Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise today to honor an individual for his extraordinary leadership for family farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and across the entire country. Mr. Leland Swenson has been the president of the National Farmers Union (NFU) for the past fourteen years, and the president of the South Dakota Farmers Union (SDFU) for 7 years prior to that. For the past 20 years, Lee has been the leading voice for family farm agriculture in the country. During his tenure in these positions, Lee has provided immeasurable service, support, and leadership for family farmers and ranchers in efforts to maintain prosperity of rural communities. A native of Minnesota, Lee was recruited to begin his career with South Dakota Farmers Union in 1971 as the Secretary/Treasurer. Lee was a very successful organizer, resulting in an increase in membership for 6 out of his 8 years at this post. Because of his talent, initiative, and ingenuity, Lee joined the National Farmers Union headquarters in Denver, CO as Field Services Coordinator. Lee's dedication to building a membership base and maintaining that base is something to be admired. Returning to South Dakota, Lee was elected the president of SDFU in 1981. During his swearing in ceremony, Mr. Swenson pledged to ``preserve, protect and defend the family farm system of agriculture.'' Lee has fulfilled that promise time and time again. While farm prices were dropping and interest rates were rising in the 1980's, Lee rose to the challenge of preserving the family farm in his role as president. In response to a veto of an emergency credit bill by President Reagan in 1985, Lee organized over 8,000 farmers and ranchers to gather for a ``Farm Alliance Rally'' in Pierre, SD. This was the second largest farm rally ever to be held at the state capital. Two other organizations were involved in gathering attendants, resulting in 25 Jackrabbit Line busses bringing the farmers and ranchers to South Dakota's capital city. The overwhelming number of constituents rallying could not be ignored by the state legislators, therefore the state legislature appropriated funds to send the 105 member body plus the governor to Washington, DC to lobby Congress for the restructuring of farm and ranch debt at serviceable interest rates. This first rally served as a stepping stone for Lee to organize another rural rally 15 years later in Washington. In 2000, bus loads of farmers, ranchers, church leaders, labor organizations, and rural community leaders gathered at the nation's capital to rally for the sustainability of rural America. Without the experience, dedication, or conviction of Lee Swenson this rally would not have been a success. For the last 100 years, the primary goal of National Farmers Union has been to sustain and strengthen family farm and ranch agriculture. The key to this goal has been Farmers Union's grassroots structure in which policy positions are initiated locally. National Farmers Union believes that good opportunities in production agriculture are the foundation of strong farm and ranch families and that strong farm and ranch families are the basis for thriving rural communities. In order for these goals and values to be carried out consistently, a well- respected, talented, and dedicated leader is vital. That is exactly what Lee Swenson provided to the organization. Lee Swenson has achieved a number of other accomplishments during his tenure with the National Farmers Union. Bringing the states of Alaska, California, and Missouri into the organization, organizing the single largest farm rally in Washington, DC and expanding the government relations, communications and education departments of the NFU. As National Farmers Union celebrates their 100th anniversary this year, and Lee steps down from his post as president, the delegation body can look back on prior accomplishments and be nothing but proud. Proud of their organization, proud of their commitment to family farmers and ranchers, and proud of their outgoing leader. Finally, Lee has always been dedicated to family agriculture, and I know he will continue to contribute to not only the state of South Dakota, but family agriculture across the country. Therefore, I wish him all the best and I will continue to rely upon his valuable insight on the sustainability of rural America. On behalf of the people of South Dakota, I want to thank Lee for being a true public servant who has helped improve the quality of life for thousands of rural Americans.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I congratulate Adam Vinatieri of the New England Patriots. Adam, a native of Rapid City and a South Dakota State University graduate, was instrumental in the Patriot victory in Super Bowl XXXVI. With :07 left in the fourth quarter and the score tied at 17, Adam kicked the game winning 48-yard field goal. Adam has had a long and very successful football career. During his NFL tenure, Adam has been to two Super Bowls and numerous playoff games. Prior to Adam's professional career, he played for the Jackrabbits from 1991-1994 and was all-North Central Conference punter and kicker from 1992-1994. Also, during Adam's early athletic years at Central High School in Rapid City, I was pleased to have nominated him for a service academy appointment. Although Adam will be remembered for his Super Bowl winning kick, his two field goals during the playoff game against the Oakland Raiders may have been even more impressive. During a snowstorm, he kicked a 45-yard field goal to send the game to overtime, and then kicked the game winning field goal in overtime to win the Divisional Playoff game. Without his leadership and resolve, the New England Patriots would not have been in a position to play in the Super Bowl, let alone win it. Adam reflects the best of South Dakota, and I know I speak for the entire State when I say congratulations on the great victory. We are all very proud of you. Also, I would like to congratulate several other particpants from Super Bowl XXXVI who have South Dakota ties, including Adam Timmerman, a guard for the St. Louis Rams and a SDSU graduate; Matt Chatham, a University of South Dakota standout and backup linebacker for the Patriots; Brad Seely, a Baltic native and Special Teams coach for the New England Patriots; and Mike Martz who was born in Sioux Falls and is the head coach of the Rams. It is very satisfying to know that even though South Dakota has no professional or Division I sports, we were very well represented in the biggest sporting event in America. Congratulations to all who played and participated in one of the best Super Bowls ever played.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern for the outlook of the trust fund management system. I have requested on numerous occasions that the Department of the Interior to consult with tribes on this issue. I understand this is difficult, given the scope and expanse of the approximate 560 Tribes in the United States, but it must be done in a far more meaningful manner than has been the case up until now. Tribes feel that the Department of the Interior has presented a plan, and are simply going through the motions of ``consultation.'' The very idea of consultation is not to formulate a plan and then impose it upon the interested party. It is to work with the effected parties and formulate a plan together. This is the essence of consultation between the Federal Government and Indian Country; it is at the heart of true government-to-government relationship. The present and future challenge the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee face are a high priority for South Dakota's Indian tribes. As a member of both the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, as well as, the Appropriations Committee, I look forward to working on efforts to improve the quality of services provided by the Department, and to protect the interests of tribes in my state of South Dakota and across the country. The issue of Trust Fund mismanagement is one of the most urgent problems we are faced with in Indian Country. Of all the extraordinary circumstances we find in Indian Country, and especially in South Dakota, I do not think there is any more complex, more difficult and more shocking then the circumstances we have surrounding trust fund mismanagement. This problem has persisted literally for generations, and continues today. Administrations of both political parties have been inadequate in the response, and the level of direction and the resource provided by Congresses over past decades has also been sadly inadequate. The Federal Government, by law, is to be the trustee for Native American people. When the Trust Fund Management Act of 1994 has passed, I was hopeful that this accounting situation would at last be remedied. