Floor Statements

Mr. President, the retirement of our Senate Chaplain, Lloyd Ogilvie, leaves me with a profound sense of loss. He has been a personal friend to me, as well as a wise counselor and adviser. I know I will miss him greatly. He has served the Senate with great distinction. His daily prayers were works of art and poetry, delivered in his deep rich voice, with conviction and a seriousness of purpose.

He has warmed our hearts with his genuine concern for our spiritual well-being and reached out to touch the souls of staff members and Senate employees, as well, who sought his advice and his message of hope and reassurance. We have all been richly blessed by the presence and the ministry of Lloyd Ogilvie. Our thoughts and sincerest best wishes and our love go with him.

I understand the Senator from Iowa's concerns. I intend that the provisions of the conference report relative to this program would not have any effect on the operation of the program during the life of this farm bill. I would be pleased to work with him to insure that the program funding is restored.

Mr. President, today the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry conducted a business meeting and approved the subcommittee membership of the committee along with the rules of the committee. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in today's Record. The committee also reported it's funding resolution for fiscal year 2003, fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, I support the efforts of the Department of Commerce and United States Trade Representative to negotiate a fair trade agreement with Canada. We have a very important trading relationship with Canada. They are America's strongest trading partner, and I hope we can continue strengthening that relationship. However, Canada subsidizes its lumber mills, and those mills are dumping lumber in our domestic market. This has a devastating effect on the lumber industry in America, particularly in Mississippi where mills are closing each month.

Currently, the Department of Commerce has imposed a countervailing duty to offset the injury to our market. Canadian mills must pay a 29 percent duty on top of the cost of producing their lumber. To arrive at that duty rate, the Department of Commerce calculates what it costs Canadian lumber producers to process their lumber. In fact, a U.S. statute, Sec. 19 U.S.C. 1677, states that duties should be considered a cost of production incurred on shipments to the United States.

Today, Senators Craig, Baucus, Burns, Miller, Crapo, Lott, Sessions, Snowe, Collins, Lincoln, and I introduced a bill to clarify the law so that there is no misunderstanding of the rules under which the Department of Commerce calculates the duties imposed on illegally subsidized Canadian lumber. This recalculation would raise the price it costs Canadians to produce their lumber and would allow the Department of Commerce to raise the current 29 percent duty. The practice of subsidizing and dumping must be taken seriously.

I am hopeful that the recent trips by the U.S. Government to Canada can result in honest and fruitful negotiations leading to a fair lumber trading agreement. It is in the best interest of both of our countries that we reach an agreement. In my State, lumber is one of our most valuable agricultural products.

For years the mills in my state have endured unfair trading practices. Now that the U.S. is finally imposing duties to offset the injury to these mills, the Canadians are simply incorporating the duties into their cost of doing business. On behalf of the few remaining lumber mills in Mississippi I urge the Department of Commerce to uphold existing trade laws by counting duties as a cost.

Mr. President, I support the efforts of the Department of Commerce and United States Trade Representative to negotiate a fair trade agreement with Canada. We have a very important trading relationship with Canada. They are America's strongest trading partner, and I hope we can continue strengthening that relationship. However, Canada subsidizes its lumber mills, and those mills are dumping lumber in our domestic market. This has a devastating effect on the lumber industry in America, particularly in Mississippi where mills are closing each month.

Currently, the Department of Commerce has imposed a countervailing duty to offset the injury to our market. Canadian mills must pay a 29 percent duty on top of the cost of producing their lumber. To arrive at that duty rate, the Department of Commerce calculates what it costs Canadian lumber producers to process their lumber. In fact, a U.S. statute, Sec. 19 U.S.C. 1677, states that duties should be considered a cost of production incurred on shipments to the United States.

Today, Senators Craig, Baucus, Burns, Miller, Crapo, Lott, Sessions, Snowe, Collins, Lincoln, and I introduced a bill to clarify the law so that there is no misunderstanding of the rules under which the Department of Commerce calculates the duties imposed on illegally subsidized Canadian lumber. This recalculation would raise the price it costs Canadians to produce their lumber and would allow the Department of Commerce to raise the current 29 percent duty. The practice of subsidizing and dumping must be taken seriously.

I am hopeful that the recent trips by the U.S. Government to Canada can result in honest and fruitful negotiations leading to a fair lumber trading agreement. It is in the best interest of both of our countries that we reach an agreement. In my State, lumber is one of our most valuable agricultural products.

