Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I inquire of my colleague from Arkansas as to how much time she would request.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield Senator Lincoln 5 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask the Chair how much time is remaining on my side?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have 4 minutes remaining.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Let me say very quickly in wrapping up, I appreciate working with the chairman, and I think he made a good faith effort. As far as the conservation is concerned, I will respond by saying I offered increases: The average annual funding level from $200 million to $1.3 billion a year for the EQIP program. Livestock and crop producers each receive 50 percent of the funding. On the issue of the rice, the average gross receipts over the 5 years is $11.90 per hundredweight under the House bill and the amendment I offered. Yes, yours is higher, but they are not being penalized. It is a bill and a position that the Rice Federation and rice producers endorsed because they knew it was good for rice when the bill was introduced. However, we could argue day and night about this funding and which bill is better for the various crops. The reality is, if Members want a farm bill this year, if Members want a bill this year, this is it. You can bump it up another few billion and maybe everybody in the world will be happy, but if you cannot pass the bill, it doesn't help the farmers. The latest figures show that the Harkin substitute would cost $45.2 billion over baseline in the first 5 years, leaving only $28.3 billion for the second 5 years. Basically, if we do this, we will eliminate the funding available in the years 2007 - 2011. That is why I say these will be the years of plenty and those will be the years of famine. This amendment is balanced, and it is reasonable, and it has broad support in the Agriculture Committee and the agricultural community. It is bipartisan. It was introduced as a bipartisan bill. The basic, underlying, fundamental point is this: It is the only bill that is conferenceable with the House. It is the only bill that has any chance at all of being signed into law this year. If you have told your farmers that you are going to do everything within your power to get a farm bill passed this year, then you need to vote for this amendment. This will be the highest of ironies, I say to my friend from Kansas, that those who have said they don't want to delay a farm bill are going to vote against the one vehicle by which they can get a farm bill this year; that those who have said there are obstructionists trying to get a farm bill passed will be in a position of voting against the one that could be signed into law by the end of this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am so pleased today to be able to rise in support of this legislation. I think it is an exciting day and a memorable day for America that we adopt this legislation. As a member of the Health and Education Committee and a member of the conference committee on this bill, I have worked long and hard with my colleagues to ensure that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act comes to fruition. I especially want to thank President Bush. When he came to Washington, he came with a vision to reform education. This is a big step toward the fulfillment of that vision. President Bush shows a true compassion for helping disadvantaged students gain the tools to succeed, a compassion he gained in his work as Governor. It is that vision and compassion that have gotten us to this point of final passage. President Bush is to be commended for his efforts and his vision. I thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on the committee, and for his chairmanship, his perseverance, and his willingness to reach compromise and agreement on a number of issues. It has been a great pleasure for me to be able to work with Senator Gregg, as he has, through all the twists and turns in the long road of this past year, continued to fight for accountability and expanded options for parents. I admire his commitment to this legislation, and I am proud to have worked with him and to serve under his leadership on the HELP Committee. Starting in the early months of 1999, the Senate Health and Education Committee began holding hearings on ESEA. The Senate attempted to pass an ESEA reauthorization bill during the 106th Congress, but was not successful. Almost three years later, final passage is before us. The impetus that has gotten to this point after a long and arduous process is our President. President Bush has made education his number one domestic priority, and has injected new ideas and a deep sense of passion into this debate. Without his leadership, we would not be here today. This bill reflects the themes that were laid out by the President last year: accountability, parental options, flexibility, and funding what works. This legislation will finally inject new accountability into the title I program. For too long, we have provided billions of dollars in funding without seeing any results. In the past, we have let our poorest children down--no longer will we let this happen. Our Nation has a right to expect all of our children to learn, and this legislation will help local school districts identify their weaknesses and address them. Schools, for the first time, will be held to a high standard. It is time that we stop making excuses and expect results from our schools. There will be stumbling blocks along the way, and this bill is not perfect, but the education of our children is too vital to delay education reform. There are a number of components that I am particularly pleased to see included in the bill. The provision regarding supplemental services, for which Senator Gregg has worked so diligently, is one of them. Under this legislation, in approximately 3,000 schools across the country, parents will have an immediate option to get help for their children through tutoring at their local Sylvan Center or afterschool program. Because of this legislation, over 200 schools in Arkansas will now provide public school choice immediately to parents to allow them to send their children to a higher performing public school. I am very pleased with the provision called transferability that will allow every school district in the country to shift up to 50 percent of Federal funds between formula grant programs, with the exception of title I. This will allow school districts to address priorities from year to year as they see fit. I am also very pleased with the rural education initiative, proposed and championed by Senator Collins, that will allow over 100 school districts in Arkansas to receive additional funding and flexibility over their formula funds. As Senator Gregg mentioned, I am particularly