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. In 1996, I was appointed by Chairman Young to the Congressional Task Force on Indian Trust Fund Management, to review and study the management and reconciliation of funds administered by the Department of the Interior's Office of Trust Fund Management. Those meetings were informative but far from productive as three years and many millions of dollars later, this problem still persists. My concern remains, where are we now, and what does the Department hope to accomplish from the creation of another bureau? Far too much time and resources have been exhausted attempting to remedy this deplorable situation, which affects far too many of South Dakota's poorest people. This is one of the most urgent problems we face in Indian Country, and there are so many more problems that flow from, or the solutions stem from the inability to come to terms with this issue. Congress has reviewed his issue over 10 times in recent years. We should not have to continue to revisit this issue ten more times to get it solved. On January 21, 2002, The Sioux Falls Argus Leader published an editorial entitled ``Tribes Capable of Managing Own Trust Funds.'' I commend this editorial to my colleagues. It urges Secretary Norton and the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Neal McCaleb, in the strongest possible terms, to consult with tribes. The Federal Government is fond of saying that it will operate ``government to government'' with Indian tribes, but then too often it consults after the fact in an insulting manner. It is time to give tribes greater responsibility over their assets and their budgets. It is imperative that we remedy this situation. More years will go by and more opportunities to correct this great injustice will be passed unless Congress and the administration at last give resolution of this trust fund crisis the attention and the resources it deserves. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that The Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the commander of Ellsworth Air Force Base's 28th Bomber Wing on his promotion to brigadier general. On February 1, 2002, Colonel Edward A. Rice, Jr., will pin on his first star, and I cannot think of a member of the Air Force more deserving of this promotion. I have known Colonel rice since May 2000, when he took command of the 28th Bomber Wing at Ellsworth, in my home state of South Dakota. Ellsworth is home to one of the Air Force's two B-1B wings, with 26 aircraft and more than 3,500 military and civilian members assigned. Colonel Rice joined a distinguished line of commanders of the wing, and has become the fifth consecutive commander to be promoted to brigadier general. Colonel Rice has recently returned from Diego Garcia, where he was the commander of the 28th Air Expeditionary Wing, overseeing the entire B-1B operation for the ongoing war against terror, Operation Enduring Freedom. In addition to coordinating bombing missions from the command center on the ground, Colonel Rice added to his more than 3,600 hours of air time in combat aircraft by flying bombing missions against Taliban and al-Quaida controlled strongholds in Afghanistan. I applaud the efforts of Colonel Rice and all of the men and women in Operation Enduring Freedom. Since joining Congress in 1987 I have appreciated the professionalism, hard work, and commitment to excellence of Ellsworth's commanders and personnel. Colonel Rice has added to that tradition, and under his leadership the effectiveness of the B-1B, especially in recent operations in Afghanistan, has proven again why that aircraft is the backbone of our Nation's bomber fleet. Colonel Rice graduated from the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in 1978, and went to flight school to become a B-52 pilot. He also has experience flying aircraft that include the B-1 and the B-2 Stealth bomber. Throughout his distinguished career, Colonel Rice has held a variety of significant operational positions including commander of the 34th Bomb Squadron at Castle Air Force Base, CA; deputy commander of the 509th Operations Group, at Whiteman Air Force Base in MO; and commander of the 552nd Operations Group, at tinker Air Force Base, OK. Colonel Rice served as a White House fellow from 1990-1991. The program selects midcareer professionals for a variety of assignments, usually from outside of their normal field of expertise. Colonel Rice worked in the office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In 1994 and 1995, Colonel Rice served on a blue-ribbon government panel examining the military's structure in the post-Cold War era. Colonel Rice moved to the West Wing of the White House in 1997, when he was named deputy executive secretary to the National Security Council. He served in the White House until he was assigned to Ellsworth for his first command of a combat bomb wing. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Colonel Rice, his wife Teresa, and their children, on this well-deserved promotion.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, today I pay tribute to the life of Dave Thomas. The adoption community has suffered a huge loss through his death on January 8th, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Senate resolution honoring his life. As a founding member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I have had the opportunity to recognize people who have been exceptional advocates for the adoption community, and Dave Thomas is at the top of that list. An adopted child himself, Dave Thomas made it his lifelong goal to find every child a home. In 1990, Dave answered the call of President George Bush, who asked him to be the spokesperson for his national adoption program called ``Adoption Works. . . . For Everyone.'' After 2 years, Thomas decided he wanted to do more, and so he created his own nonprofit organization to make it easier and more affordable for people to adopt children. Thomas' efforts, backed by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, have streamlined the adoption process and reduced the financial barriers many families face when they adopt children, especially those with special needs. The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption provides a voice for 134,000 children across our country who are waiting to find a loving family. The efforts of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption and Wendy's have paid off. Forty percent of all callers into the National Foundation for Adoption's toll free number cite trayliners, public service announcements and posters that they have seen inside Wendy's Restaurants as the reason for their call. Dave was a tireless advocate for the adoption community, and thankfully his legacy will live on through the thousands of children who have found a loving home because of his efforts. If everyone subscribed to Dave's theory that no child is ``unadoptable,'' this world would be a better place.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will recognize all Native American Code Talkers who served as Code Talkers during World Wars I and II. Earlier this year, the Navajo Code Talkers were recognized by Congress and the President, and were presented with their Congressional Gold Medals. I was proud be a cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman granting the medals and participating in the ceremony recognizing their great accomplishments. Today, I am introducing similar legislation recognizing the over 17 other tribes who served our Nation and democracy across the world. These brave men utilized their language to assist the allied forces, and subsequently saved the lives of thousands of men and women. Years ago, the United States government policy towards Native people attempted to force the assimilation of millions of Native Americans and Alaskan Natives. The United States government attempted to strip the culture and language from the native peoples of this great land. We have learned the lessons of the past, and I stand here today honoring these courageous soldiers for preserving part of the very core of their culture. Their language. It is tragic that we have waited so many decades for the recognition of these brave soldiers. We cannot hope to make up for some of the wrongs that befell the Native peoples in the United States, or across North and South America. But, we can continue to ensure that honor is continually bestowed upon those men and women who fought for and defended our Nation, and the preservation of democracy on foreign lands. Native Americans remain the most decorated ethnic group in our military forces. I am honored that we are one step closer to honoring those who deserve recognition that is long overdue. This truly marks a proud moment in our Nation's history. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring those Native Americans who served as code talkers in World Wars I and II. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. That is absolutely correct Senator Grassley, and we have advocated this position all along. Thank you from clarifying that issue with me. While forward contracts and marketing agreements can pose problems for the marketplace, they are outside the purview of our amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my grave disappointment at the failure of the Senate to achieve cloture on S. 1731, the Senate farm bill. Today, as on two other occasions in the last 13 days we have debated the farm bill in the Senate, a majority of our body has voted for cloture, a parliamentary tool applied to end excessive debate and to ensure we could finish the farm bill by the end of the year. Unfortunately, even though a majority of the Senate wants to pass a farm bill this year, the Senate Republican leader has blocked an up-or-down vote on the farm bill, forcing the Senate to revisit this issue next year. It requires 60 votes to terminate a filibuster and to allow the Senate to proceed with its work. Today, farmers and ranchers across South Dakota and the entire country are busy doing their jobs. They are maintaining their operations, feeding livestock, deciding what to plant for the 2002 crop year, discussing prices, expenses and economic matters with their lenders, all in anticipation that Congress will do their jobs and complete a farm bill this year. The only problem is that Congress, namely a certain number in the Senate, has failed family farmers and ranchers by rejecting action on the farm bill this year. Despite the fact that every major farm and ranch organization in the country wanted to complete action on the farm bill this year, a certain number in the Senate ignored these 32 groups. In fact, Mr. Bob Stallman, the President of the American Farm Bureau Federation has been quoted as saying that a vote against cloture is a slap in the face to farmers. Unfortunately, Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, and all the other farm groups were ignored today and on two prior cloture votes. On three separate occasions the U.S. Senate was given an opportunity to demonstrate how important family farmers, ranchers, and rural communities are to the overall well-being of the country, because the Senate had cloture votes on three separate days. On three occasions the Senate was given a chance to say we'll write a new farm bill this year, we'll go to conference with the House, and we'll send a bill to the President. On three occasions the Senate was given an opportunity to send a message to farmers and ranchers all across the country that we care about them, that we want a better farm bill for rural America, and that it was important to us to deliver a new farm bill to them. Yet, on Thursday, December 13, the Senate obstructed action on the farm bill by a 53-45 vote. Then on Tuesday, December 18 and today, Wednesday December 19, the Senate rejected cloture on a 54-43 vote each day. Rejecting cloture simply means a rejection of the farm bill this year. That is very unfortunate. I have repeatedly said it is crucial for Congress to complete action on the farm bill, conference with the House, and send a bill to the President for his signature this year, if not very early next year, in order to ensure two very important things. First, that we capitalize upon the $73.5 billion in additional spending authority provided by this year's budget resolution, because given the shrinking budget surplus and unprecedented demands on the Federal budget now, there are no assurances this money will be available in 2002, when a new budget resolution will be carved out of a very limited amount of resources. Second, that we mend the farm income safety net now because the experience of the 1996 farm bill has painfully taught us that it does not provide family farmers and ranchers a meaningful income safety net when crop prices collapse. Thus the need for a new farm bill is clear. Some will allege the Senate did not have time to fully debate the merits of S. 1731, the Senate farm bill. However, that is clearly not the case. Rather, in the last 13 days we have debated the farm bill, approximately 20 amendments were proposed to the underlying bill. Three of these amendments were comprehensive alternatives to the farm bill passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Of these three substantial alternatives, one was a proposal by Senator Lugar to overhaul the farm bill's commodity title with a severe reduction in support to South Dakota's crop producers, essentially by eliminating the marketing loan program. On December 12, the Senate voted against the Lugar amendment on a 70-30 vote. Then, yesterday, the Senate debated at great length an alternative to the farm bill offered by Senators Cochran and Roberts. Their alternative would have revamped many titles of the farm bill, including major changes to the commodity and conservation titles. Yesterday, the Senate rejected the Cochran- Roberts alternative by a 40-55 vote. Finally, today, Senator Tim Hutchinson offered a near identical version of the House-passed farm bill (HR 2646) for consideration and debate in the Senate. Today, the Senate soundly rejected the House proposal by a 38-59 vote. In the final analysis, a clear majority in the Senate has gone on the record in opposition to three major farm bill alternatives. I am confident that if we were allowed a straight up-and-down vote on the Senate farm bill, we would pass it. However, certain Senators have resorted to stall out the farm bill, essentially killing it for the year. Finally, I will do all I can to make sure the farm bill is the very first order of business that we take up in 2002. We may still have time to pass a farm bill in the Senate, conference with the House, and send a bill to the President. In the meantime, I will continue to fight for South Dakota's priorities in the farm bill. Some of these priorities include; my provision to forbid meatpacker ownership of livestock, which will restore fair competition in the marketplace; my provision to provide for country-of-origin labeling of beef, lamb, pork, fruits, vegetables, peanuts, and farm-raised fish; my provision to prohibit USDA quality grade stamps on imported meat; an energy title that promotes value-added ethanol, biodiesel and wind production in South Dakota; a conservation title increasing the Conservation Reserve Program to 41 million acres; and; a commodity title containing higher loan rates than the House farm bill and a provision that rewards farmers with an allowance for an update on a farmer's yields and planted acreage for the purpose of making price support payments. None of these provisions are contained in the House farm bill. We have more work to do. In addition to completing action on the farm bill, we should address common-sense payment limitations in the farm bill so family farmers and ranchers truly benefit from it. I look forward to next year and our endeavor to provide America's family farmers and ranchers with a new farm bill.

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his leadership on this issue. Additionally, I thank him for his concern for livestock producers and for the opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings. The amendment is not intended to affect forward contracts or marketing agreements. Such arrangements have caused or can cause problems in the market, but they are outside the scope of this amendment. The intent of the word ``control'' must be read in the context of ownership. In other words, control means substantial operational control of livestock production, rather than the mere contract right to receive future delivery of livestock produced by a farmer, rancher or feedlot operator. ``Control'' according to legal dictionaries means to direct, manage or supervise. In this case, the direction, management and supervision is directed towards the production of livestock or the operations producing livestock, not the simple right to receive delivery of livestock raised by someone else. The word control is intended to close any loophole which may allow clever attorneys to circumvent congressional intent. Such loopholes could include situations where a packer that owns livestock engages in a transaction where a farmer takes nominal title to livestock or livestock feeding operations, but a packer has substantial operational control over the livestock production which is similar to ownership. Another situation is where a packer could exercise such operational control through a related entity. However, where a farmer or rancher holds true operational control, this amendment would not affect him.

