[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13804-S13810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1976) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     rural development, Food and Drug Administration, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and 
     for other purposes.

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Excepted Committee Amendment On Page 83, Line 4, Through Page 84, Line 
                                   2

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business, I inquire 
of the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the committee 
amendment on page 83 of the bill.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 4 minutes remains to be debated on the 
amendment before we conclude debate on this subject?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, there is not order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, 4 
minutes remain in debate time on this amendment. We have agreed Senator 
Boxer will use the first minute and the managers 2 minutes and then 
Senator Boxer will close the debate for the remaining 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will listen to this 
because it is such a common sense issue. 

[[Page S13805]]
If I were to tell you that hot is cold and cold is hot, you would think 
I was kidding. And if I told you that freezers keep things warm and 
ovens keep things cold, you would think I had lost it. And then if I 
told you that chicken frozen to 1 degree was fresh you would question 
my brain capacity. And yet, every day in America's supermarkets, our 
consumers go in and buy chicken products, turkey products--they are 
marked fresh and they are hard as a rock. They are as low as 1 degree. 
And the Food Safety and Inspection Service finally has remedied that by 
saying if you are going to put a label on it, it has to reflect the 
condition of the product; fresh is fresh; frozen is frozen.
  The committee amendment would stop that rule from going into effect. 
So I am going to move, at the appropriate time, to table that 
amendment.
  They are going to tell you this is a parochial issue. It is not. It 
is a consumer issue. Every consumer organization thinks this rule 
should go into effect. I hope Senators will vote to table the committee 
amendment.
  I reserve my 1 minute to close this very intriguing debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is one of those issues that if you 
look at it you would think the California Senators had the high ground. 
They do not.
  In 1992 the California Poultry Association went to the California 
legislature and said, ``We cannot compete. We have to do something.'' 
These chickens are coming in here at 26, 27, 28 degrees, which they 
have been for decades. They are not frozen hard. We are not talking 
about zero degrees. They said, ``We cannot compete.''
  So the California Legislature adopted a rule which a Federal court 
promptly ruled out of order because we had preemption on it. So what 
happened? They go to the Agriculture Department. The rule we are 
talking about is exactly what the California Legislature passed.
  I want to tell you this, we have shipped--Southern and Southeastern 
States have shipped billions and billions and billions of poultry all 
over the United States. Not just California, everywhere. One complaint, 
from the California Poultry Federation. They do not even want to allow 
you a 2 to 3 percent plus or minus allowance. It is the California 
Poultry Federation bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 1 minute.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  It is clear from the evidence that this is an effort to protect 
California poultry producers from competition from outside the State. 
There is no doubt about it.
  Somebody asked me a while ago, they said, ``I do not understand this. 
Are we being told that if something is frozen that it is not fresh?'' 
The point is, the Food Safety and Inspection Service has concluded, 
somehow, that fresh is the opposite of frozen. Fresh is the opposite of 
stale or unfit for consumption or something that does not taste good.
  The fact of the matter is, this poultry is being sold in California 
that is being processed in Mississippi or Arkansas, Louisiana, 
Oklahoma, Virginia, Delaware--Senator Biden talked about his industry 
there. We would not be able to see our poultry processors ship any 
poultry into the California market because of this rule. The rule as 
promulgated is that it has to be at no less than 26 degrees, flat 26, 
no variance, no exceptions. Think about a truck going across the 
country to California and you have to maintain that exactness.
  There is going to be a patrol of inspectors waiting on you from 
California to see if you have met these strict rules? They need to 
reexamine it. The amendment says no funds will be used to enforce this 
regulation until they review it. That is what we insist upon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I heard my colleague mention California 13 
times. I find it amusing. It was under the Bush administration that 
this truth in labeling started, in 1988; in 1988. This is a consumer 
issue and finally we have a chance to make sure that our people who 
walk into supermarkets, who take care of their families, who buy 
poultry, will know what they are getting. They know the fat content 
now. They know how much calcium is in a product now. They know how many 
minerals are in a product, how many calories are in the product, how 
much protein is in the product. They only thing they do not know is if 
a product has been previously frozen.
  Sometimes they take it, throw it in the freezer, defrost it again, 
which is bad. It is a bad thing to do for the health of their families.
  This is a consumer issue and the consumers are watching us. That is 
why every consumer group is on our side and says, ``Please, vote to 
table the committee amendment.''
  The fact of the matter is, this is simple common sense. You can turn 
it around, you can say ``California'' 22 times--it does not change the 
fact. Fresh is fresh. Frozen is frozen.
  All time has expired, so I move, at this time, to table the committee 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to lay on 
the table the committee amendment on page 83, line 4 of the bill.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is 
absent due to illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 444 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Thompson
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--61

