Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I would like to add to what the Senator said. Obviously, the problem with the bill is that it completely devalues the land for the farmers we represent. The banks are not allowing them to borrow money on the land any longer. Out of the 130 loans that were presented to one of our local bankers, only 3 of them have been approved. They are waiting to see what happens with this farm bill, particularly this amendment. Madam President, at this time I yield time to my distinguished colleague and neighbor, the Senator from Mississippi.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the underlying amendment on payment limitations. It seems that lately there has been a lot of talk about this issue in newspapers, in the Halls of Congress, and in rural coffee shops around the country. We have all heard the horror stories about plutocrats getting rich off the Federal dole, some of which my colleague has mentioned. Most of these stories are generated by groups that claim to represent the interests of the family farmer but, in truth, could not care less about the family farmer. Instead, they wouldn't shed a tear to see American agriculture dead and buried and the land that our fathers have farmed left to lie fallow forever. It is shameful enough that those who spread these stories claim to do so in the name of the farmer while in fact working to remove him from the very land he farms. But it is downright vile that they do so by hawking misleading information and creating a false impression of the persons on the land. This misleading tone has unfortunately served as an undercurrent for these hallway and rural coffee shop debates. The people hurt by these misleading deceptions are the same farmers and their families that we in Congress say we are trying to protect. These are the families who produce our food and fiber. I am proud that Arkansas is home to thousands of these families, and I am committed to serving their needs. While America is not the agrarian society it once was, there are still areas of our country, like much of my State, where agriculture is the economy, where whole communities celebrate harvests with festivals--rice festivals and cotton festivals--where farmers take great pride in producing our country's food supply. That is why these false impressions bother me so much. It is not the plutocrat who is getting hurt by these false impressions. He doesn't exist anymore; he is a myth. But even though he is a myth, everyone has been led to believe in him, so much so that now we are literally debating how big a farm is allowed to be in order to receive our dint of approval. But how can we in Congress decide what size a farm should be? The problem with setting some arbitrary level for farm size, which this amendment would do, is that ``big'' means different things to different farmers in different parts of our country. One farming couple, Gary and Pam Bradlow of England, AR, are listed by one Web site as the top recipient of farm payments in their area. Surely, then, the Bradlows must operate a huge farm. Surely they are wealthy plutocrats, jet-setting about the Caribbean on their yacht. In fact, the Bradlows are struggling to keep their heads above water. They farm 2,000 acres--probably a large farm in the minds of many people, but in truth, on this farm they barely achieve the economy of scale they need to survive. This is because they happen to grow rice, which is the most expensive, capital-intensive program crop a farmer can grow. The other most expensive, capital-intensive crop, of course, is cotton, which happens to be the other main crop of my State of Arkansas. In fact, rice and cotton are significantly more costly to grow than any program crops. As this chart shows, the average input cost of production per acre for rise is $697. For cotton it is $538 per acre. What are these input costs? Things such as seed and fertilizer, or a 200 horsepower tractor that costs almost $100,000, or a $125,000 combine; many of these are things that every farmer has to buy. But some of these input costs are specific to rice and cotton cultivation: Things such as a 9976 six-row cotton picker, which costs $285,000 at a dealership in Blytheville, AR; or the tremendous costs required to manage all the water needed to successfully raise a rice crop, a cost which could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for even a relatively small farm. These unique costs are significant and they push the cost of production for rice and cotton to levels far above that for other program crops. Let's look at another crop, say, sorghum. The average input cost of production per acre for sorghum is only $161 per acre. Even for corn, the average input cost per acre is only $356, almost half the average input cost to produce rice. Let me point out that it is not my purpose in showing these disparities to argue that farmers of these other crops do not also deserve support--far to the contrary. Farmers of these other crops need farm support because they also have to deal with rising costs, sinking prices, and unfair trade for overseas. My purpose in pointing out these disparities in the average input costs of production is to illustrate why payment limitations generally affect the farmers of rice and cotton in my state, and across the South, before they affect farmers of other crops. But make no mistake about it, this amendment would devastate farmers of every program crop, and then some. That is why the major commodity associations representing every program crop strongly oppose this amendment. I have a copy of a letter here signed by these organizations: The American Cotton Shippers Association, the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, the Alabama Farmers Federation, the American Farm Bureau, the American Soybean Association, the Agricultural Retail Association, the Wheat Growers, Barley Growers, Corn Growers, the Cotton Council, Grain, Sorghum, Sunflower, Rice Millers, Peanut Farmers, Canola, and U.S. Rice Producers Group. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I offer this amendment along with Senators Graham, Nelson of Florida, Miller, Corzine, Dayton, Kerry, Murray, Torricelli, Clinton, and Schumer. Our amendment will place a 6- month moratorium on the final rule issued last month with regard to Medicaid upper payment limits. On January 18, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published a rule that would eliminate a critical payment source for America's public safety net hospitals. One year ago, we adopted a bipartisan legislative and regulatory compromise on this matter. This new rule flys in the face of that very compromise we made last year. We have already closed the loopholes that some States were using to abuse this aspect of the Medicaid Program. We accomplished this in last year's Medicaid UPL rule by creating three separate aggregate upper limits, one each for private, State, and non-State government-operated facilities. While ending abuses of the system, the rule also allowed a higher, 150-percent payment limit, for payments to non-State-owned government hospitals. This policy was developed after a lengthy negotiation process to allow States to pay these public hospitals a UPL of 150 percent of what the Medicare Program would pay for the comparable services. The intent behind this policy was to help compensate the safety net hospitals for the added costs associated with treating the large number of America's most vulnerable, low-income and uninsured patients. CMS has the tools and the oversight authority to make certain that Medicaid funds are spent appropriately. Current Medicaid UPL policy requires State Medicaid Programs to submit detailed reports on how these funds are to be used. Now CMS says it is curbing the payment ceiling because of the potential abuse of the system, but no one--not CMS, not the General Accounting Office, and not the Office of the Inspector General--has reported any known abuse of the current 150 percent UPL policy. In fact, only a few States, Arkansas and Mississippi among them, are operating under the new rule. The 150-percent limit has strong support in Congress. We stated as much in last year's Labor-HHS appropriations report, which pointed out that eliminating the higher payment category compromise would be disastrous for all safety net hospitals that participate in the Medicaid Program. Congress also directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to refrain from issuing that regulation. CMS is issuing this change in spite of clear opposition from Congress, the National Governors Association, and the hospitals that serve our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. As many of my colleagues, I hold that the Senate should take a hard look at this issue before we go back on the agreement we made last year. The Senate Committee on Finance should have a hearing on this issue as soon as possible, and we should work together quickly to consider and enact alternative ways in which Congress can assist the public hospitals that serve such a large percentage of low-income and uninsured patients. In fact, the second part of my amendment asks the Secretary of Health and Human Services to tell Congress what measures we can take to mitigate the lost funding that will ensue from this new rule. Simply put, if we are cutting off the Medicaid UPL program, we must do more to ensure Medicaid Programs that assist these hospitals are working properly and that their payments are adequate. With this amendment, Congress will formally ask HHS for assistance in this task. I do not know about other people's States, but I have had a multitude of my smaller hospitals that are now covering even five and six counties because other close-by hospitals have already closed. They are in dire straits, and if we put one more thing on their back, which would be to take away this 150 percent, we are going to put even those hospitals out of business. This is something that is unbelievable in light of the economic development in rural America. I know Finance Committee Chairman Baucus is interested in holding hearings on the Medicaid UPL. In fact, he had scheduled a hearing on this issue on September 13. Unfortunately, the horrible events of September 11 prevented us from having that hearing as we turned to more immediate concerns. Some may argue this amendment is not germane to an economic stimulus package. I wholeheartedly disagree. The public safety net hospitals in my State and across this country have told me that elimination of the higher payment limitation or payment limit category will be disastrous. The No. 1 cause of bankruptcy in Arkansas is unpaid medical bills. In some parts of my State, such as the rural delta region, the uninsured population among working adults is as high as 28 percent. What better way is there to stimulate the economy than helping people avoid bankruptcy, providing health care in an area where it may not otherwise be provided? What industry is going to locate in an area that has no health care provider? They do not want that liability. Their employees do not want that lack of quality of life. What better way is there to keep our small towns and rural areas healthy than to ensure that these hospitals stay open? In our rural communities, access to dependable medical care is just as important as a strong public education system. Towns without hospitals fail to attract a workforce for the economic growth necessary to keep