Mr. JOHNSON. There are two reasons that forward contracts and marketing agreements are not within the definition of control. First, these contracts do not allow a packer to exercise any control over livestock production operation. Rather, the contracts merely provide the packer with the right to receive delivery of livestock in the future and most include a certain amount of quality specifications. There is no management, direction or supervision over the farm operation in these contracts. The farmer or rancher makes the decision to commit the delivery of livestock to a packer through the contract without ceding operational control. In fact, the farmer or rancher still could make a management decision to delivery the livestock to another packer other than the one covered in the contract, albeit subject to damages for breach of contract. Even where such contracts include detailed quality specifications, control of the operation remains with the farmer. The quality specifications simply related to the amount of premiums or discounts in the final payment by the packer for the livestock delivered under the contract. Second, several states prohibit packer ownership of livestock, such as Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska. The Iowa law, for example, prevents packers from owning, operating or controlling a livestock feeding operation in that state. But packers and producers may still enter into forward contracts or marketing agreements without violating that law because operational control, in the context of ownership, is the issue. The term control is intended to be similarly interpreted and applies in this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will recognize all Native American Code Talkers who served as Code Talkers during World Wars I and II. Earlier this year, the Navajo Code Talkers were recognized by Congress and the President, and were presented with their Congressional Gold Medals. I was proud be a cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman granting the medals and participating in the ceremony recognizing their great accomplishments. Today, I am introducing similar legislation recognizing the over 17 other tribes who served our Nation and democracy across the world. These brave men utilized their language to assist the allied forces, and subsequently saved the lives of thousands of men and women. Years ago, the United States government policy towards Native people attempted to force the assimilation of millions of Native Americans and Alaskan Natives. The United States government attempted to strip the culture and language from the native peoples of this great land. We have learned the lessons of the past, and I stand here today honoring these courageous soldiers for preserving part of the very core of their culture. Their language. It is tragic that we have waited so many decades for the recognition of these brave soldiers. We cannot hope to make up for some of the wrongs that befell the Native peoples in the United States, or across North and South America. But, we can continue to ensure that honor is continually bestowed upon those men and women who fought for and defended our Nation, and the preservation of democracy on foreign lands. Native Americans remain the most decorated ethnic group in our military forces. I am honored that we are one step closer to honoring those who deserve recognition that is long overdue. This truly marks a proud moment in our Nation's history. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring those Native Americans who served as code talkers in World Wars I and II. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today the Senate passed S. 1762, a bill I introduced to improve the formula for student loan interest rates and to ensure the long-term viability of the student loan program. I am pleased the Senate unanimously agreed to this important legislation and I am proud to have worked with both students and lenders and my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, especially Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Gregg, as well as Majority Leader Daschle, in passing this monumental legislation. All across America, millions of young people are preparing to apply to college. These teenagers are dreaming not only of the college experience they are about to embark upon, but also of graduating to become teachers, doctors, engineers, and even public servants. Thanks to the national education loan program, the educational and career aspirations of students and their families can become reality. We know that the future of our Nation lies in educating the next generation of young people so that each of them can realize the promise of America. For 35 years, we have invested in our future by opening the doors of colleges and universities to the broadest cross-section of our citizens at the lowest possible cost. That is why passing this legislation was crucial to ensure that education loans are available to help future generations of students, workers, and their families climb the ladder of economic opportunity. Since 1965, a partnership of students, workers, their families, educational institutions, lenders, and the Federal Government has opened the doors of educational opportunity for more than 50 million Americans. By any measure, the education loan program is a winning investment for our Nation. Education loans are good investments in our economy and in our citizens. As I travel across South Dakota, educators, employers, and students tell me how valuable a college degree is in today's economy. Indeed, we know that graduates with college degrees earn an average of 80 percent more than individuals with only a high school diploma. Over a lifetime, the earnings difference between individuals with high school and college degrees can be more than $1 million. At a time when many workers are losing their jobs through no fault of their own, education loans are critical tools that can empower these workers to upgrade their skills. As we search for ways to expand our economic prosperity, we must preserve this important investment in the future of our Nation. Congress has now taken the initiative to ensure that future generations have access to the college or university of their choice by enacting a permanent solution to the interest rate issue. Again, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support in passing this critically important legislation of which we can all be proud.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the very real importance of completing action on the farm bill, the Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001, which is now before the Senate. It is my desire that we pass a comprehensive farm bill within the next few days to ensure that America's family farmers, ranchers, consumers, and rural citizens have greater economic security. I wish to applaud my good friend and South Dakota colleague, Senator Daschle, for his superb and steady leadership on this issue, and for making certain this important farm bill legislation made it to the floor for consideration before we adjourn. It is critical for us to act promptly, to conference with our House colleagues in an expeditious manner, and for the President to sign a bill into law, as soon as possible. Much of the credit for our being able to discuss this bill on the floor today has to do with our chairman, Senator Harkin, for his ability to craft what is perhaps the most complex piece of legislation one can imagine, and for his work to ensure the committee completed its job on the farm bill. Chairman Harkin included a number of items in this farm bill that will serve to benefit South Dakota's family farmers, ranchers, and rural communities, and I thank him for a job well done. Unfortunately, stall tactics are being employed by some in the U.S. Senate to prevent us from passing this comprehensive farm bill. While family farmers and ranchers are working hard to keep their operations competitive and running smoothly, some Senators are stalling, delaying, and placing road blocks in front of the ultimate passage of this bill. Just yesterday, on a vote to end excessive debate and delay on the farm bill, we did not garner the 60 votes necessary to remove the procedural slow-down hurdle known as a filibuster. This needless delay must stop and Congress must take action to pass a farm bill now. I have repeatedly said it is crucial for Congress to complete action on the farm bill, conference with the House, and send a bill to the President for his signature this year, if not very early next year, in order to ensure two very important things. First, that we capitalize upon the $73.5 billion in additional spending authority provided by this year's budget resolution, because given the shrinking budget surplus and unprecedented demands on the federal budget now, there are no assurances this money will be available in 2002, when a new budget resolution will be carved out of a very limited amount of resources. Second, that we mend the farm income safety net now because the experience of the 1996 farm bill has painfully taught us that it does not provide family farmers and ranchers a meaningful income safety net when crop prices collapse. Thus, the need for a new farm bill is clear. In the course of the last 4 years, the economic setting for family farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and across the nation has reached a serious and depressed level. Most farmers I talk to in South Dakota believe the combination of poor returns for crops and livestock combined with an inadequate safety net in the current farm bill may have inflicted irrevocable results, a loss of family farmers, an economic recession in small, rural communities, and growing market power by a few, mega-operators and