Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the leader for yielding before he makes a motion. I will not take more than a couple of minutes. I didn't get a chance to make a couple of points earlier in the day. I want to say a few words about the great work of the Senator from West Virginia. I opened the New York Times this morning and saw his picture. He was standing in a drought-stricken cornfield in West Virginia yesterday with the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Glickman. He called me on the phone yesterday before the Secretary had gotten there. We talked about the terrible drought situation facing the farmers in West Virginia. Senator Byrd wanted to make sure that we addressed that situation, which we have in our bill, to address the severe drought situation not only in West Virginia but on the entire east coast. I also heard personally from Senator Byrd on the great problem facing our livestock farmers. So we have placed in this amendment an amount of $200 million to be added to Section 32 funds to be used for assistance to livestock producers who have suffered losses from excessive heat and drought in declared disaster areas. Again, I commend Senator Byrd from West Virginia for bringing this to our attention so we were able to put this amount of money into the bill for livestock producers. I also want to mention a couple of other things that were not said earlier. We have some situations where crops have suffered damage, some in 1998 and some in 1999, where the existing farm programs are not adequately addressing the situation and the problems. So we provided $500 million in our amendment to respond to these situations, in other words, to take a comprehensive view of the disasters that have struck many farmers around the country. We have problems with the citrus crop in California, with apples and onions in New York, that I understand is a $50 million problem. We expect the Secretary to also address that situation with crops in New Jersey, New Mexico, and I know in other States. We have done all we can in our bill to accommodate the request to address these issues in a comprehensive manner in disaster payments. Again, I point out we take care of those disasters in our bill. Those are not addressed in the bill put forward by the other side. Last, I point out that Section 32 funding is also available to purchase commodities to reduce surpluses in a lot of different areas. That is why Section 32 funding is so important. I expect at least $3 million would be available to make up the existing shortfall in the TEFAP funding under our proposal. I thank Senator Daschle again for his great leadership on this bill. We may have to continue to do some work, but I agree with our leader, we have to do something before we leave here this week. I thank him for his leadership and yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, who controls time?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely right. There was no disaster assistance in the other bill. There is disaster assistance in ours--$2.6 billion that would cover the droughts, cover the floods, and cover a lot of the natural disasters that have befallen farmers all over America. That is a big difference in these two bills. That is encompassing the bill that we now have before us. Lastly, I would like to say that the payments that go out under our bill go out to producers and go out to actual farmers. Under the bill that we just voted on, some of the payments would go out to people who maybe didn't even plant a thing this year. They may not have even lived on a farm. This has to do with 20-year-old base acreages and program yields. So a lot of money can go out to people who aren't farming any longer. Our payments go out to actual farmers and people who are actually out there on the land. I yield to my friend from New York.

Mr. HARKIN. Absolutely. In response to my friend from New York, absolutely for New York and all the States in the upper Northeast. It is not only just the price problem that you have. You have some disasters hitting you up there, and no money to help those farmers is included in their bill. That is why it is so important that this bill is passed and not tabled. I hope Senators will recognize that in this bill it is not only income support, but it is also disaster payments to farmers. Mr. President, how much time do we have left on this side?

Mr. HARKIN. I reserve that time in case our leader wants to use it. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. May we have order, please. This is an important amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. In one second, I will. Also, we have some emergency economic development because the disasters that have befallen our farmers and the low grain prices have affected many of our people in the smaller communities. We have funds for those problems also. I yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator will yield. I would like to ask the Senator a question.

Mr. HARKIN. I didn't get a copy of the amendment. What is the bottom line? What is the total package?

Mr. HARKIN. I understand there is a vote at 5:30.

Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry. After that vote is over, will we return then to the Agriculture appropriations bill?

Mr. HARKIN. I will be delighted to respond to the Senator, but I understand our time is up. Madam President, if I might inquire what the parliamentary situation is right now?