their economy vibrant and growing. Last summer, CMS approved the Arkansas Medicaid UPL Program. The supplemental payments flow directly to the participating hospitals where they are used exclusively for health care and Medicaid purposes. These payments have literally been the difference for some Arkansas hospitals between continued operation or closing their doors. We cannot tell these hospitals we are going back on our agreement at a time when they face increased demands as a result of a slowing economy and a rising unemployment rate and a rising uninsured rate. Madam President, we depend on our hospitals in times of personal crisis. We depend on our providers. Now they are asking for our help. We must not turn our backs on them. I urge all colleagues to join me today in voting for this amendment, supporting this amendment; to look to your States and see how desperately you will be affected if this is allowed to happen. I encourage all colleagues to join me in this effort. Health care is probably going to be, if not already, one of the foremost issues we will deal with in this next year. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Our hope is through this amendment we can do some good in beginning to deal with the problems we will be facing in this new year. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Mr. Nicholas Finzer, an Arkansas native who this month will end a long career in public service as an employee of the U.S. Forest Service. A 1963 graduate of the University of Arkansas, Nick joined the Forest Service in Montana before leaving to serve his country in Vietnam. Nick later returned to the Forest Service, working in forest and timber management and as a forest ranger in Idaho, Montana, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Texas, before returning to Arkansas for good in 1984. That is when Nick began his tenure as Lands and Minerals Staff Officer on the Ouachita National Forest. One of his top priorities in this position was acquiring new lands in order to accomodate the public's interest to expand the forest. In nearly two decades service in the Ouachita National Forest, Nick always took a pro-active approach to acquiring new lands for the Forest Service, either through exchanges or purchases. In 1996, Nick oversaw the exchange of over 180,000 acres from Weyerhauser Company for nearly 48,000 acres of government property. This transaction took in land over two States, Arkansas and Oklahoma, and required Congressional legislation to complete. At the time, it was the largest land exchange in the history of the Forest Service. Nick's colleagues attribute the success of this massive exchange to his wisdom, expertise, and perseverance. Nick also spearheaded efforts to develop new programs in the Forest Service. He recognized the potential of the Ouachita Mountains as a part of the Forest Service's geological program. Some people may not realize it, but the Ouachita Mountains are home to a series of world- class quartz crystal deposits, many of which are located in the Ouachita National Forest. These deposits have attracted both commercial activity, mineral collectors, and tourists, and Nick should be saluted for recognizing the possibilities of these minerals. Years ago, he sat down with my predecessor, Senator Dale Bumpers, and convinced him of the significance of mineral resources in our Nation's forests, particularly the importance of managing these resources. With Nick's help, Senator Bumpers focused on a number of important land and mineral issues that were important to the Ouachita National Forest, to the benefit of all Arkansans. Nick Finzer's farsighted approach to forest management has brought great benefits to Arkansas and to the United States. His efforts have helped to preserve and improve the Ouachita National Forest for us and our children. For that and many other accomplishments, we owe Nick a tremendous debt of gratitude, and I am honored to pay tribute to him.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mrs. LINCOLN. May I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mrs. LINCOLN. About 5 minutes.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I was just describing the debate so far.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today is December 19. Twenty days ago, on November 30, our leaders made a motion to move to debate on the farm bill. That was just after Thanksgiving. Many farmers in Arkansas probably thought, finally, the Senate is going to start voting on the merits of the farm bill. Members on the other side of the aisle objected; they were not ready to move to the farm bill. They said we did not need a farm bill this year and we did not have to deal with that issue right now; we could put it off for another year, just as we have been putting farmers off for the last 4 or 5 years. They forced us to have a procedural vote. The White House continued issuing statements against considering a farm bill this year, and our farmers waited. Our farmers all across this Nation waited. On December 5, 5 days later, we had a vote that is hard to explain to folks outside the beltway. We voted on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the farm bill. It passed 73 to 26. In other words, 73 Senators thought we should begin debating the farm bill. But rather than allowing the Democratic leadership to move forward with the bill, Republicans forced us to wait several days and then vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the farm bill. Now, with that vote behind us, many farmers in Arkansas probably thought, finally, finally, the Senate is going to start voting on the merits of a farm bill now. Then, on December 5, December 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12, we discussed