to replace MTBE, the U.S. would need to have the capacity to produce about 3.3 billion gallons of ethanol each year. That is the 1.2 billion that we use domestically, plus the 2.1 it would take to replace MTBE. So that would be about 3.3 billion gallons. In checking with the producers of ethanol, they have told me ethanol production could be ramped up anywhere in 2.5 to 3 years to meet those requirements. We already have 1.8 billion gallons of annual ethanol production capacity. We don't even have to double it in order to meet the requirements of replacing MTBE. I point out that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's analysis supports this conclusion that we could, within 2.5 years, and at the most 3 years, ramp up the production of ethanol to replace MTBE. I would have to admit there is probably no way we can phase out MTBE in probably less than 2.5 to 3 years. So as we phase out MTBE, we could ramp up the production of ethanol. Now, my friend from Oklahoma said we don't have the transportation facilities and things such as that. They would come along, plus, I daresay that ethanol would be produced in a lot of different places in the country. Now it is mostly produced in the Midwest, but it will probably be produced in a lot of other areas in the United States. So for the reasons of health, for the reasons of making sure we don't further contaminate our ground water and our water supplies in this country, to ensure that we are able to replace MTBE in an orderly fashion with a renewable fuel produced here in this country, I support the sense-of-the-Senate amendment offered by the Senator from California, Senator Fitzgerald, and others. Lastly, I want to make one more point. The Senator from Texas went on about subsidies for ethanol. I don't think he wants to get involved in that subject. Quite frankly, we have the data to show that the tax breaks to the oil industry vastly exceed the modest tax incentives for ethanol. That is just during the recent past, not to mention all the tax and other subsidies the oil industry has gotten over the last 100 years or so from the U.S. Government. So I don't think the Senator from Texas wants to get involved in talking about subsidies, especially when we can point out the huge tax subsidies the oil industry has gotten over all these years. In conclusion, the issue before us is framed this evening primarily as an environmental and health issue, pure and simple. All of these arguments from the other side notwithstanding, what we are about is saying the Senate is going on record that we ought to phase out MTBE and to promote renewable ethanol to replace MTBE. Ethanol enhances energy security, it supports the farm economy, it improves air quality and the environment. There are many reasons to support ethanol, but when it comes down to the crux of the debate tonight we are talking about the extensive water contamination caused by MTBE and the fact that with ethanol we have a clean and safe alternative to take its place. That is what this debate is about. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. I am told it was $50 million in the Cochran.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of Senators Daschle, Wellstone, and myself to provide an additional $2 million for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, known as GIPSA. This agency performs a critical role in ensuring open markets and fair trade practices for the livestock market. These are issues of great concern to livestock producers, especially in recent years as low prices have raised questions about decreasing competition, inadequate price information and possible abuses of market power. The Packers and Stockyards Program at GIPSA already has large demands placed on its investigative, analytical and legal resources. Congress and others are putting pressure on GIPSA to conduct more and more sophisticated investigations under significant time pressure. One of the strongest needs is for rapid response teams which are sent out to specific areas where serious complaints are occurring to quickly determine what is happening and to quickly resolve the problems that are occurring so farmers can get real relief in a timely manner. GIPSA continues to oversee contracting practices, which are the subject of increasing concern, scrutiny and debate. In an ever-faster paced market, GIPSA must have the resources to meet its responsibilities. These additional funds are essential to ensuring that the nation's livestock markets remain fair and open to all producers. The amendment is paid for by reducing the funding for the Economic Research Service. The reduction will be from academic research contracted out by that agency. chile as specialty crop