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hatfield
       
  So, the motion to lay on the table the excepted committee amendment 
on page 83, line 4 through line 2, page 84, was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion to table was rejected.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2688, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand it, the pending business 
is the Brown amendment to the committee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Under the previous 
order, the Senate will proceed to consideration of the Brown amendment 
No. 2688, on which there shall be 60 minutes under the control of the 
Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], and 30 minutes under the control of 
the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], with a vote on or in relation to 
the amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 

[[Page S13806]]
  amendment be temporarily laid aside so that I can offer an amendment on 
behalf of Senator Bingaman which has been agreed to on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2693

 (Purpose: To reduce the energy costs of Federal facilities for which 
                funds are made available under this act)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2693.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . ENERGY SAVINGS AT FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Reduction in Facilities Energy Costs.--The head of each 
     agency for which funds are made available under this Act 
     shall take all actions necessary to achieve during fiscal 
     year 1996 a 5 percent reduction, from the average previous 
     three fiscal year levels, in the energy costs of the 
     facilities used by the agency.
       (b) Use of Cost Savings.--An amount equal to the amount of 
     cost savings realized by an agency under subsection (a) shall 
     remain available for obligation through the end of fiscal 
     year 1997, without further authorization or appropriation, as 
     follows:
       (1) Conservation measures.--Fifty percent of the amount 
     shall remain available for the implementation of additional 
     energy conservation measures and for water conservation 
     measures at such facilities used by the agency as are 
     designated by the head of the agency.
       (2) Other purposes.--Fifty percent of the amount shall 
     remain available for use by the agency for such purposes as 
     are designated by the head of the agency, consistent with 
     applicable law.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 1996, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture (a) shall submit a report to 
     Congress specifying the results of the actions taken under 
     subsection (a) and providing any recommendations concerning 
     how to further reduce energy costs and energy consumption in 
     the future.
       (2) Contents.--Each report shall--
       (A) specify the total energy costs of the facilities used 
     by the agency;
       (B) identify the reductions achieved: and (C) specify the 
     actions that resulted in the reductions.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the two floor 
managers of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, 
Senator Cochran, and the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Senator 
Bumpers, and their staff, for their excellent and efficient management 
of the fiscal year 1996 Appropriations Act for the Department of 
Agriculture.
  I would like to take a few moments to discuss an amendment I am 
offering on this appropriations bill. My amendment encourages agencies 
funded under the bill to become more energy efficient and directs them 
to reduce facility energy costs by 5 percent. The agencies will report 
to the Congress at the end of the year on their efforts to conserve 
energy and will make recommendations for further conservation efforts. 
I have offered this amendment to every appropriations bill that has 
come before the Senate this year, and it has been accepted to each one.
  I believe this is a commonsense amendment: the Federal Government 
spends nearly $4 billion annually to heat, cool, and power its 500,000 
buildings. The Office of Technology Assistance and the Alliance to Save 
Energy, a non-profit group which I chair with Senator Jeffords, 
estimate that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually if they 
would make an effort to become more energy efficient and conserve 
energy.
  Mr. President, I hope this amendment will encourage agencies to use 
new energy savings technologies when making building improvements in 
insulation, building controls, lighting, heating, and air conditioning. 
The Department of Energy has made available for government-wide agency 
use streamlined energy saving performance contracts procedures, modeled 
after private sector initiatives. Unfortunately, most agencies have 
made little progress in this area. This amendment is an attempt to get 
Federal agencies to devote more attention to energy efficiency, with 
the goal of lowering overall costs and conserving energy.
  As I mentioned, Mr. President, this amendment has been accepted to 
every appropriations bill the Senate has passed this year. I ask that 
my colleagues support it.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that requires the 
Department of Agriculture to use essentially a 3-year base for energy 
uses and requires them to cut their energy use by 5 percent.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment, and we 
have agreed to it with some modifications being made to the amendment 
by the Senator from New Mexico. We urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2693) was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                    Amendment No. 2688, As Modified