the farm bill. Hanukkah came and went. As my colleague from Oklahoma mentioned, this is a difficult bill. Farm bills always are. That is why we spent the last year and a half discussing the issues of this bill. In years past, we have tested the issues of a 5-year farm bill. And in the last farm bill we found that the policy we enacted in 1996 was completely inadequate. We have been discussing that for a year and a half. We have been talking about it in committee. We have been talking about it among ourselves and with our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol. The Senate is supposed to be the deliberative body, and we have proven that again with the weeks of debate on a farm bill that took up 3 days of business in the other body. For 3 days the other body deliberated this issue, and we have spent how much time here over the course of the last 3 weeks? On December 12, the distinguished former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, offered his alternative to the commodity title of this bill. We debated its merits, and then it failed by a vote of 70 to 30. Many farmers in Arkansas probably thought, finally, the Senate is going to finish up the farm bill. The leading Republican on the Agriculture Committee had offered up his best, and the Senate had voted no. Now maybe we could pass the farm bill. And then we continued to deliberate. We deliberated on December 13, 14, on December 17 and 18. Christmas grows near. Yesterday we had another procedural vote in an attempt to move the farm bill. The Senate voted on cloture. But we fell 6 votes short of the 60 needed to move forward. Most Republicans voted no. They wanted more time to deliberate. It is beyond me who it may be out there in our farmland of America, from whom they are hearing, who thinks we are not in an urgent situation of providing good agricultural policy. And I do not know, but maybe the Senator from Arkansas and I are the only ones who hear from farmers who are extremely anxious about whether or not they are going to get their financing to put seed in the ground next year or whether or not they are going to be able to continue a family farm that has been in their family for generations, whether they are going to have to continue to farm out the equity of that farm in order to be able to continue farming. Then the distinguished former chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee offered their alternative. Before yesterday, there had not been any written copy of the Cochran-Roberts bill. We could not review the bill on its merits. So it became known on this side of the aisle as ``what will it take to get your vote?'' A version of that bill had failed during committee consideration. But yesterday, it got its day in the Sun. And it was fully debated on the Senate floor. And it failed by a vote of 55 to 40. With that vote behind us, many farmers in Arkansas probably thought, Finally, the Senate is going to pass the farm bill. And that brings us to this day on the brink of another vote to bring the Agriculture Committee's farm bill to an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Now my good friend from Arkansas is prepared to offer a bill that he and I introduced prior to the Senate Agriculture Committee considering the farm bill. We introduced that bill when we were concerned that the Senate Agriculture Committee wouldn't pass a farm bill. But the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, worked closely with us to craft a bill that fits the needs of all producers. I am proud of the bill that came out of committee. And I want to commend Chairman Harkin for his hard work. I am prepared to vote in favor of final passage of the Harkin farm bill right now. It is a good bill. A strong bill that has weathered 20 days of debate. But my friend from Arkansas wants a vote on the bill we introduced earlier this fall. I will vote in favor of the Hutchinson amendment because it reflects a bill that I wrote. But I warn my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Regardless of the outcome of this vote, if you vote against cloture at 1:15, you will reveal your true intentions regarding U.S. farm policy for all America to judge. There will be no denying that you have no interest in moving a farm bill this year. It will be obvious to every farmer who is watching this debate. America's farmers will know, without qualification, that you preferred to turn your back on them. You will have abandoned them in this time when they are desperate for a farm policy based on the realities of American farming in the 21th century. That is a fine ``Merry Christmas'' wish for rural America.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Speaking for myself, I agree with the Senator that we can probably get through debate rapidly. I think the Senator from Mississippi, and maybe Senator Hutchinson, and there may be a few other Senators who want to speak, but I don't foresee it taking a good deal of time, and we could conclude our comments rapidly.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for being in this Chamber and so eloquently describing the issue with which we are dealing, particularly in our home State of Arkansas, particularly in the area of the Mississippi Delta region of Arkansas that has been so hard hit by the unfairness of the influx of trade from the Vietnamese basa fish. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his continued leadership and his work in keeping us focused on making sure we are on the straight and narrow and that we are doing business in the Senate in the way that business should be handled. He is always there working diligently in that regard. Today I rise to respectfully oppose the amendment that Senator McCain has offered on catfish and, again, thanking him for his leadership and doing many things in keeping us straight in the Senate. But I respectfully disagree with him on this one. Our distinguished colleagues who support this amendment argue that this issue is about free trade. They argue this amendment is about preserving the integrity and the spirit of our trade agreements, in particular, the bilateral agreement with Vietnam this body approved earlier this fall. And they are right on both of these points, but not for the reasons they describe. This issue does touch on free trade and on the integrity of our agreements. It touches on the fairness of trade and on the trust that we ask our citizens in this country to put into our trade agreements. For global market liberalization to succeed, it must be built on a strong foundation of rules. This rules-based market system must be transparent and fair. It must be reliable and it must encourage market confidence. That is one reason we worked so hard to negotiate our trade agreements within the auspices of a stable, multilateral institution such as the WTO. If we do not work within a reliable, predictable rules-based system, then people lose faith in the promise of free trade and the free trade agenda is undermined. I do not think anyone in this body with the state of the economy wants to undermine the opportunities that free trade brings to this great Nation. Many of our farmers have lost faith in our promises of free trade because they sense that their trading partners are not playing by the same rules. The House barely approved TPA last week in large part because rural Members and their constituents have lost faith in free trade. Our catfish farmers are now having to confront this issue of fairness and trust. They are having to confront imports of a wholly different kind of fish that is brought into this country but that is labeled as catfish. Let's remember what it is we are talking about when we talk about catfish. As a young girl, I learned how to shoot using target driftwood on the Mississippi River. I also learned how to enjoy the outdoors and fishing by catching some big catfish in many of our lakes and streams in Arkansas, the thrill of being able to be a part of the environment and something that is a part of our heritage in Arkansas and in the Mississippi Delta region. Some of us have in mind a specific kind of fish, the catfish that we grew up catching and eating. If we look at the chart, which has been shown to you by my colleague from Arkansas, which was prepared by the National Warmwater Aquaculture Center in Stoneville, MI, we see, as my colleague pointed out, what catfish consumers in this country think of as classified taxonomically under the family known as Ictaluridae. It is a week before Christmas, a time when we should all be focused on family and getting home to our families so we can celebrate this Christmas. Let's look at this family column of what we are talking about. Look at the Ictaluridae area of the family column, more specifically known by its genus species as the channel catfish, which is what we are talking about today. In contrast, the basa fish that is being imported and labeled as ``catfish'' is classified under the family name here known as Pangasiidae. So not only are the channel catfish and the basa fish not members of the same genus species, they are not even members of the same family. They are only members of the same taxonomic order. To get an idea of what this means or of how different these fish are, let's look at classifications of other items that we buy and consume. I mentioned this in my comments when we did bring up this amendment on the floor and talked about the bill we had introduced. An Atlantic salmon and a lake trout, as my colleague mentioned, are members of the same family. So they are closer relatives than are the channel fish, catfish, and the basa fish. I suppose if we are prepared to say that basa would be sold under the label of ``catfish,'' then lake trout can be masqueraded as Atlantic salmon. I imagine many of my colleagues in this body would disagree with that. Here is another one: A cow and a yak are members of the same family; once again, closer relatives than the channel catfish and the basa. So if we are prepared to say that the basa can be sold under the label of ``catfish,'' then we are more justified in saying that yak meat can be labeled and sold as New York strip steak. Or how about a camel or a giraffe? Both are members of the same order as a cow so just as close as the channel catfish and the basa fish. I suppose our opponents believe that an importer ought to be able to label a camel or a giraffe as beef and deceive the consumers into thinking they are buying filet mignon. Of course, it would be absurd to let a business deceive a consumer in such an egregious manner. To do so is nothing more than outrageous deception. Do not let the other side fool you by suggestions that all fish are the same. It is not true, not any more than saying all four-legged mammals can be sold as beef. These basa fish are brought into this country, packaged to mimic American brand names, even to mimic U.S. brand emblems for catfish, then labeled and sold to consumers as catfish in a blatant attempt to deceive the consumer into thinking he or she was buying a certain kind of catfish. That catfish they think they are buying is the North American channel catfish, not a basa fish. This issue really hits home in Arkansas. As was mentioned by my colleague, we are talking about the Mississippi River Delta region of Arkansas where I grew up, one of the poorest regions in the Nation, one of the areas where our catfish farmers have contributed significantly to the economic viability of our Mississippi Delta