For years the mills in my state have endured unfair trading practices. Now that the U.S. is finally imposing duties to offset the injury to these mills, the Canadians are simply incorporating the duties into their cost of doing business. On behalf of the few remaining lumber mills in Mississippi I urge the Department of Commerce to uphold existing trade laws by counting duties as a cost.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Arizona. Let me point out that there has been a lot of discussion over the last several years about the impact of the Yazoo Backwater project.

The Corps of Engineers several years ago undertook a reevaluation of this project which was authorized over 40 years ago. As a matter of fact, it is a part of a very large Mississippi River and tributaries project. This is one of the last parts of that authorized project to be constructed. Because it is one of the last projects to be constructed, an intense amount of scrutiny has been devoted to the project. That is just fine. That is an appropriate thing for people who are concerned and interested in the environment and in agricultural production and in the lives and well-being of the people who live in this area.

The point is, the project is not going to authorize the drainage of any new wetlands. There will be no new lands cleared of bottom lined hardwood for this project. There will be a small amount of land cleared, 38 acres, in order to construct the project. But 62,500 acres of existing agricultural land will be reforested. There will be new habitat created, way beyond what exists now.

The purpose of this project is not to create new agricultural opportunities in this part of the Mississippi Delta, but it is to save lives. It is to prevent damage to existing infrastructure such as roads and bridges. It is to prevent the flooding of schools and hospitals and businesses. It is to address the concerns of people who want the project to proceed, such as those who visited my office last week when they heard there might be an amendment to strike the money to begin this construction project.

These were not big shot farmers. These were poor people who have homes and businesses in Mayersville and in Sharkey County in the area where this project will be constructed.

I am hopeful that the Senate will reject this amendment. It is an amendment designed to cut money the committee put in the bill, $14.5 million. It will cut almost all of that money.

The Corps of Engineers is nearing the point where they will be able to enter into contracts for design and construction of the project and to do some real estate activities that are necessary before the construction is actually begun.

I urge the Senate to carefully look at the facts. I will include for the Record 5 pages of misconceptions and the facts that prove those misconceptions to be erroneous. I hope Senators will take the time to look at them and to read these factual statistics and information as relevant to this project. I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled ``Yazoo Backwater Area, Mississippi'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Senators should understand this is a project that actually protects the environment in a more aggressive way than it would have without the project being funded. Mr. President, 62,500 acres of farmland will be reforested under this project, when this project is complete. This is money that begins a process of developing, design, and construction. It is at the early stage of work.

There are homes, hospitals, schools, businesses, roads, and bridges that are flooded but for the construction of this project. It will get worse rather than better. These are mostly poor people who are affected in this area of Mississippi.

I urge the Senate to reject this amendment and vote aye on a motion to table.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I appreciate the efforts of my friend from Wisconsin. I agree that the Summer Food Service Program is important for several reasons. Not only does it provide children with a healthy meal, but many of the approved sites that administer the SFSP also provide educational and recreational opportunities that foster learning throughout the summer months while parents are working.

Again, I thank the senior Senator from Wisconsin, and I appreciate his commitment to this important issue. I look forward to working with him on this program during the upcoming reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act.

Section 32

As the language in section 205 of my amendment that was adopted by the Senate yesterday states, these funds would only be available for surplus removals and would restore funds in the Section 32 account that were used for other purposes this fiscal year.

I will be glad to work with the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Vermont to address their concerns during the Conference.

I thank the distinguished Senators from Maine, and I will be happy to work with them in conference on this important electric project, which will provide affordable and reliable electricity to the islands.

I appreciate the concerns expressed by my colleagues, and I assure them that this subcommittee recognizes the horrible effects that the Emerald Ash Borer has had on Southeastern Michigan and the potential it has to devastate our nation's Ash tree population. We will work with them to address this problem.

Madam President, I call up Cochran amendment No. 204.

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

Madam President, let me compliment the distinguished Democratic leader for his effort to get an agreement under which we could carefully and thoughtfully consider this issue in the Senate. We have reached that agreement, and we have two alternatives now pending before the Senate: The so-called Daschle amendment and the Cochran amendment.

For the information of Senators, these are not the only efforts that have been made up to this point to deal with the disaster facing agriculture. In fairness, we have to acknowledge that the administration has been working very diligently to use existing authority to make payments to producers under the authority of current law to deal with the losses being suffered in production agriculture and in the livestock industry. Specifically, the Risk Management Agency of the Department of Agriculture has been supervising the payment of crop insurance benefits and so far $4.1 billion in crop insurance indemnities have been paid to producers across the country.