agribusinesses. While the farm bill probably isn't intended to correct all of the problems in our rural economy, it should better sustain the lives of family producers and rural communities. Additionally, it should provide a more predictable safety net than the current farm bill. The outlook for positive indicators in farming and ranching has been dimmed by a number of factors. For several years now, commodity prices have collapsed, production costs have skyrocketed, and harsh weather has destroyed agricultural production. Furthermore, meatpacker concentration and unfair trade agreements have crippled the ability for independent farmers and livestock producers to prosper. While some of us wanted to change the underlying farm bill in a way to alleviate these tough conditions, we were told the 1996 farm bill was a sacred cow that could not be touched, and efforts to amend it or to provide a better economic safety net were defeated. I am not suggesting the 1996 act was the source of all the problems farmers faced these last few years, but the lack of a real safety net and low loan rates in the bill did not provide fair support for America's agricultural producers. Four years of ad hoc emergency assistance for farmers and ranchers totaling approximately $23 billion, over and above farm program payments contained in the 1996 farm bill, has painfully taught us that depressed conditions in rural America matched with an inadequate safety net resulted in a very expensive price tag for U.S. taxpayers as well. Fortunately, today we have a chance to improve farm policy, providing family farmers and ranchers with a better farm bill containing a more meaningful safety net. Moreover, it is my hope this bill provides taxpayers with some assurance that the need for multi-billion dollar ad hoc emergency programs will be forestalled. While it is not perfect, I am pleased that a number of my farm bill priorities, and the priorities of South Dakota farmers and ranchers, are included in S. 1731, the Senate farm bill. First, the bill passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee includes my legislation, S. 280, the Consumer Right to Know Act of 2001, requiring country of origin labeling. It requires country of origin labeling for beef, pork, lamb, and ground meat, fruits, vegetables, peanuts, and farm-raised fish. The House farm bill only includes country of origin labeling for fruits and vegetables. Also, my carcass grade stamp legislation was added to the Senate farm bill. It prohibits the use of USDA quality grades, such as USDA Prime or USDA Choice, on imported meat. This provision is not in the House farm bill. The country of origin labeling language in the bill is supported by a clear majority of American producers and consumers, as is demonstrated by the fact the largest consumer and farm groups in the country have written me in support of this bill. I would like to insert in the Record a series of four letters expressing strong support for my country of origin labeling language in the Senate farm bill. The letters are as follows: first, a letter signed by the overwhelming majority of cattle producing groups in the United States, signed by 55 cattle organizations, from Alabama to Idaho, from California to New Jersey, and everywhere in between. These 55 cattle groups say, ``The U.S. cattle industry has invested considerable time, effort, and money to improve, promote, and advertise its finished product U.S. beef. The cattle industry now needs the ability to identify its beef from among the growing volume of beef supplied by foreign competitors. The ability to differentiate domestic beef from foreign beef is necessary to ensure that U.S. cattle ranchers have a competitive, open market that allows consumer demand signals to reach domestic cattle producers. It is now time to take the next logical step and require country-of-origin labeling so consumers can identify the beef U.S. cattlemen have worked so hard to promote.'' Second, a letter from the two largest farm organizations in the United States, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union. It is comforting to know we have the full support of these two groups. Third, I also received a letter signed by 87 farm, ranch, and consumer organizations, in support of my country of origin labeling legislation which was added to the farm bill in the Agriculture Committee. Some of the 87 groups signing this letter include most of the Florida and California fruit and vegetable associations, the major consumer groups in the United States, and national farm and ranch groups. Moreover, approximately half of all the Farmers Union and Farm Bureau state organizations signed this letter. These 87 groups say, ``We seek your support for inclusion of a measure to provide mandatory country of origin labeling for fresh produce and meat products in the Senate farm bill. American consumers prefer to know where their food is grown.'' Finally, I have a letter from three of the largest consumer groups in the United States, the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumers League, and Public Citizen, expressing their strong support for country of origin in the farm bill. These groups say, ``When the Senate takes up the farm bill, please support legislation to require country of origin labeling at retail for meat and fresh fruits and vegetables. We thank Senator Johnson for introducing this legislation, the Consumer Right to Know Act of 2001, S. 280. Please oppose efforts to water down country of origin labeling legislation by allowing domestic origin labels on beef that has been slaughtered and processed--but not born--in this country.'' Some of the other groups supporting my country of origin labeling language include; all of the SD farm, ranch, and livestock groups, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the National Association of Counties, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, Ranchers Cattlemen Legal Action Fund of the United States, RCALF-USA, the American Sheep Industry Institute, the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumers League, the Western Organization of Resource Councils, the Organization for Competitive Markets, the American Corn Growers Association, and 55 of the State cattlemen and stock grower organizations. The National Cattlemens Beef Association supports the carcass grading provision in the Senate farm bill, which ensures that imported meat carcasses do not display USDA quality grades at the retail level. It has been brought to my attention that there are unique concerns about how perishable agricultural commodities are labeled under the country of origin labeling provision in the farm bill. Unlike meat products that are oftentimes either wrapped or displayed behind glass, shoppers physically handle produce to evaluate such characteristics as size or ripeness. Quite honestly, after being handled by a consumer, a fruit or vegetable item is not always returned to the original bin in which the product was displayed. For this reason, each individual produce item may need to be labeled when physically possible to ensure accuracy about the country of origin information. I am confident the method of notification language in the labeling provision in the farm bill will ensure responsibility in information-sharing on the part of processors, retailers, and others under this act. Our language requires any person that prepares, stores, handles, or distributes a covered commodity for retail sale to maintain records about the origin of such products and to provide information regarding the country of origin to retailers. Nonetheless, I understand retailers have some concerns about making sure they are provided with accurate information. Therefore, so that we can be confident this is workable for retailers and others, I would like to recommend to my lead cosponsor of this legislation, Senator Graham of Florida, that we consult with the growers, packers and retailers to develop a means to provide such labels or labeling information to the grocery stores. Finally, I have learned that identical language for country of origin labeling has been included in the proposed alternative amendment to be offered by Senator's Cochran and Roberts. After reviewing that proposal and confirming that my provision is included word-for-word, I am driven further to see the farm bill conference report finalized with the same country-of-origin labeling language. I feel confident that the final version between my colleagues in the Senate and House will include the exact language for country-of-origin labeling that is included in both S. 1731 and the Cochran-Roberts proposal. I believe that my colleagues will recognize the importance of not only keeping the provision in the final farm bill, but to ensuring that the language is not watered down by outside interests. Anything less is unacceptable to America's consumers and livestock producers. Country of origin labeling and quality grade certification were integral components in the proposed ``Competition Title'' which Chairman Harkin included in his farm bill proposal. I led a bipartisan effort to include the Competition Title in the farm bill when one-fifth of the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, signed a letter I authored to Chairman Harkin seeking this new Competition Title. Regrettably, the Competition Title was defeated, resulting in a win for large agribusinesses to continue to muscle their way into the marketplace, only to hurt family farmers and ranchers. This is very frustrating, considering the record profits made by agribusiness recently; Cargill increased profits by 67 percent in the last quarter, Hormel increased profits by 57 percent, and Smithfield increased profits nearly 30 percent. Finally, Tyson, now the single largest meat