counties, an area which has already been hit hard by the downturn in the rural economy which occurred over 4 years ago or better. At a time when terribly low prices of other crops have been sending more and more farmers into bankruptcy, our catfish farmers have been able to scratch out a living by carving out a new market in this stable economy. These are farmers who in years past have left row cropping, who have found an environmentally efficient way to take their lands, their productive lands, and put them into aquaculture, thereby not only looking at the environmental impact statement they can make, the economic impact they can make, because they will hire more individuals and put more individuals to work, but also carving out a niche in the economy that needed to be filled. So many of these farmers and workers once worked in production of other crops. As we have seen, the market for those crops has gone in the tank. There wasn't a very proud commercial market in catfish to speak of, but these farmers and these workers, after finding it nearly impossible to make a living in other crops, saw an opportunity to develop a market and build an industry. That is exactly what they have done over the last 15 to 20 years. They have built from scratch this market for aquaculture. So many of these communities, these farmers, their families and related industries invested millions and millions of dollars into building a catfish industry and into developing a catfish market. It has taken years, but they have done it. They are still doing it. But now, just as they are seeing the fruits of their years of labor and investment, just as they are finding a light at the end of the rural economic tunnel, they find themselves facing a new and even more devious form of unfair trading practice. The people importing these Vietnamese fish see a growing market of which they can take advantage. It is irrelevant to them that what they are selling is not really catfish. Why are they doing it? Because the catfish market in America is growing. Americans like catfish. As the Senator from Arizona mentioned, it is wholesome and healthy. It is safe. But as in any other crop in this Nation, as we continue to demand of our producers in this great Nation that they produce the safest--environmentally safest and product safest--economical product, we must be willing to stand by them, whether it is in an incredibly good farm bill, which the chairman has produced, or whether it is in trading practices to ensure that we stand by our producers. American-raised catfish is farm raised and grain fed, grown in specially built ponds, cared for in closely regulated and closely scrutinized environments that ensure the safest supply of the cleanest fish a consumer could purchase. Some basa fish are grown in cages in the Mekong River in conditions that are far below the standards which our catfish farmers must meet. Do consumers know that? Are they aware of the product they are getting? It is an unfair irony that our catfish farmers, many of whom left other agricultural pursuits, find themselves once again in the headlights of an onslaught of unfair trade from another country. It is not true, as Senator McCain has suggested, that these are simply wealthy agribusiness corporations with deep pockets. These are farmers and workers and families who have built their lives around a productive aquaculture business, who have been scraping out of the land and the mud of the Mississippi Delta a living in an area that has been so traditionally downtrodden. In fact, 70 percent of the catfish processing workforce consists of single mothers in their first jobs. These are single working mothers, many of whom are coming off the welfare rolls in one of the poorest regions in the country. One of the farmers from Arkansas whom I know, a gentleman named Randy Evans, is a Vietnam veteran himself who has sunk his life savings into his catfish farm. Another year like the last one, he tells me, and he will be out of business. His story is a common one. Another farmer, Philip Jones, also from Arkansas, decided to quit farming in other crops 4 years ago because it was too tough to make a living and decided to throw his and his wife's savings into the catfish business. Now, as Randy Evans, they face losing all of their savings and going out of business if the next year is like the last. To hear the other side describe, the troubles these farmers are facing couldn't possibly have anything to do with increasing sales of basa as catfish. They will try to point out that basa imports represent only 4 percent of the catfish market. But that's only if you look at the entire catfish market. What they don't tell you is that basa imports are primarily in the frozen filet market, which is the most profitable market within the catfish business. And within the frozen filet market, basa imports have tripled--tripled--each of the last couple of years--from 7 million pounds to 20 million pounds annually. Looking at that trend line, it is easy to understand how imports of these misleadingly labeled basa fish will very soon have a devastating effect on the catfish industry; that is, unless something is done to bring some fairness to the marketplace. My colleagues and I felt that this problem could best be resolved by addressing the unfair trading practice where it occurs--at the labeling stage. That is exactly what the language included in the Agriculture appropriations bill does, which was signed into law by President Bush on November 28, just 3 weeks ago. It simply prohibits the labeling of any fish as ``catfish'' that is in fact not an actual member of the catfish family ``Ictalariidae.'' We are not trying to stop other countries from growing catfish and selling it into