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we just had a vote on a package that was proposed by the other side which would have gone out in direct payments to farmers as sort of income support for the low prices this year. The motion to table was unsuccessful. But I note that the vote was 51-47, a very close vote, to be sure. So now, under the previous arrangement, the first-degree amendment offered by Senator Daschle and I, and others on this side, is now the pending amendment. I would like to explain for a couple of minutes the differences between what we have proposed and what was previously voted on. The package that was previously voted on was basically direct payments to farmers, AMTA payments, transition-type payments, which would go out. Our package is a lot more comprehensive in that it addresses not only the income loss of farmers this year because of disastrously low prices, but our proposal also has $2.6 billion in there for disaster assistance. It covers such things as the 30-percent premium discount for crop insurance, so we can get farmers to buy more crop insurance all over America. We have money in there for 1998 disaster programs that were not fully compensated for with money from last fall's disaster package. We have some livestock assistance programs, Section 32 funding, related to natural disasters, and flooded land programs. I might also point out that because of the disastrous drought affecting the East Coast, we have money in our proposal that would cover disaster payments to farmers up and down the Middle Atlantic because of the severe drought that is happening. I might also point out that because of the need to get this money out rapidly to farmers, we have adequate funds in our disaster provision for staffing needs for the Farm Service Agency, so they can get these funds out in a hurry to our farmers. I also point out that in the proposal now before us, we have an emergency conservation program for watershed and for wetlands restoration. We have some trade provisions that I think are eminently very important. They include $1.4 billion that would go for humanitarian assistance. This would be to purchase oilseed and products, and other food grains that would be sent in humanitarian assistance to starving people around the world. That was not in the previous amendment we voted on.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield?

Mr. HARKIN. First, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his statement, which is exemplary in its clarity. The arguments the Senator has made, the point he made, this should crystallize clearly what this debate is all about, what is happening, what we are all talking about. I picked up on one thing the Senator said--that under the Republican's proposal the payments would go out without regard to whether someone was producing anything or not; it could actually go out to absentee landlords, people who are not on the farm, hadn't even planted anything. As the Senator knows, the AMTA payments that are in their bill go out without regard to whether they are planting anything or not. It is based upon outdated, outmoded provisions of base acreages and proven yields. It goes back as far as 20 years. I wonder if it occurred to the Senator from North Dakota--I heard a couple of Republicans this morning talk about the failed policies of the past. Yet they are basing their payments on a policy that goes back 20 years, base acreages and proven yields, which any farmer will tell you has no basis in reality as to what is going on in the farm today. I am curious. Does the Senator have any idea why they would want to make payments based on something that is not even happening out there today? It is not even based on production, not helping the family farmer. I am still a little confused as to why they would suggest that kind of payment mechanism rather than what we are suggesting, which goes out to farmers based on the crops they bring in from the fields.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield further, the Senator has stated it absolutely correctly. I was interested in the chart there of wheat prices. I ask the Senator if he would put it back up there again, on wheat prices. It just about mirrors corn and soybeans, all the major production crops in the Southwest. I have an article from the Wichita Eagle, from 1995, I believe. It is an article written by the distinguished Senator from Kansas. I think he was a House Member at the time, Senator Roberts. So this article says: Good Bill for Farm Reality, by Pat Roberts. The first sentence says: My Freedom to Farm legislation now before Congress is a new agricultural policy for a new century. ``My Freedom to Farm. . . .'' That is by Pat Roberts, now Senator Roberts. I want to read to the Senator from North Dakota this paragraph in there. He says: Finally, Freedom to Farm enhances the farmer's total economic situation. In fact, the bill results in the highest net farm income over the next seven years of any proposal before Congress. He says: The AMTA payment cushions the Nation's agriculture economy from collapse during the 7-year transition process. I have to ask my friend from South Dakota, are your farmers receiving the highest net farm income that they have received ever in any farm program? Are they receiving the highest farm income? And are your farmers being cushioned by the Freedom to Farm bill?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the minority leader. emergency farm relief

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, what is the unanimous consent request?

Mr. HARKIN. Just for a question. I think the Senator from Minnesota put his finger on it. When I heard the Senator from Kansas speak, it seemed as if what he was saying was that we are going to leave farmers and ranchers out there at the mercy of the grain companies, the packers, the wholesalers, the retailers, and the processors. They are making money in the domestic market, but the farmers are not. I ask the Senator from Minnesota: Does the Senator believe that it is a viable responsibility for our government to ensure that family farmers have some bargaining power, some power out there in the marketplace so they can get a better share of the consumer dollar that is being spent in America today? I add to that, I say to the Senator, that under previous farm programs--and under what we have been advocating in terms of raising loan rates and providing for storage and things such as that--they provided that farmers have a little bit better bargaining power in terms of selling their crops, and thus hopefully getting a better portion of their income from the market. I thought it was a curious argument for a conservative from Kansas to be making that the measure of the success of the Freedom to Farm bill is how the Government checks go out to farmers. I find that a curious argument. My question to the Senator is whether or not it is a legitimate role for the Federal Government to play to help level the playing field between farmers and those who buy their products from the farm.