glad to have been involved in the bilingual reforms that will now ensure fairness in the distribution of dollars by turning the bilingual program into a formula grant program. It will benefit States such as Arkansas that never did well in the competitive grant competitions. For the first time, States must now set objectives for students to learn English, a component that was amazingly absent from the previous bilingual program. I am glad to have been able to offer an amendment that allowed professional development funds for our teachers to now be used to reward the best teachers. That is a very commonsense and important reform in allowing those teacher development funds to be used in programs to reward those teachers who have the best record of performance. This legislation is a giant step in education reform and represents a bipartisan agreement between Republicans, Democrats, the House, the Senate, and the administration. I am pleased to have worked on the bill and look forward to President Bush signing it into law. I thank him for his vision and leadership. Education reform was a fleeting thought a year ago. Thanks to George W. Bush, it is now a reality.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to go back to the farm bill to offer an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I filed an amendment. I know I cannot call it up tonight. I hoped to be able to lay down this amendment this evening. At this point, I can't. But hopefully we will be able to work out a means by which I can lay that amendment down tomorrow morning before the cloture vote tomorrow afternoon. The amendment I filed this evening is the bipartisan farm bill that had been filed earlier by Senator Lincoln, myself, Senator Helms, Senator Miller, Senator Sessions, Senator Landrieu, and Senator Breaux. It is truly the only bipartisan farm bill we have had out here, with four Democrats and three Republicans. It is basically the House bill that was passed by the House of Representatives. At this late date, I have done everything I can to move a farm bill forward. I again reiterate my strong support for passing and completing a farm bill this year. Farmers in the State of Arkansas have been very clear with me on this issue, just as I think they have been clear with most Members of the Senate. They want to see a farm bill completed before we leave for Christmas. When the farm bill debate seemed to be dragging, I urged my colleagues to move forward. We introduced a bipartisan bill closely resembling that which was passed in the House in hopes that it would start the Agriculture Committee moving forward. I commend Senator Harkin, the chairman, for pushing a markup late in this session. After all of the time and energy that was spent on a lot of issues important to this country--the war on terror--Senator Harkin was determined that we get the bill out of committee. I supported that. I supported the Cochran-Roberts proposal and turned around and supported the chairman's proposal. I thought we had to get something out this year. If it took compromise on my part, I was willing to make it. I was not the only Republican member of the Agriculture Committee to support the Harkin commodity title. I don't think it is necessarily the best policy, but it is far better than what our farmers are dealing with right now. When the farm bill came to the floor, I was assured that now was the time we would seek the final compromise to get this farm bill passed. However, the process has broken down along partisan lines. We have not been able to come to a consensus. I am deeply disappointed that we are at risk of now leaving without a farm bill. I don't blame my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. I don't blame my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle. But it is time we achieve a compromise. We must not dig in our heels at this point. I believe the House bill is the best possible chance we have of getting a bill to the President. Again, this bill is sponsored by four Democrats and three Republicans. It was one about which I talked with the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. It could be conferenced very quickly--in a matter of probably an hour's time--and we could have a bill to the President. While all of us may have our preferences, this is our chance to get something to the President this year. I voted for cloture repeatedly, and I am going to continue to vote for cloture. I have crossed the lines to do so many times. Some have suggested where that line is right now. I know my farmers want a farm bill. In an effort to move that process forward, I offered this bipartisan alternative. I filed it tonight. It is cosponsored by Senator Lott and Senator Sessions. I am hopeful the cosponsors of the legislation when it was first introduced will join in support of this bill and that we will be able to get a bill signed into law. Even if we were able to get cloture tomorrow and get it passed at this late date, there is no possible way the differences between the Harkin bill and the House-passed bill could be reconciled in time to help our farmers. This past weekend I heard the farmers in Arkansas saying if we don't get it done before the new year, it is too late--in effect, that they are now going to their bankers and making the loans. They are making their preparations for crops next year. To wait until after we come back on January 23 before we put together a conference to begin to try to work out differences in the House and Senate bill is not good news for the farmers of this country. The best chance we have of getting this bill signed into law this year is to adopt this House bill, the substitute, and send it to a quick conference, and on to the President for his signature. I hope we will have the opportunity in the morning to get this laid down. Depending on the outcome of that cloture vote, we will have a full and thorough debate. An opportunity to vote on this substitute is really our last chance to get a bill signed into law before we leave for Christmas. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I say at this time I am not prepared to enter into a time agreement. There are a number of Senators, and I don't know how long they need to speak. An original agreement was full and open debate. This is a good time for full and open debate, and it is not in the best interests to enter into a time agreement.