this country. We simply want to make sure that if they say they are selling catfish--then that is what they are really doing. It does not violate the ``national treatment'' rules in our trade agreements, nor should it violate our bilateral agreement with Vietnam, as some may argue. That is because the language included in the Agriculture appropriations law applies to anybody who tries to mislabel fish as ``catfish,'' whether that mislabeled fish has been grown in Asia or in Arkansas. I have heard some people mention a case involving sardines and the European Union. In that case, the EU is trying to limit the label of ``sardines'' to a specific genus species that is harvested in the Mediterranean. That case is different from ours for three reasons. First of all, the European action violates an applicable international standard that is binding on the EU under the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. There is no applicable international standard that applies to catfish. So one of the main objections to the EU sardines case is not even relevant to our case. Second, the EU action would change the way sardines imports had already been handled. So the EU action represented an about-face of sorts against the way the sardines importing industry had been doing business. This is different from our case because these basa imports have only recently begun to deluge our market. So there is no existing way we have dealt with the catfish labeling issue. We are establishing that manner right now. Third, as I mentioned earlier, the EU action would limit the label of sardines to within the specific genus species that is harvested in the Mediterranean. So sardines that are within the same taxonomic family as the European species could not use the sardines label. This is different from our case because we're talking about fish that is not even a member of the same taxonomic family. And do not let others sell you on the argument that we would violate the ``national treatment'' and most-favored-nation provisions of our trade agreements. Our language focuses only on the types of fish, not on the place of origin, so it would apply equally whether the fish is grown in Asia or in the Mississippi Delta. If our trading partners want to raise catfish of the ``Ictaluridae'' family overseas and import it into this country under the label of ``catfish,'' then they can do that. Our language does not seek to stop them. It only requires them to deal with the consumer honestly. It only prohibits them from deceiving the consumer. This is about truth and fairness and that is what the language included in the Agriculture appropriations law accomplishes. So our colleagues on the other side of this issue are right when they say this is about preserving the integrity of our trade agreements. What is at stake is whether we will honor the spirit of a rules-based global trading system that relies on transparency and fairness. Will we encourage our farmers and workers to trust increased trade? If so, then vote against this amendment. I, once again, would like to go to and reconfirm that this is not an issue of campaign finance reform. This is an issue of jobs--jobs in an area of our country that has traditionally suffered unbelievable poverty and unemployment. These are about hard-working families, in an area of our country that, again, has been downtrodden for years. It is about encouraging diversity in an industry, particularly agriculture, where we have seen our agricultural producers in this great Nation who have been farming away the equity in their farms that their fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers built up before them because we haven't provided them the kind of agriculture policy that could sustain them in business. It is providing the diversity that when row crops can't provide that stability, they can diversify into aquaculture, into an area where they can employ more people and preserve the environment, and they can make an effort at building a part of the economy that needs to be built in this great Nation. I thank the Senator from Arizona again for his leadership and for always coming forward to try to set us straight. I respectfully disagree with him. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the people of the Mississippi Delta, the farmers of this Nation who have been willing to diversify and to seize a marketplace that needed to be seized, and to give them fairness so that once again the American farmer, the American producer, can have faith in the integrity of the free trade that this Nation stands behind on their behalf.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my support for the education reform package that is now before the Senate. After debating this issue for almost three years, I am pleased we have reached a bi-partisan agreement on a package that puts our children's future ahead of the partisan bickering that has diverted our energy and attention for too long. In my opinion, the proposal before the Senate represents an important step in the right direction by recognizing the right of every child to receive a high quality education. Before I describe why I think this proposal is important for our nation's future and my home State of Arkansas, I want to look back for a moment on how we arrived at where we are today. I doubt many of my colleagues remember what we did or debated in the Senate on May 9, 2000. I remember that date very well because that's the day I joined 9 of my Senate New Democratic colleagues in offering a bold ESEA education reform plan known as the Three R's bill. Prior to introducing our amendment, we had spend months drafting our bill and were very proud of the finished product. That day we arranged to come to the floor