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, is the pending business the Brown 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I yield such time to Senator Nunn, of Georgia, as he may 
consume.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Brown amendment No. 
2688, which would prohibit the outlay of any Federal funds for salaries 
and expenses of U.S. Department of Agriculture employees who carry out 
the peanut program.
  I know the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Alabama and the 
Senator from Georgia have spoken on this amendment. It is my hope there 
are going to be some changes in the amendment.
  I speak to the amendment as it now exists. Mr. President, I oppose 
the Brown amendment on three basic grounds. No. 1, while well-
intentioned, I am sure the amendment is poorly drafted. No. 2, even if 
the Brown amendment was drafted correctly, it singles out the 
administrative cost of the peanut program and raises questions that are 
beyond the scope of the bill, and No. 3, the Brown amendment preempts 
the legislative process and, I think, would undermine a very serious 
effort by a bipartisan group of Senators who are working for reform in 
the authorization bill to greatly lower, if not eliminate, the cost of 
the price support program from the agriculture budget.
  First, let me speak to the language of the amendment. The amendment 
has two basic sentences. The sentence No. 1 says:

       None of the funds made available under this act may be used 
     to pay the salaries and expenses of USDA employees who carry 
     out a price support or production adjustment program for 
     peanuts.

  And then No. 2:

       Assessment.--The Secretary of Agriculture may charge 
     producers a marketing assessment to carry out the program 
     under the same terms and conditions as are prescribed under 
     section 108B(g) of the Agriculture Act of 1949.

  Mr. President, as I read this amendment, this means that an 
Agriculture Department employee who might spend 1 percent of his or her 
time administering the peanut program and 99 percent of his or her time 
administering the cotton or the CRP program or other programs will not 
receive any salary.
  The amendment says that no funds may be used to pay salaries and 
expenses of anyone who runs the peanut program, period. It does not say 
``unless that money is reimbursed.'' That is what the second sentence 
implies, but that is not the way the amendment reads.
  Even if a peanut grower paid the portion of the salary of a CFSA 
employee who administers the peanut program, that person, under a 
literal reading of the Brown amendment, could not receive a Federal 
salary at all for administering other commodity programs--