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am delighted to engage in this debate. As my colleagues listen to the facts concerning the Vietnam basa and the impact on the domestic catfish industry, they will see things in a different light. I voted for the Vietnamese Free Trade Agreement. I believe in free trade. I believe in fair trade. I also believe in accurate labeling and that the American people ought to know what they are buying. We heard the term ``catfish lobby'' used frequently last week and today. It has an ominous ring to it. I am not sure what the catfish lobby is. I know this: I have thousands of people who are employed in the catfish industry in Arkansas. I was in Lake Village, AR, on Saturday. Chicot County is one of the poorest counties in Arkansas--one of the poorest counties in the United States, as a matter of fact. We had 70 or 80 catfish growers who were present on Saturday. I didn't see agribusiness. I didn't see wealthy landholders. I saw a group of small business men and women struggling to survive in an industry that has been one of the bright spots in one of the poorest spots in the United States in the last decade. One of the farmers came up and said: I want to give you my books for the last 5 years--and handed me spread sheets. When they talk about us being wealthy catfish growers, I will show my books. He had a net profit last year of $8,000. This is a part of the country where the median household income is $19,000, about half of what it is in the State of Arizona. I take exception when we talk about the catfish lobby as if it were a powerful, wealthy, devious, insidious group. This amendment cripples and potentially destroys the aquaculture industry in the State of Arkansas. This industry has been in distress over the last year because of the influx of Vietnamese fish mislabeled as catfish. The Vietnamese basa is not catfish. On November 28, 2001, President Bush signed into law what was a great victory for our Nation's catfish farmers, a provision that simply said the Vietnamese basa would not be labeled ``catfish.'' It is a different species; it is a different order; it is a different fish. This language attached to the Agriculture appropriations bill has also been included in the farm bill that passed the House of Representatives. Put in the bill was language that would limit the use of the common name ``catfish'' for the Vietnamese basa. Importers have hijacked the common name of catfish and applied it to a species of fish that is not closely related or similar to what we commonly consider catfish. The domestic catfish industry has spent millions and millions and millions of dollars to try to educate the American people as to the nutritional value and the health and safety conditions in which farm- grown catfish are raised. All of that investment the domestic channel catfish industry has made has been hijacked by importers who see a quick way to profits. The language in the appropriations bill corrected this mislabeling of fish and misleading of American consumers. This limitation will give our domestic catfish producers a reprieve from unfair competition and mislabeling. I share Senator McCain's belief that competition is good when open and a competitive market benefits our Nation's economy and consumers. However, misleading consumers and mislabeling a product is wrong. To allow it to continue at the expense of an entire industry is unthinkable. The States of Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana produce 95 percent of the Nation's catfish. If you look at the broad area of aquaculture, 58 percent of fish grown in the United States are catfish. This is a huge aspect of fisheries in general in the United States, and 95 percent of those are grown in these four Southern States. These catfish are grain fed, they are farm raised catfish, produced under strict health and environmental regulations. Arkansas rates second in the amount of catfish produced nationally, but it is an industry that has grown and has thrived in one of the poorest areas of this country, the Mississippi Delta, an area that has sometimes been referred to as the Appalachia of the 1990s. When I say that Chicot County and Desha County are two of the poorest counties in Arkansas, it is true they are two of the poorest counties in the Nation. Despite the work ethic and strong spirit, economic opportunities have been few and far between. The aquaculture industry has been a shining success story for this region of the country. I made a number of visits to southeast Arkansas and to the Mississippi Delta and to our aquaculture regions of the State. I have been to the processing plants. I have seen them and talked to those who are employed in the catfish processing plants. I have gone to the ponds. I have seen the pristine conditions in which the fish are raised. This past Saturday, I saw the pain and distress and concerns reflected in the faces of these catfish growers who have built an industry and seen hope and are now seeing that hope ripped away from them. It is estimated that as high as 25 percent of the catfish growers in Arkansas could go bankrupt within the next year. This is not some obscure debate about free trade; it is people's livelihoods, people's lives. At a time when there is a lot of attention being paid to an economic stimulus package for the Nation, I suggest to my colleagues this is one of the poorest regions of our Nation. Just think of the economic damage that can be done with this kind of amendment. Some of my colleagues are making accusations that this legislation is in violation of trade practices, saying this legislation is unfair. What is unfair is that our catfish farmers are being subjected to competing with an inferior product that simply adopts the name of a successful product and gains acceptance. What is unfair is these fish are being pawned off as catfish to unsuspecting American consumers at a time when the fears of unemployment and the reality of an economic downturn in the wake of the September 11 attacks are weighing heavily on the minds of Americans. It is not acceptable for us to sit back and watch as an industry which employs thousands is allowed to be crushed by inferior imports because of the glitch in our regulatory system. Vietnamese exports are being confused by the American public as being catfish due to labeling that allows them to be called basa catfish. These Vietnam basa are being imported at record levels. The chart to my right demonstrates what has happened. As late as 1997, imports of Vietnam basa were almost nonexistent. Yet if you look at 1998 and 1999, and particularly this year, they have grown exponentially. In June of this year, 648,000 pounds were imported into the United States. Over the last several months, imports have averaged 382,000 pounds per month. To put this in perspective, in all of 1997 there were only 500,000-- one-half million--pounds of Vietnam basa imported into the United States. However, it is predicted that 15 million to 20 million pounds could be imported next year. The Vietnamese penetration in this market in the last year has more than tripled. Market penetration has risen from 7 percent to 23 percent of the total market. As a result of that incredibly fast increase of penetration into the American market from 7 percent to 23 percent, American catfish growers have seen their