processor in the world with its purchase of IBP, tripled profits in its most recent quarter. Conversely, crop prices took a nose dive so severe in September that it marked the worst 1-month drop in crop prices since USDA has been keeping records, some 90 years now. We must inject some real competition, access, transparency, and fairness into the marketplace if we are to see these tragic circumstances change. That is why I authored an amendment which was accepted by a 51-46 vote in the Senate yesterday to prohibit meatpackers from owning livestock prior to slaughter. This amendment was modeled after legislation I crafted last year, S. 142, the Rancher Act. I thank Senators Grassley, Wellstone, Harkin, Thomas, Dorgan, and Daschle for cosponsoring this amendment. It prohibits meat packers from owning cattle, swine or sheep more than 14 days before slaughter. However, it exempts cooperatives as well as all producer owned plants with less than 2 percent of the national slaughter. Packer ownership and control of livestock has been disrupting markets and hampering competition at the farm gate level for a long time. This amendment is a major first step towards correcting the problem. If this passes, packers will now have less opportunity for self dealing and giving preference to their own supplies. Rather, they will have to go out on the market and compete for livestock. In addition to competition, another new farm bill strategy I promoted was to increase the capacity of renewable energy produced on American soils. Agricultural producers in South Dakota are poised to dramatically increase the production of ethanol and biodiesel for our Nation, and the farm bill's energy title will provide incentives to move those value-added opportunities along. Everyone should recognize that home-grown, renewable fuels need to become an integral part of our national security strategy, which is why I asked Chairman Harkin to include a new ``energy title'' in the farm bill. The energy title in the Senate bill includes loan and grant programs to promote the increased production of ethanol, biodiesel, biomass, and wind energy. This is a landmark change to farm policy because neither the current farm bill nor the new proposal in the House contains this innovative energy title. Farmers, ranchers, and their lenders also need some assurances that price supports in the new farm bill will be predictable and meaningful, especially in times of woefully low crop prices and rising input costs. Again, this farm bill is not perfect, but, I remain confident the changes made in the Senate proposal will better stabilize farm income, minimize the impact of catastrophic market losses, and reduce the financial risks associated with production agriculture. Specifically, I believe that the commodity support provided through loan rates, countercyclical payments, and direct payments in the Senate farm bill is a significant improvement over the current farm bill. The Senate bill retains total planting flexibility which has proven extremely popular among the Nation's farmers, moreover, it allows producers the option to update their base acres and yields, using planted acreage and yield data from 1998-2001, for the purpose of receiving both direct (AMTA-like), payments and the new countercyclical payment, which is made when crop prices fall below a certain target level. While an outside observer may think it is only fair to base payments on a farm's current yields from crops that are actually planted on a farm, remarkably, this is not the case with the 1996 farm bill. Rather, the current farm bill bases payments on what farmers planted 20 years ago and calculates payments upon 20-year-old yields. Therefore, this significant change to update yields and planted acres contained only in the Senate farm bill may prove one of the most important ways we can improve support to South Dakota's farmers. Crop yields in South Dakota have made enormous advances over the last twenty years, primarily because South Dakota farmers have become more productive, efficient and prolific in their use of innovative cropping methods and practices. I am very pleased that the Senate farm bill proposal offers a reward to South Dakota farmers for these yield improvements. The direct and countercyclical payments will be made on 100 percent of a farmer's updated base acreage and yield. I am troubled by the fact that the alternative expected to be offered by Senators Cochran and Roberts, as well as the House-passed farm bill, does not reward farmers with an allowance to update their yields for basing payments--yields used to make payments under the Cochran-Roberts and House bill will remain at 1985 levels. While updating base acres for calculating payments, the House farm bill and Cochran-Roberts alternative do not benefit South Dakota family farmers for yield increases or an update on yields to calculate support under the fixed payment and countercyclical programs. Moreover, the House farm bill and the Cochran-Roberts alternative simply make payments on 85 percent of a farmer's 20-year-old yields and updated acres. Unfortunately, these proposals perpetuate some of the most glaring failures of the 1996 farm bill. Finally, the Senate bill continues the availability of 9-month marketing loans or loan deficiency payments for program crops: wheat, feed grains, soybeans, oilseeds, and new marketing loan authority for wool, honey, lentils, and chickpeas. The loan rates in the Senate bill are set higher than both the House bill, and the Cochran-Roberts alternative, because both proposals freeze loan rates at levels in the 1996 farm bill. It appears to me that the Cochran-Roberts and the House farm bill fail to recognize the desire that most producers have for a modest increase in loan rates, as marketing loans and are one form of countercyclical support. As we take this legislation up in the Senate, I may work with my colleagues to provide for more targeted payment limitations. The current farm bill essentially contains meaningless payment limits, and the House and Senate proposals aren't a whole lot better. We must tighten the payment limits and redirect benefits to small and mid-sized family farmers. The single most effective thing Congress could do to strengthen the fabric of family farms across the Nation is to stop subsidizing mega farms that drive their neighbors out of business by bidding land away from them. From 1996 to 2000, the top 10 percent of individuals and farm corporations in the U.S. snagged two-thirds of all the Federal farm payments and disaster aid, averaging $40,000 annually per individual. Conversely, the bottom 80 percent of farmers averaged a mere $1,089 per year. The current program especially hurts beginning farmers because it increases the cost of getting a start in farming. Current farm legislation subsidizes and induces large farmers to engage in aggressive competition for market share by bidding up land values in hopes of becoming the high-volume, low-cost producers. By reducing the number of middle-size and beginning farmers, the current payment structure has deprived rural communities and institutions of the population base they need to thrive. We have the opportunity to stop millions of dollars going into the pockets of large farms, in which the end result will be viability of family-sized farms and ranches. Additionally, I may work to provide an amendment to the farm bill that permits farmers to elect a pre-harvest `lock-in' price for loan deficiency payments, LDP, prior to the time in which they harvest a crop. Currently, when the local cash price for corn or wheat falls below a commodity's loan rate price, producers are able to receive a loan deficiency payment as one means of counter-cyclical support. However, experience under current legislation has uncovered some regional inequities in the marketing loan and LDP provisions. For instance, when wheat harvest begins in Texas and Oklahoma in the Spring, the winter wheat crop in South Dakota and other Northern Plains States is virtually still in its developing stage. During this time, wheat stocks are often low and local cash prices have been below the loan rate, therefore, wheat growers in southern States have enjoyed the opportunity to trigger large counter-cyclical support by receiving sizable LDP payments early in the harvest season. Unfortunately, the farm bill prohibits wheat farmers across the rest of the country from receiving this same kind of support through an LDP at that same time. So, by the time July or August rolls around and wheat is ripe for harvest in South Dakota and other States in the Upper Midwest, oftentimes, a different set of market conditions limits farmers' choices to secure an LDP. This is due to the fact that harvest is nearly complete, a surplus of wheat may be hanging over the market, and the difference between the cash price and the loan rate is not as large as in the Spring. Therefore, I may offer an amendment to allow farmers to select an LDP prior to harvest. The farm bill is about many national priorities, and I am pleased the rural development title of this bill addresses the small, rural communities that serve as the backbone of our economy. It is important that our farm bill provide opportunities for value-added agriculture, small businesses, and rural communities. The level of funding for rural development initiatives in S. 1731 is a huge win for rural citizens and communities in South Dakota. Namely, I am pleased with the $75 million per year for value-added grants. South Dakota has been on the cutting edge of developing value-added projects in recent history. With the expansion of funding for these grants, we can expect to see profits from value-added agriculture increase in South Dakota. As in much of the Upper Midwest, unpredictable weather