Mr. HARKIN. A little bit over half. Give them the benefit of the doubt-- about half, though.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. We will not take that long. As the Senator knows, I have tremendous respect for my chairman of the Agriculture Committee. But I wanted to wrap up our presentation with a short colloquy with my fellow Senators prior to yielding the floor. If I might, Mr. President, let me try to conclude the remarks that I had earlier. Did the Senator have a question?

Mr. HARKIN. Again, I think we ought to be here to help people who really need some help and get it out. To me, that is going way beyond the bounds there. I yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Mississippi that I don't intend to talk too much longer. I did want to engage in a colloquy with a couple of Senators who wanted to do so. I don't imagine it will take that long--a little bit of time, not that long.

Mr. HARKIN. He would have fed you pretty well, too.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Traci Parmenter, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate it.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Minnesota, I hope each of us in our own capacity would understand what is happening out there right now. We are not blind. We are not deaf. We are not without the capability of going out in the countryside and talking to farmers and listening to them. We all do that. If we have eyes to see and ears to hear and a decent knowledge of what is happening on the farms, I hope we will not have to have all the rallies and have farmers come to big meetings to try to impress upon us this need. I daresay, however, the way things are going that will happen. If we do not address the underlying aspects of the Freedom to Farm bill, you are going to get more and more farmers out to these meetings, especially after harvest. Of course, farmers are busy during the harvest. You will not see too many of them probably in the fall. It is going to be a long, cold winter if we do not change the underlying bill. It will not be just the farmers, you will have the bankers come in. I have heard from bankers in, and you are going to have people from small towns and communities, the school boards and everybody else saying: Look, what is happening? Our towns are drying up. I say to my friend from Minnesota, I hope we will not force farmers to go to meetings and plead with us to recognize the dire straits they are in. We know it. We know what it is like out there. We have all the data. We have the statistics. We know what the prices are like. Pick up the newspaper and read what the prices are. Look at what futures prices are. I had a chart earlier today about the prices. Cash price of soybeans is down about half, about 45 percent in about the last 2 years. You do not really need much more than that to understand what the problem is, I say to my friend from Minnesota. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an outline of the $10.793 billion that is in the first-degree amendment, which is pending at the desk, outlining the different line items and where that money goes so people can look at it tonight.

Mr. HARKIN. Senator Conrad, the other Senator from North Dakota, offered it. That was to provide that planting flexibility. We were all for that. There was no one here who was not for that. I think farmers by and large got very confused by that. They were told by our friends on the other side of the aisle you had to have Freedom to Farm to get flexibility. That is not so. What happened with Freedom to Farm is that it took away the safety net and we are in the situation we are in right now. I repeat, for emphasis' sake, these big cash payments are an inherent part of the Freedom to Farm bill. I will yield for one more question.

Mr. HARKIN. I respond to my friend from North Dakota: These big cash payments are an inherent part of the Freedom to Farm bill--an inherent part of it. A lot of that money goes to the big operators. Yet we have our family farmers out there who are just trying to get by. That is why this Freedom to Farm bill--I wish I could say just one good thing--the only good thing about Freedom to Farm was flexibility. It gave the farmer planting flexibility. But as the Senator from North Dakota might remember, when we were debating the farm bill, the Senator from North Dakota offered an amendment to provide the planting flexibility to farmers and still have a farm program that provided higher loan rates and storage payments and some set-asides within the confines of the farm program. If I am not mistaken, it was the Senator from North Dakota who offered the amendment to provide the flexibility to farmers to plant what they wanted, where they wanted, and yet it was defeated on a party-line vote. So there were those who sold to the farmers the Freedom to Farm bill on the basis that they would have planting flexibility. But we did so in our proposal. We provided planting flexibility in our alternative--I believe it was the Senator from North Dakota who offered it----

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is onto something regarding payment limitations. In the Republicans' proposal, the maximum payments that an individual can receive--by setting up partnerships or corporations to maneuver around the limits--would be $460,000. Nearly half a million dollars to one individual.