prices decrease 15 percent just in the last few months in 2001 alone. For those who argue this is the result of a competitive market, let me offer a few facts. When the fish were labeled and marketed as Vietnamese basa, when they imported it and put ``Vietnam basa'' on it, or they just put ``basa'' on it, sales in this country were limited, almost nonexistent. Some importers were so creative that they tried to label basa as white grouper, still with very little success. It was only when these importers discovered that labeling it as catfish added a lot of appeal that sales began to skyrocket and imports began to skyrocket. Try this, and it didn't work. Try this, and it didn't work. And try catfish, because of the great investment this domestic industry made, and sales took off. Although the FDA issued an order on September 19, stating that the correct labeling of Vietnamese basa be a high priority, the FDA is allowing these fish to retain the label of ``catfish'' in the title. Whether it is budget constraints or lack of personnel, it is obvious that inspections have been lacking in the past and the inclusion of the term catfish in the title only serves to promote confusion. Prior to this ruling there were numerous instances where the packaging of these fish was blatantly misleading and even illegal. This illustration shows how Vietnamese companies and rogue U.S. importers are trying to confuse the American public. Names such as ``Cajun Delight,'' ``Delta Fresh,'' and ``Farm Select,'' lead consumers to believe the product is something that it is not. ``Catfish'' in large letters, ``Delta Fresh''--no one would suspect it is from the Mekong Delta. The total impact of the catfish industry on the U.S. economy is estimated to exceed $4 billion annually. It has gone up dramatically. Approximately 12,000 people are employed by the industry. When you talk about the catfish lobby and say it in such sinister terms, please think about the 12,000 people--thousands of them--in the delta of Arkansas, the poorest part of this Nation, who are employed in this industry. That is the catfish lobby. It is estimated that 25 percent of my catfish farmers in Arkansas will be forced out of business if this problem is not corrected. Catfish farmers of this country have invested millions of dollars educating the American public about the nutritional attributes of catfish. Through their efforts, American consumers have an expectation of what a catfish is and how it is raised. They have an expectation that what they purchase is indeed a catfish. Here you will see an official list of both scientific names and market or common names from the Food and Drug Administration. Almost all of these fish can contain the word catfish in their names under current FDA rules. All of these fish in this one order can use the term ``catfish'' under current FDA rulings. It is the same order, if you look at the channel catfish. The basa are here at the bottom. In fact, you will find that while they are of the same order as Senator McCain rightly pointed out, they are of a different family and a different species; that is, channel catfish and the basa--totally different species. Even more importantly, when we look at trade issues, they are a totally different family. This is a very important distinction to realize. Most people just look and see the word ``catfish'' and they don't pay any attention to the package. They are currently allowed to use that term. In fact, you will notice, if you look a little farther down on the chart, the Atlantic salmon and the lake trout are of the same family or more closely related to the channel catfish than the basa. Ask those who are from the States where Atlantic salmon is an important fishery product whether they would appreciate lake trout being allowed under FDA rules to be labeled ``Atlantic salmon.'' Those two fish are more closely related than the channel catfish is to the basa. You can see that the Atlantic salmon and the lake trout are of the same family while channel catfish is of a different family entirely. Most people are not able to make those distinctions and are being misled when they see that word ``catfish'' put on the package. When the average Arkansan hears the word ``catfish,'' the idea of a typical channel catfish come to mind. When they sit down at a restaurant and order a plate of fried catfish, that same channel catfish is what they expect to be eating. One cannot blame the restauranteur who is offered ``catfish'' for a dollar less a pound for buying it. However, in many cases they do not realize that what they are buying is not really channel catfish. It is obvious that this confusion has been exploited and will continue to be exploited unless something is done to correct the obvious oversight that is jeopardizing American jobs. Further, American catfish farmers raise their catfish in pristine and closely controlled environments. The fish are fed pellets consisting of grains composed of soybeans, corn, and cotton seed. These facilities are required to meet strict Federal and State regulations. In fact, this upper picture is a very accurate reflection both of U.S. farm-raised catfish--what it looks like--and the conditions in which it is grown. I was there this Saturday. I have flown over our catfish ponds in delta Arkansas time and time again. They are clean, they are pristine and well regulated, and they are inspected. I understand the Vietnamese basa fish are raised in far different conditions. In the Mekong Delta, one of the most polluted watersheds in the world, basa are often exposed to many foul and unhealthy elements, sometimes even feeding off raw sewage. In fact, because an importer signs a statement saying he guarantees it was raised in conditions comparable to the United States and meets health and safety requirements of the United States is little assurance to the American consumers. There is, I believe, a pretty good indication of the comparison, and most assuredly a comparison of the two different fish that are involved. One is Vietnamese basa, a different species, and a different family from United States farm-raised catfish, channel catfish. I understand that my colleague from Arizona has a strong desire to promote competitive markets and encourage trade but markets must be honest and trade must be fair. I again emphasize that these are people's livelihoods. Congress acted properly limiting the use of the common name ``catfish.'' This action was warranted because exporters in Vietnam and importers in the United States have used the term ``catfish'' improperly and unfairly to make inroads into an established market. This provision does not exclude Vietnamese basa from being imported. Let me emphasize that it does not violate any trade agreements. There can be as many Vietnam basa fish imported into the United States as they can sell if it is properly labeled Vietnamese