is a way of life for South Dakotans. With $2 million in funding to acquire more weather radio transmitters, people in rural communities can rest easy knowing they will have better access to accurate and up to the minute weather reports as a result of the farm bill. Additionally, South Dakota is one of the States included in the reauthorized Northern Great Plains regional authority in the rural development title. This Authority has access to $30 million per fiscal year to provide grants to states in the Northern Great Plains Authority for projects including transportation and telecommunication infrastructure projects, business development and entrepreneurship, and job training. I applaud the chairman for all of his hard work in maintaining a priority for America's rural communities. A priority of mine, the Senate farm bill provides more emphasis on conservation than any farm bill passed by the House or Senate heretofore. Our bill contains a number of conservation programs, including a reauthorization of the very successful Conservation Reserve Program and an increase in the total acreage eligible for the program to 41.1 million acres. While this is not the 45 million acre cap that I have advocated with legislation in the past, it is a step in the right direction. As we move forward to expand CRP, it is my belief that Congress and USDA must look at the criteria chosen by USDA to award contracts to landowners. Too often, South Dakota producers and landowners have been penalized by the Environmental Benefits Index which now requires very costly mixtures of seed varieties to be planted on new CRP tracts. It is my hope we can apply some greater flexibility to the EBI so this program can be effective in South Dakota. I believe the farm bill must direct more attention towards programs such as CRP which protect soil and water, promote habitat and wildlife growth, and compensate family farmers and ranchers for taking measures to conserve our resources. Additionally, the bill includes a version of the Harkin- Johnson Conservation Security Program which is a new initiative placing emphasis on conservation practices that are compatible to working lands on farms and ranches. Furthermore, the conservation title includes a reauthorization of my Farmable Wetlands Pilot, which is reauthorized through the life of the new farm bill, 2002 to 2006. This Farmable Wetlands Program was crafted last year by South Dakotans to protect small and sensitive farmed wetlands and to compensate producers for taking these acres out of production. When USDA would not administratively implement this idea, Senator Daschle and I introduced legislation which was signed into law. The legislation called for a two-year pilot program to enroll small, farmed wetlands, up to 5 acres in size, into CRP. I am very proud that South Dakota common-sense left an imprint on the conservation title of this farm bill with the extension of this Farmable Wetlands program. Finally, the conservation title contains a new Grassland Reserve Program to protect prairie and grasslands across the country. Finally, I am also pleased with the nutrition title within the Senate farm bill that would ease the transition from welfare to work, increase benefits for working families and children, simplify regulations within, and increase outreach for the Food Stamp Program. Given our Nation's current economic conditions, it is especially important now that we reach out and provide services to our South Dakota neighbors in need. I would like to make special note of a provision included in this bill that would prevent the School Lunch Program from losing at least $100 million over the next 2 years by adjusting the way the program counts the value of commodities in the program. I introduced legislation earlier this year to prevent this problem, and I am pleased that this provision was included in the committee version of the bill. In agriculture, I think the best economic stimulus is a long-term strategy that provides a meaningful income safety net for family farmers and ranchers. Therefore, the farm bill is the economic stimulus for rural America and family farmers and ranchers. The facts about the need to act are clear. In September, crop prices experienced the most dramatic one-month price drop in recorded history. We must enact a farm bill to provide greater economic security to our Nation's family farmers and ranchers. I ask unanimous consent to print the letters in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Very good. I look forward to the observations of my friend and colleague from Iowa.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think we have had a good debate on this legislation. I think Senator Burns, my colleague from Montana, is correct on our issues about foreign contracting and markets that need examination. You can only do so much at one time, however. This addresses the most egregious of the concentration issues. That is the outright ownership of livestock on the part of the packers. That is our attempt here. There are some who say this bill goes too far. There are some who say the bill doesn't go far enough. I appreciate that. But I think it is a very solid piece of legislation. I hope it will go forward. The only other observation I have is it was noted we should not be in the business of telling someone whether or not they can own a pig. This legislation doesn't tell anybody whether or not they can own a pig. It does place some limitations on some kinds of packing companies that wish to own 2 million pigs. But it does not tell anybody whether or not they can own a pig. I think it is solid, bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I will ask, consistent with the request made by the Senator from Nevada, the ayes and nays at the appropriate time. I believe he indicated at about 10 minutes until 2. I will ask at that time for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHNSON. This legislation does not deal with futures and options.

Mr. JOHNSON. I appreciate the inquiry from my friend from Montana. This legislation does not prohibit forward contracts at all. There are some who suggest maybe we should, but we chose not to go down that road. So forward-contracting remains an option for both the producers and the livestock packers.

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

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, the amendment pending aims to protect America's livestock producers from the overwhelming market domination of a few meatpackers. My amendment is based upon bipartisan legislation I introduced earlier this year, S. 142, which strengthens the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, by prohibiting large meatpackers from owning livestock prior to slaughter. This amendment is cosponsored by my friend Senator Grassley, as well as Senator Wellstone, the Agriculture Committee chairman, Senator Harkin, Senator Thomas, Senator Daschle, and Senator Dorgan. All of these Senators have cosponsored my bill, which enjoys bipartisan support. I applaud my colleagues for their leadership on this issue, and especially thank Senator Wellstone for offering this amendment in the Agriculture Committee. Unfortunately, it was defeated, but with more information about what our amendment does, and doesn't do, I believe we'll gain much more support here on the floor. Mr. President, let me address specifically what our amendment does; First, it bans large meatpackers from owning slaughter cattle, hogs, and lambs for more than 14 days prior to the time in which these livestock are slaughtered. Second, it exempts producer-owned cooperatives engaged in slaughter and meatpacking. Therefore, many of the innovative, start-up projects operating and being formed to give producers greater bargaining power in the market will not be affected by our amendment. There are a number of these cooperative projects Mr. President, that I would like to highlight as examples; For instance, our amendment would exempt the United States Premium Beef packing plant. U.S. Premium Beef is located in Kansas and is the first value-added meatpacking plant owned by a farmer-controlled cooperative in the nation. U.S. Premium Beef works with Farmland Industries in this project. The facility processes cattle owned by ranchers. In a value-added-twist, the ranchers also own the processing facility itself, in conjunction with Farmland Industries, a cooperative. This is the kind of innovative project that our amendment does not impact. The amendment also looks forward to many similar projects breaking ground in the future, and exempts any farmer-owned co-op aiming to process cattle in South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, and other portions of the country. Our amendment also exempts the ``Pork America'' cooperative working to finalize plans for the Nation's first major pork packing cooperative, and the amendment exempts a number of modest-sized co-op lamb slaughtering projects in the Northern Plains and West. But co-ops are not the only businesses exempt from the ownership ban. Small, producer owned packing and processing facilities handling less than 2 percent of the national, annual slaughter are also exempt under our amendment, whether or not they are a co-op. Therefore, if a farmer rancher owned facility slaughters less than 1,960,000 hogs, 724,000 beef cattle, or 69,200 lambs, they are exempt from the ownership ban under our amendment. For instance, ``Harris Ranch'' in California is a producer-owned beef packing plant, not formed as a cooperative, which handles less than 724,000 head of beef cattle per year. As a partnership of cattlemen who own a packing plant, this facility will be exempt according to my amendment. We don't want to stifle or inhibit these new ventures from making a real, bottom-line