as a group to talk about why we felt our innovative approach combined the best ideas of both parties in a way that would allow both Democrats and Republicans to move beyond the partisan stalemate that had stalled progress for so long. Needless to say, we were disappointed when our amendment attracted only 13 votes. Normally, I might hesitate to remind my colleagues and constituents of a vote like that. But I felt as strongly then as I do today, that the proposal we crafted provided an opportunity to improve our system of public education by refocusing our attention on academic progress instead of on bureaucracy and process. Fundamentally, we believe that by combining the concepts of increased funding, targeting, local autonomy and meaningful accountability, States and local school districts will have the tools they need to raise academic achievement and deliver on the promise of equal opportunity for every child. So as I have listened to many of the comments delivered on the floor today, I can not help but reflect back on May 9 of last year when I joined Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh and other Senate New Democrats on the Senate floor to unveil these fundamental principles. I am gratified that many of the priorities we spoke of that day have been incorporated into the final agreement we will hopefully adopt later today. That having been said, I know many of my colleagues played a critical role in fashioning this very important legislation. I especially want to express my appreciation to Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg for their tireless efforts on behalf of our nation's school children. As someone who has followed the progress of this bill very closely, I think each Member of this body owes the managers of this bill a debt of gratitude for bringing Senators with very different points of view together to find common ground on this critical issue. I applaud their leadership and I congratulate their success. As I noted previously, I support this bipartisan compromise because it contains many of the elements that I think are essential to foster academic success. It provides school districts with the resources they need to meet higher standards. It expands access in Arkansas to funding for teacher quality, English language instruction, and after-school programs by distributing resources through a reliable formula based on need, not on the ability of school districts to fill out a federal grant application. And finally, and most importantly, in exchange for more flexibility and resources, it holds states and school districts accountable for the academic performance of all children. I do want to highlight one component of this legislation that I had a direct role in shaping. During consideration of the Senate reform bill in May, I successfully offered an amendment with Senator Kennedy and others calling on Congress to substantially increase funding to enable language minority students to master English and achieve high levels of learning in all subjects. More importantly for my State of Arkansas, under the approach I promoted, funding will now be distributed to States and local districts through a reliable formula based on the number of students who need help with their English proficiency. Currently, even though Arkansas has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of limited English proficient (LEP) students during the last decade, my State does very poorly in accessing Federal funding to meet the needs of these students because the bulk of the funding is distributed through a maze of competitive grants. I am pleased the conferees accepted the funding level and the reforms I advocated. This new approach represents a dramatic improvement over the current system and will greatly benefit schools and students in my state. Ultimately, I believe all of the reforms that are contained in this bill will make an important difference in the future of our children and our nation. So I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to urge the adoption of this truly landmark legislation. Unfortunately, I fell compelled to mention one aspect of this legislation that dampens my excitement for its passage. Even though I believe the bill on balance represents a major improvement over the current federal framework, I am very disappointed that we are once again denying the promise we made to our constituents in 1975 to pay 40 percent of the costs of serving students under IDEA. In my opinion, our failure to live up to this promise undermines to some extent the very reforms we seek to advance. While Congress and the Administration continue to ignore the commitment we made 26 years ago, school districts are forced to direct more and more state and local revenues away from classroom instruction to pay the Federal share of the bill. I will continue to work in the Senate to reverse this record of inaction which is profoundly unfair to school districts, teachers, and the students they serve. I want to close, by thanking all of my colleagues who spent many weeks and months negotiating this agreement. Even though progress has been slow at times, the way Democrats and Republicans have worked together on this bill is a model I hope we can repeat often in the future. I already mentioned Senators Kennedy and Gregg without whom this bill would not be possible. I also want to say a special word of thanks to Senators Lieberman and Bayh who demonstrated real leadership by talking about many of the reforms we are about to ratify before those ideas were very popular. They deserve a lot of credit for the final agreement they helped draft and I was honored to join them in crafting the original Three R's proposals that is clearly reflected in the bill before us.