basa. My objective under the provisions that were included in the Agriculture appropriations bill was to ensure that labeling is accurate and truthful. That language ends the practice of purposely misleading consumers at the expense of an industry in one of the poorest parts of the Nation. Some people may argue that the restriction of the use of the name ``catfish'' to members of the family Ictaluridae runs counter to past international seafood trade policy, and may hinder our progress of increasing trade. In fact, that is the very argument that has been made. Two examples of attempted nomenclature restrictions used to support this argument are name restrictions for scallops proposed by the French Government and one for sardines proposed by the EU. Both of these efforts have been strongly opposed by American producers. We do not dispute that; in the cases of the scallops and the sardines, these nomenclature restrictions are unfair. However, both of these examples--and I suspect the Senator from Texas will talk about these examples and try to make it identical to the issue of catfish; and, in fact, it is not at all--are based on groups of animals that are much more closely related taxonomically than are basa and channel catfish. Channel catfish and the Vietnamese basa are classified in different taxonomic families--Ictaluridae for channel catfish and Pangasidae for basa. As is shown on this chart, the families are entirely different for the channel catfish and the Vietnamese basa. This is a very distant relationship, analogous to the difference between giraffes and cattle, which differ at the level of family within the mammal grouping. However, the scallop issue involves members of a single molluscan family, the Pectenidae. That is, the molluscs at issue in the French case differ only at the genus or species level. The European Union sardine issue likewise involves members of a single family of fish, the Clupeidae. Again, the fish species allowed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's Codex Alimentarius standard to be sold under the common name ``sardine'' differ only at the genus--that is shown here on the chart--and species level, not at the family level. The Vietnamese basa and the American channel catfish are in different families. They are only in the same order--Siluriformes--which has more than 2,200 different species in it. This order is characterized by the presence, as Senator McCain has said, of barbels or whiskers. Some will say: If it has whiskers, then it is a catfish. I heard my colleague make that statement. So should all of these fish be allowed to be sold as catfish--these 2,000 different species? Do you think it is all right with consumers to sell them nurse shark labeled as catfish? They have the barbels or the whiskers. They have the pictures here to show that. Do you not think that would be a little bit deceptive for the nurse shark to be labeled as catfish? Now think about if that nurse shark were raised in salt water under health inspection conditions that only require the producer to sign a piece of paper that states that health standards are being upheld. Now imagine that because of the way this nurse shark is raised--it is cheaper, significantly cheaper. What if that nurse shark, raised in salt water under questionable health conditions, was allowed to be sold as catfish? Is that fair trade? That is exactly analogous of what is being done today when Vietnamese basa is being labeled as catfish. It is not fair trade. Now imagine that they tried to sell it as nurse shark and couldn't develop a market--understandably--but suddenly, when they labeled it as catfish, they saw their market grow by not 100 percent, not 400 percent, but 700 percent. Because they took the nurse shark and labeled it as catfish, wouldn't that be considered deceptive and considered unfair? The answer is obvious. This is exactly the case that our catfish farmers in Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama are facing. And it is not fair. Black drum fish have whiskers. That should not be labeled as catfish. Sturgeon have whiskers and barbels. It should not be labeled as catfish. The blind fish, the blind cave fish uses whiskers or barbels to feel its way around, but no one would suggest they should be marketed as catfish. That is why we introduced S. 1494 on October 3, 2001. Many of us, including my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, came to this Chamber and described the situation in great detail at that time. Nothing was hidden. We had an open and full debate. Afterwards, we worked to include this needed legislation in a number of bills, finally being successful in getting it into the Agriculture appropriations bill. I remind my colleagues, again, as they will hear of the wealthy catfish growers, they will hear of agribusiness. They will hear of the catfish lobby. Two counties in Arkansas that grow the most catfish are Chicot County and Desha County. In Chicot County, 33.8 percent of the residents live in poverty--33.8 percent. The median household income in Chicot County is $19,604. That is the average household income. In Desha County, 27.5 percent of the residents live in poverty, with the median household income being $23,361. By contrast, in the State of Arizona, 15 percent of the residents live in poverty. That is one-half the poverty rate of Chicot County. And the median household income in Arizona is $34,751--$15,000 per family more than Chicot County. I would not suggest that we should try to hurt, destroy, undermine, or undercut industries in the State of Arizona because they are prospering more than these two poor counties in the delta of Arkansas. But I assure you, I am going to stand in this Senate Chamber and fight for the thousands of people who are employed in this industry and the one ray of light in that delta economy. When they talk about large agribusinesses and wealthy catfish growers, it should be remembered that 70 percent of the catfish growers in the United States qualify under the Small Business Administration as small businesses. And many of that 70 percent are fighting for their survival. So, Mr. President, and my colleagues, I ask we keep very much in mind that this is not a free trade issue. This is a fair trade issue. It is a truth-in-labeling issue. It is calling Vietnamese basa what they are--basa--and allowing that term ``catfish,'' which has been part of an important educational and nutritional campaign in this country, to not be kidnapped by those importers that seek to make a quick buck. I ask my colleagues to vote down the McCain-Gramm amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. There are Senators who have expressed interest in this amendment and who wanted to speak. I will object to any time agreement until we are able to check with those Senators to see how much time they require.