difference for American livestock producers, so my amendment exempts ``Harris Ranch'' and all other non-cooperative, producer owned processing and packing plants that slaughter less than 2 percent of the overall domestic slaughter of beef cattle, lamb, and hogs. That's the substance of our amendment. Here is why we need our amendment. Our amendment would take on a growing problem in livestock marketing--that of packer ownership of livestock and captive supplies of livestock that allow packers to manipulate cash prices paid to producers. This amendment would strengthen the 80 year-old Packers and Stockyards Act, to make it unlawful for a packer to own, feed, or control livestock intended for slaughter. Our amendment also addresses a glaring deficiency in the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, because it has failed to prevent packers from squeezing independent producers out of the market. Here are a few cases in point where current law--written 80 some years ago--has failed to promote competition in livestock markets. The poultry industry has been almost entirely vertically integrated for many years, and the pork industry is becoming more so. The hog industry especially has been consolidating rapidly in recent years. At the packer level, the 4 largest firms' share of hog slaughter reached 56 percent in 1999, compared with 40 percent in 1990. In 1997, 64 percent of all hogs were marketed through some form of forward sales arrangement between producers and packers, and approximately 10 percent of all market hogs involved entire or partial packer ownership. According to USDA's Economic Research Service, larger producers-- 5,000+ head--most often aligned with large integrators and meatpackers currently account for nearly three-fourths of the hog production, compared with just over one-fourth in 1994. In the cattle sector, the 4 largest beef packers accounted for 80 percent of all steers and heifers--beef cattle--slaughtered in 1999, compared with 36 percent in 1980. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, the number of U.S. packing houses for beef cattle and hogs has declined by two- thirds since 1980. Smithfield Foods has made 17 acquisitions during this time, giving Smithfield 20 percent of the domestic processing market for pork. A recent column in the ``Economist'' stated Smithfield would like to increase that share to 30 percent, and hopes its hiring of former Clinton administration DOJ Anti-Trust Chief Joel Klein as a Smithfield attorney may help them in that process. These are the facts about consolidation land market power. These are the hard cold facts that frustrate every independent farmer and rancher in the United States. The frustration grows when one considers recent profits made by agribusinesses: Cargill increased profits by 67 percent in the last quarter, Hormel increased profits by 57 percent, and Smithfield increased profits nearly 30 percent. Finally, Tyson, now the single largest meat processor in the world with its purchase of IBP, tripled profits in its most recent quarter. Conversely, crop prices took a nose dive so severe in September that it marked the worst one-month drop in crop prices since USDA has been keeping records over the past 90 years. We must inject some real competition, access, transparency, and fairness into the marketplace if we are to see these tragic circumstances change. Instead, agribusiness is vigorously lobbying Congress to ensure the market is noncompetitive, closed off, veiled, and unfair. Packer ownership of livestock is a function of captive supplies. Captive supplies are livestock that are controlled by packers either through contractual arrangements with producers or outright ownership. In other words, captive supplies are all cattle and swine that are not negotiated and priced within seven days of slaughter. The trend towards captive supplies and packer ownership has dramatically increased the market power of meat packers far beyond the control they previously had in the marketplace even 10 years ago. Banning major meatpackers from owning livestock prior to slaughter is not a radical idea, there is a basis for what we are trying to do. The Packers and Stockyards Act, and its regulations, currently prohibit sale barns or auction markets from vertically integrating. Specifically, stockyards may not own or control buying stations, packing plants, or livestock feeding operations. The rationale is that such ownership or control creates conflicts of interest, access problems for other producers, and opportunities for self-dealing which distort the market. Because meatpackers are similarly situated to stockyards as a market creator and market forum, the same rules should apply to them, but, unfortunately, the rules do not apply to the packers. Moreover, similar marketplace protections exist in other industries. For example, film production and movie companies cannot own local movie theaters by law. Broadcasting companies are prohibited from owning local television and radio stations. Why can't similar protections apply to the family farmers and ranchers raising livestock in the United States? Here are some of the harmful effects of the packer ownership/captive supply trend: A stark increase of packer market power by allowing packers to stay out of the cash market for extended periods of time, thus reducing farm gate demand and driving down price; a severe reduction, or even elimination, of the ability of small and medium- sized producers to even access the market. An increase of packer market power by allowing packers to go to the cash market only during narrow ``bid windows'' or time periods each week rather than bidding all week, thus resulting in panic selling by producers; a distortion of public markets because captive supply livestock are not priced at the time of the commitment to deliver them. Rather they are priced after delivery. This means that transactions concerning these packer-owned livestock are not part of the publicly reported daily cash market. Narrowing the volume in the market makes it more subject to manipulation. Less cash market volume also increases the likelihood for reduced competition, fewer competitors, and a lower price. In conclusion, not only must we strengthen the law, but we must also call on USDA and the Department of Justice to better enforce it. Enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act has been dismal, no matter who sits at the Secretary of Agriculture's desk. We must call upon USDA and DOJ to better enforce our laws. Yet, ensuring free and fair markets is not a one-way street. The fault is not solely with USDA. We must pass stronger laws in Congress as well. Therefore, while Congress has not been successful in trying to urge our Cabinet leaders, regardless of party, to protect the market, I believe we must enact stronger laws to prevent further erosion of competition in livestock markets. Our amendment would essentially update and strengthen the Packers and Stockyards Act, which is supposed to prevent any preference and Stockyards Act, which is supposed to prevent any preference in packer procurements of livestock. The 80-year-old act was also supposed to guarantee a well functioning marketplace on fair terms for all farmers and all ranchers. Packer ownership of livestock is inherently preferential and anticompetitive. But with USDA either asleep or in the packers' pockets, this bill is desperately needed. Considering where the industry currently stands, with the world's largest poultry processor buying the world's largest beef packer, as well as a number of other proposed mergers in the last year, I believe this amendment is critically important to halt what is an unfair move toward vertical integration. A ban on packer ownership of livestock would not drive packers out of business because most of their earnings are generated from branded products and companies marketing directly to consumers. Conversely, livestock ownership by packers and further concentration in the livestock industry could drive independent livestock producers out of business because they are at the mercy of these large corporations. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers want competition in the marketplace, but when a meatpacker owns livestock, that actually reduces competition. If allowed to grow unchecked, packer ownership of livestock will put a stranglehold on the Nation's family farmers and ranchers and eventually will drive those operations out of business. This farm bill needs to combat marketplace concentration so that family-size farmers and ranchers are not squeezed out of business by multinational corporations. I urge all of my colleagues to support this very important amendment that will preserve family farmers and ranchers by putting a stop to concentration in the livestock industry and preserve the level of competition that has made our free market economy over the years the greatest success story economically in the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON. The nature and the thrust of the comments, I thought, related to packer ownership of livestock.

Mr. JOHNSON. The parliamentary circumstance under which we were taking up these amendments was a bit convoluted up until the moment the distinguished Senator from Iowa came onto the floor. I would observe that the amendment pending is the Feingold amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I was unaware that the Senator from Wisconsin still had steps he needed to take relative to his amendment. I withhold, at this point, my amendment and will allow the Senator from Wisconsin to proceed with his unanimous consent. I ask unanimous consent that I then be in a position to offer my amendment upon the conclusion of the amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.