In addition, the Livestock Compensation Program has been utilized to the extent of the payment of $932 million by the Department of Agriculture, and for the Livestock Feed Assistance Program, outlays of $150 million have been made available. Adding up these three specific instances of assistance, we can see that $5.182 billion of benefits have been paid to agricultural producers.

I agree with what the distinguished Senator from South Dakota has said: That is not enough. So we come here today trying to define new authorities for the Department of Agriculture under which additional benefits can be made available to compensate farmers for losses that have been sustained because of not only drought, which has been devastating in some parts of the country, but also other adverse weather conditions--excessive rainfall at the time in the South where farmers were trying to get into the fields to harvest cotton, to harvest other crops, and were not able to do so because of the difficult conditions created by excessive rainfall.

All of these producers will be eligible for benefits under the Cochran amendment. It will be capped however. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimates the outlays under this amendment would amount to $3.1 billion. The additional fact to be kept in mind is, under our scoring procedures, trying not to add to the deficit with this amendment, we have offset the spending under the Appropriations Committee bill to which this amendment is added, so that this is not going to be new spending under this amendment.

By comparison with the Daschle amendment, the $6.5 billion that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that amendment will cost will be added to the deficit. It is not offset. It is declared an emergency. And under the Budget Act, that is one way of funding disasters that are unanticipated. I am not suggesting it is illegal, but it simply does have budget implications in terms of additions to the deficit that the Cochran amendment does not.

We also try to deal with the disaster in terms of defining the areas where benefits could be made available. These basically are in disaster counties, counties that have been declared a disaster under current law by the Department of Agriculture or by the President. Other farmers who are located outside of those designated areas, if they can prove a loss up to 35 percent, may do that, and they will be eligible for compensation just as farmers who are located in the disaster declaration areas.

We are trying to make this applicable to those who have suffered disasters. At one point some Senators raised a question about the wording of this amendment I offer today because it appeared to make available benefits to

those who might not have had a disaster or may not have suffered any economic losses due to any kind of disaster. We hope we have tightened up the definition of eligibility so only those where there have been declarations of disaster or where they can prove they suffered damages up to 35 percent will be eligible for benefits. We hope we have taken care of that difficulty. We appreciate the fact that Senators are not bashful normally and they were not in this case either when they disagreed with some parts of this amendment as it was earlier drafted and brought this to our attention.

We tried to accommodate those concerns, and we think the amendment has been improved to the extent that it merits the support of the Senate.

We hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will look at the suggestions we have made carefully. We have tried to cover livestock producers as well as row crop producers. Other specialty vegetable crops and the like are covered as well. We think this is a generous but responsible way to deal with the problem. We hope Senators will vote for the amendment.

Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel.

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Madam President, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas.

Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts.

Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.

Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman.

Madam President, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns.

Mr. President, I think we have had a good discussion of these two amendments that are pending before the Senate. I continue to believe the way to get the assistance to the farmers in the most expeditious way possible is to vote for the Cochran amendment. The reason for that is, the counties that have been declared disaster counties are already a matter of record. With these computer programs that the Department of Agriculture has, sometimes it takes time to get to a point where you can actually send out checks if new information is going to be included in that program.

That is what would happen under the alternative presented by my friend from South Dakota. Farmers would have to come in and sign up for benefits. The Department of Agriculture, through the Farm Service Agency offices around the country, would have to gather that information, process it, and submit it to the Department here. I think it is not unreasonable to expect there to be months that go by before the checks would actually go to the farmers who need the help; whereas, in the Cochran amendment the funds would go out much more expeditiously--I think in a matter of weeks. That has been the experience in the past disaster situations where we have followed this kind of benefit program.

The percentage of the payment is calculated on the basis of the farm payment received by farmers in the past. That is a matter of record. The identity and the addresses, all of that is already in the computers.

This is no small matter. You cannot disregard the importance of that because farmers are hurting now. We have talked about how we don't want to put this off. If you vote for the Cochran amendment, you won't be putting it off. You will not be putting it off for months before farmers get the benefits to which they are entitled.

I urge Senators to vote for the Cochran alternative. We have had a good description of the content of the bill. It is going to be not only approved in conference but will be signed by the President and will get the benefits to those who need it quickly.

That is my understanding of the meaning of the agreement we reached.

Before I yield back the time remaining on this side of the aisle, parliamentary inquiry: The schedule under the order is for a vote to occur at this time on the Cochran amendment and then, following the vote on the Cochran amendment, a vote will occur on the Daschle amendment; is that correct?

I thank the Chair. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, may I ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments? I ask unanimous consent that that be in order.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.