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, in my 5 minutes, I just want to say to the Senator from Texas, I wish I could have been in his economics class. I would have said ``amen'' to everything he said except his initial supposition. His initial supposition was that we are trying to change the name of catfish. His initial supposition was there is no difference between a channel catfish and a basa catfish, that they are all catfish so just sell them as catfish. After all, we do not want to change, we don't want to get the truth. His basic supposition was wrong. And following everything after that initial supposition, you come to the wrong conclusion. He said: Nobody cares about the consumer. What is best for the consumer? Why isn't somebody asking about the consumer? Let me just this one time associate myself with the Senator from Iowa. I am concerned about the consumer. I am concerned about what the consumer is going to consume, what he is going to eat. Doesn't he have a right to know whether he is getting Vietnamese basa or he is getting channel catfish? He ought to have the right to know that when he goes in that restaurant, that when they are selling it as channel catfish that it is, in fact, channel catfish. The Senator from Texas, in great eloquence and great entertainment, said what we want is protection. I don't want protection. I want honesty. I want truth. I want fairness. At some point a name has to mean something. We pointed out--this is not me; this isn't something I dreamed up; this is science--the reality is that a channel catfish and a basa are not members of the same species. They are not members of the same scientific family. The truth is, the fact is, Atlantic salmon and a lake trout are more closely related than a channel catfish and basa. I don't want protection. I want truth. I want the consumer to know what he or she is consuming. That is all in the world this provision was in the Agriculture appropriations bill this year. It doesn't need to be rescinded. It needs to be sustained in this vote. The Senator from Texas asked, what is the purpose of a name? The purpose of a name is to identify. If, in fact, basa was the same as channel catfish, then I would say I am totally wrong; the catfish growers in the delta are totally wrong. But they are not the same. They are not the same fish. That should be reflected in what is labeled and what the American consumer knows he is getting. I ask my colleagues not to help poor people in the delta--that obviously doesn't move some--I ask my colleagues to demand that our trade be fair and that the American consumer be told the truth. It is, in fact, about transparency. I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. If I could have 5 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama for his cosponsorship of this legislation and for his excellent statement. I also commend the Presiding Officer this evening for his role and hard work on the peanut program and his great victory on that issue and his hard work on the Agriculture bill and for his willingness to stay this late. I am sure the Presiding Officer is ready to wind this up. I wish my colleagues could have seen the farmers I met with this past Saturday. One asked the prospects for getting a bill completed and to the President. I began to explain the Senate process. We have cloture; we may not get it. If we get it, we get a bill that has to go to conference. There is a lot of difference between the House and the Senate. I explained that and their eyes glazed over. There were tears. They said that would not do a lot of good for making loans and plans and getting ready for the upcoming planting season. We have reached the point of finger pointing, both sides saying the other does not want a bill this year. I suggest Senator Sessions outlined two ways we have a chance of getting one. They are genuine compromises. We can pass the House bill I filed this evening, which I urged in my floor speeches we move this year. I wrote Chairman Harkin and urged quick action and voted for the Harkin commodity title, and voted for the committee bill, voted for cloture last week; I voted for cloture today. I want a farm bill. The way I see it, Senator Harkin made a significant admission and said, if we invoke cloture and pass his bill tomorrow night, it will be weeks before a conference can work out the differences between the House and Senate and get a bill to the President. There were a lot of Democrats who voted against Cochran-Roberts. But do we say a lot of Democrats do not want a farm bill because they would not support that? Of course not. We all have ideas of what the ideal farm bill is. We cannot get an ideal farm bill in these closing days. None of us would know exactly what it was. There is one way we can get a bill this year. That is to move this House-like bill cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats--four Democrats, three Republicans--and move it immediately to the President. Tomorrow we will find out who is really wanting a bill this year and who is really wanting to stall one out--whether it is pride of authorship: my bill is the only bill, or whether we are willing to get an improvement in farm policy under this budget and to the President and signed into law. I hope tomorrow there is good news this Christmas for America's farmers. I thank the Presiding Officer for his patience, and I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the consideration of the passage of a farm bill this year. We have been discussing and debating and moving forward with a number of pieces of legislation, but, in my home State of Arkansas, there is no piece of legislation more important than the pending farm bill. Two major issues that have been discussed are biosecurity and economic stimulus. For my State, the farm bill addresses both of these issues. I urge my colleagues to move forward with this legislation expeditiously. I commend Chairman Harkin for holding a markup this year and not bowing to those voices that said we should delay this. While I do not claim that the Harkin bill is my preference on a number of issues, I am pleased that the Agriculture Committee worked so hard and so diligently in getting a bill out of committee this year. I hope the full Senate will now act expeditiously. For rural America and for most of Arkansas, an economic stimulus package must be tied to agriculture. To talk about passing an economic stimulus package and not doing a farm bill, for the State of Arkansas simply does not make sense. For Arkansas, the two complement one another and are intricately related. The agriculture industry in Arkansas has been in distress over the last few years due to a combination of high energy prices, low commodity prices and difficulties in opening up foreign markets to American goods. Agriculture and agriculture-related activities account for a full 25 percent of