[[Page S13807]]
cotton, feed grains, CRP program, and others.
  The peanut program is run by county employees of Consolidated Farm 
Service Agency, and these same employees administer the other programs 
in the Department of Agriculture. So if read literally, as I think any 
interpretation would have to read it, the Brown amendment could 
terminate the operation of every Federal farm program in every county 
where peanuts are grown. Again, I do not think that is what the Senator 
from Colorado means, but that is what the amendment says.
  Second, the Brown amendment singles out peanut producers to pay for 
the administrative costs of their own program. Notwithstanding the 
Brown sense-of-the-Senate amendment adopted yesterday on tobacco, no 
other group of producers has been asked to pay for the administrative 
cost of their program.
  Furthermore, the other American groups, like bankers, do not pay for 
the cost of administering the banking program, the FDIC program and 
many other programs.
  If we are going to do this, it ought to be done on a broad basis and 
not simply for one commodity. Why not do it for the feed program, 
sugar, dairy, and so forth? If this kind of reform is going to be 
undertaken, and there may be some merits for it, it would imply a much 
broader set of reforms going far further than the Department of 
Agriculture and really encompassing our entire Federal Government. That 
is not to say that the support price of it should not be addressed, and 
I am sure it is going to be addressed in the reform bill that is now 
occurring.
  Finally, this amendment preempts the legislative process. Later this 
week, the Senate Agriculture Committee, I understand, will begin 
marking up commodity titles for the 1995 farm bill which will be part 
of the reconciliation bill. The Brown amendment, as I view it, would 
undermine a very serious effort by a number of Senators who are working 
for reform of the program in the authorization bill.
  Peanuts are grown in 72 of Georgia's 159 counties. Yesterday, the 
junior Senator from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, noted that in 75 
percent of those counties, the poverty rate exceeds 20 percent. If we 
make an unreasoned and abrupt change, rather than an evolutionary 
change, in the peanut program, the economies of these counties will be 
hit very, very hard. That means that farm workers, not just landowners, 
will be deeply affected, as well as small and rural communities.
  The top two peanut-producing counties in Georgia are Worth County--I 
believe that is the birthplace of our good friend from Alabama, Senator 
Heflin--and also Early County. In 1993, 9.71 percent of the population 
of Worth County received aid to families with dependent children 
benefits and 19.4 percent received food stamps. In Early County, 13.38 
percent of the population received AFDC benefits; 28.9 percent of the 
population received food stamps.
  Mr. President, no question about it, farming and the peanut program 
are vital to these economies. Nevertheless, peanut producers have not 
circled the wagon and said they are against all change. They have not 
rejected cost reductions. Indeed, peanut producers are working with 
Senators on both sides of the aisle toward a sound, workable program 
that will eliminate the taxpayers' cost of the overall support program. 
I do not believe we want to send a signal that a process like that will 
be thrown out the window by an amendment to the appropriations bill.
  I concur with the Senator from Colorado that Government expenses 
ought to be eliminated from the peanut program to the greatest extent 
possible. I know that my colleagues, Senator Coverdell, Senator 
Cochran, and Senator Heflin also generally agree with this sentiment.
  I also agree with the Senator from Colorado that the program must be 
reformed to reflect new challenges and new opportunities presented by 
both the NAFTA Agreement and the GATT Agreement, but the amendment by 
the Senator from Colorado does not help in that regard. I think it 
impedes progress for real reform. Many in the peanut program did not 
support GATT or NAFTA, but these major trade programs passed, and they 
have been enacted into law. I voted for them.
  We are now working through the farm bill to make sure the peanut and 
other programs reflect these new realities. This amendment would short 
circuit that process. NAFTA and GATT will require peanut producers to 
face new realities. They understand that. Our authorizers in the 
Agriculture Committee are working on orderly, but effective, reform of 
the peanut program.
  Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the bill, S. 1155, the Agriculture 
Competitiveness Act of 1995, which was introduced by Senator Cochran 
last month. This legislation eliminates the cost of the price support 
program to the U.S. Treasury. The Senator from Colorado mentioned that 
the peanut program cost $120 million last year. I agree with him that 
that cost has to be driven down. As I understand S. 1155, these costs 
would be eliminated over a period of time under that bill.
  Mr. President, I am particularly proud of the leadership of Georgia's 
peanut growers in supporting legislation that will eliminate the costs 
of the price support program. The peanut title in S. 1155 is a real 
reform measure. It delivers real savings to the Government--$96 million 
in fiscal year 1997, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  In closing, Mr. President, let me reiterate that I agree with the 
Senator from Colorado that the costs of the peanut price support 
program to the taxpayer should be eliminated. I also agree with him 
that with the enactment of GATT and NAFTA, the program must reflect the 
realities of foreign competition. I am confident that under the 
leadership of Senators Heflin, Coverdell, and Cochran, the Senate will 
produce peanut legislation that meets both of those goals. But the 
Brown amendment undermines this process.
  I urge that the amendment of the Senator from Colorado be defeated. 
Unless it is substantially redrawn, I hope it will be defeated. It is 
my hope, after talking with the Senator from Alabama and the Senator 
from Colorado and others, that there may be some redrafting underway.
  I yield back any time I have remaining that was yielded to me by the 
Senator from Alabama, and I thank him for yielding me the time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the senior Senator from Colorado.
  The Agriculture Committee, of which I am a member, has been working 
diligently over the past several months to craft the 1995 farm bill. I 
have been working closely with other members of the committee to craft 
a bill that will achieve the cost savings necessary to reach a balanced 
budget, make our farm programs more market oriented, and ensure the 
continued success of the American farmer.
  We have nearly reached that goal. As I am sure you are aware, there 
exists disagreement over the future of farm policy. But members and 
staff of the Agriculture Committee are working to forge a consensus.
  Last month, I was pleased to join with six of my colleagues on the 
Agriculture Committee, including the Senator from Mississippi, to 
introduce the Agricultural Competitiveness Act of 1995. This bill sets 
forth our vision for the future of agriculture. Part of our consensus 
rests on the peanut program.
  My colleagues and I on the committee have set forth a reformed peanut 
program that will operate at no cost to the taxpayer--none. We have 
outlined a program that will contribute upwards of $400 million towards 
deficit reduction and our ultimate goal of achieving a balanced budget. 
And we have championed a plan that will ensure the continued success of 
the family farmer, to ensure that he will be there producing the 
highest quality, safest, and most abundant food supply in the world.
  All parties recognize the need for reform. And we all know that the 
budget is driving the debate over agriculture. So, I commend my 
colleague from Colorado for his contribution to the cause.
  But as my colleague from Mississippi mentioned yesterday, we are 
crafting a comprehensive farm bill, one that will address farm policy 
in a coherent, unified manner. And that is a goal I believe we will 
have achieved, when all is said and done.