my State's economy and provide $5 billion in farm income. It is Arkansas's single largest industry. Farming is, in many ways, the lifeblood of my State. It is imperative that a new farm bill be passed this year, which is why many of us have worked so hard to push for the completion and passage of a farm bill while we are still in session this year. Fewer and fewer farmers in my State are able to continue farming due to, not a recession, but a depression that the agricultural sector has experienced over the last few years. While the rest of the economy grew and benefitted during the late 1990s, agriculture was one of the very few industries that actually suffered during this time. Let me share with my colleagues just a few of the statistical facts regarding the farm economy in my State over the last few years. These are Arkansas-specific numbers from the USDA. In 1996, the price for rice was $10.20 per hundredweight. For the year 2000, that price was $5.70 per hundredweight. In 1996, for the entire rice crop production in Arkansas, the value was $733 million. In the year 2000, the value of production had dropped to $490 million. Next, let me share the statistics on cotton. In 1996, the price was 71 cents a pound. In the year 2000, the price had dropped to 56 cents per pound. In 1996, the cotton crop value of production was $555 million. By the year 2000, that had dropped to $388 million. In 1996, for wheat, the price was $4.38 per bushel, but, in the year 2000, the price had dropped to $2.40 per bushel. In terms of the value of production, in 1996, the wheat crop was valued at $293 million; by the year 2000, it had dropped by more than half to $142 million. For soybeans, a major commodity crop in Arkansas, the price was $7.34 per bushel in 1996; in the year 2000, the price had dropped to $4.90 per bushel. In 1996, the value of production was $824 million; in the year 2000, the value of production dropped to $407 million. Overall, the net farm income for agricultural production in my State has gone from about $2 billion in 1996 to just over $1.5 billion in the year 2000. That is a decline of nearly half a billion dollars. In a small rural State such as Arkansas, that impact is devastating. It is my sincere hope that we can get a farm bill into conference, get it passed, and signed by the President this year. There are few issues that are followed as closely or scrutinized as completely as agriculture policy. The Agriculture Committee was given the very great responsibility of creating a farm bill that will determine the direction of agriculture policy and the assistance available for farmers and rural communities over the next 5 years. In committee, there were a lot of compromises that were reached. In a bill of this scope, with the impact it will have on rural America, it is never possible to please everyone. The goal of this farm bill, from the beginning, was to re-craft a failing policy and provide the assistance and certainty that our producers must have. This policy is extremely important. In many cases, it will determine whether or not farmers in the State of Arkansas will be able to plant next year, and, in an even broader sense, it will determine if many of the hard-working farm families in Arkansas will be able to continue to work their land and make a living. Over the past 4 years, rescuing the farm economy has cost over $30 billion in emergency Federal farm aid. It is quite clear that our current farm policy is not working. It has been an ad hoc policy. We have been forced to address short-comings annually. The current policy has been devoid of certainty--creating instability in the farm economy across this country. It has resulted in farmers never really being sure of what Congress is going to do, and it has resulted in Congress having make ad hoc emergency assistance as needed from year to year. It is imperative that we end the annual struggle where Congress must find money and make available large numbers of emergency funds to support our nation's farmers due to insufficient agricultural policies. We must recognize the needs of our farmers and address them. My views, and the views of a few other Members, were made quite clear with the introduction of S. 1673. I still believe that the bipartisan compromises we came to in that bill would provide the type of assistance our farmers need while providing a healthy framework for agriculture policy in the future. This is indeed a unique time in our Nation's history. Now, more than ever, our country is looking to its leaders for guidance and support. Our national security has been tested, and our economy is in need of a stimulus. Throughout all of this is the need for strong, comprehensive policies that reflect the needs and priorities of our country. I do not need to tell this body that agriculture is one of these priorities and that a strong, responsible, and well-crafted farm bill will ensure the assistance our farmers and rural communities need while providing the stability and certainty they must have to continue over the next 5 to 10 years. While I have been pleased with the steady progress we have made with the farm bill over the last few weeks, I urge my colleagues to push hard to complete the consideration of the bill so we can provide for the needs of our nation's farmers. Over the last few weeks there have been reports criticizing farm policy and criticizing the various farm bills. Despite these reports, I would argue that strong farm policies are absolutely essential to assure the safe, abundant, and affordable food supply we enjoy in this country. The farm policy of the past may not have been perfect, but it is that which has given the American people the safest, most abundant, and most affordable food supply in the world. Our farmers are, in fact, the best in the world. This is a testament to their hard work and their commitment to advancing agriculture. But their hard work must be joined by sound agriculture policy. I realize the diversity of agriculture in different parts of this country. However, I also realize a farm bill is just that, it is a farm bill meant to reflect and address the needs of our agricultural communities. Numerous titles of this bill address key issues of rural America, but if farmers are not farming, what will happen to those communities then? What will happen to the seed dealers, the bankers, the car dealers, and a whole host of industries directly reliant upon the farm economy? As you are all aware, there are numerous proposals out there to address the farm sector's needs. While I worry that the best possible policy might not emerge, I do believe we will make improvements to our current policy. I am firmly behind moving forward and completing a farm bill this year. It is a must for our farmers. I believe that, in the end, we will work to provide for the needs of our nation's producers. In terms of trade, I agree with the Secretary of Agriculture, in her testimony before the Agriculture Committee, that expanding trade is an essential part of agriculture policy. I believe that aggressive action on this front will greatly benefit our producers and allow the United States to fully participate in the proliferation of trade agreements that are now emerging out of Latin America, Asia, and with our allies in the Middle East. Agriculture trade can open up whole new markets and provide our country with new friends abroad who will be able to share in our wealth during prosperous times and come to our aid in times of need or tragedy. However, trade also requires compliance with international agreements. While I have been critical of some of the provisions in past trade agreements, and will likely have misgivings about some future agreements, I understand the importance of the United States keeping its word. As Senator Conrad has pointed out in committee and on the floor with numerous charts, we don't support our producers at nearly as high a level as our European competitors. Our farmers are at a strategic and competitive disadvantage. The way to fix this problem is with green box payments. Senator Cochran and Senator Roberts are to be commended. They have crafted a proposal in committee--and I assume will be offering it on the floor as well-- providing the support our farmers need while remaining true to our obligations abroad. While there may be other proposals that are WTO compliant, few would provide the level and assurance of support that the Cochran-Roberts proposal would. The greatest fear of many farmers and their lenders in my State is replicating a system where a farmer is not certain of the level of support they will receive from year to year. This has been the fatal flaw with our current policy. The rapid phase-out of the fixed, AMTA- style payments in the Senate version of the farm bill that came out of committee is very troubling. That style payment is one of the only true green box payments in the bill. If the WTO calls for lowering allowable amber box payments, these payments may be the only money allowable for safety net purposes. While I support moving forward, I believe the assured levels of assistance in S. 1673, the House bill, and the Cochran-Roberts approach are, by far, more favorable than some of the other proposals circulating that would diminish these payments. In addition to trade, conservation is a key component of the farm bill, as it should be. Our farmers and ranchers are stewards of our nation's natural resources. It is important that incentives be available that encourage and reward environmental stewardship. It is my belief that this is an important component of farm policy, but it is a component that must be balanced with other titles in the bill. I strongly support the increased acreage for WRP in all of the proposals we have seen. CRP has also been an important program for Arkansas. In addition, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program has also been successful in promoting the health of wildlife in Arkansas. These are all good programs. While I support these programs, I believe a balance must be struck. I agree with many of my colleagues that this is done by strengthening programs we know are successful, where we know our funding can be maximized to the benefit of the environment and the agricultural sector. As we have learned from the last few years, a farm bill must provide a safety net for producers through a good commodity title. A sufficient commodity title is absolutely essential in providing the support needed by our country's farmers. Without these programs, our farmers would be at an incredible competitive disadvantage with our European counterparts. Many of our farmers would simply be put out of business. The farm bill must reflect the needs of our country's producers. It must also allow the Congress to avoid the costly ad hoc emergency spending that has characterized farm policy for a number of years. Proper funding and allocation of these funds is essential in allowing our farmers to remain on their farms. Without farmers working the land, without the type of technical expertise present in our country's agricultural sector, we would not have the abundance of nutritious food we enjoy in this land. Our farmers are indeed the best in the world. They are early adopters of new technology and enhanced growing techniques that allow them to increase production while reducing the environmental impact of agricultural activities. Much of these great strides forward have been the direct result of this nation's commitment to its farmers. This Nation has its roots in its fertile soil. It is important that we remember that agriculture has been, and will continue to be, a source of great strength and security for our country. I conclude by emphasizing to my colleagues just how important the farm bill this year is. It is an absolute must-have for our nation's farmers and rural communities. I hope we will move forward quickly and responsibly. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Air Force Major David B. Chandler for his service as my military fellow this past year. I commend Major Chandler for his performance, and express my appreciation to him for all his efforts and dedication. Major Chandler's leadership ability shined throughout his fellowship. During a very busy and challenging year for the Senate, Major Chandler handled a new Congress, a new administration, confirmations, a compressed defense authorization process, and finally, the tragic events of September 11. His composure in the face of all these challenges ensured timely inputs to me, my staff, and to the people of the great State of Arkansas. He served as one of my key advisors on a variety of national security issues. Major Chandler's efforts with the bipartisan, bicameral C-130 Caucus resulted in a modernization plan supported by members of Congress from 27 States. He assisted me in my duties on the Senate Armed Services Committee, especially relating to my role as the ranking Republican on the Personnel Subcommittee. His hard work was greatly appreciated during Senate deliberations on the FY02 Defense Authorization bill. Major Chandler has been a credit to the Air Force Legislative Fellows program. The Air Force should be very proud of his service this past year. Certainly, I will follow the development of Major Chandler's career with pride. My appreciation and best wishes go with him, his wife Sheri, and their daughter Shelby.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Terrorist Hoax Costs Recovery Act of 2001, which I am introducing today be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Terrorist Hoax Costs Recovery Act of 2001, which I am introducing today be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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