[[Page S13808]]

  But we cannot address farm policy in a piecemeal manner on an 
appropriations bill, singling out not just farmers, but one type of 
farmer--our peanut farmers--to bear an extra burden.
  Let me speak to that burden. This amendment is nothing more than a 
tax on farmers. During my travels around the State and my discussions 
with Virginia farmers, one message is delivered: Reduce the regulatory 
and tax burden on the farmer. This amendment does the opposite.
  In addition, this amendment singles out one type of farmer: the 
peanut farmer. Now, I know the calls to reform this program have been 
heard. As I have said, in the Agriculture Committee, we are working on 
a reformed peanut program.
  But some insist on attacking the farmer wherever they can. 
Appropriations is not the vehicle for setting farm policy--particularly 
when it's bad farm policy.
  The Federal Government administers numerous programs. I see no reason 
why peanut farmers should be singled out for what is nothing more than 
another tax. If we are going to proceed with this policy, then let's 
apply it across the board, and make everyone pay for the incidental 
administrative expenses associated with their programs. But let's not 
just single out one group of farmers.
  Reasonable people will disagree about the future of farm policy. But 
this is the very debate we are undertaking in the Agriculture 
Committee.
  This is a battle for another day. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia, 
Senator Nunn, and also Senator Coverdell for their helpful comments in 
this area. It is clearly an area they are very knowledgeable in, as 
well as the distinguished Senator from Alabama, who has been very 
helpful in this regard.
  The Senator from Georgia is right when he says the normal job of 
dealing with this is in the authorizing committee. I have served in 
Congress now for 15 years--10 of it in the House and the remainder here 
in the Senate--and through that entire period of time, I would find it 
difficult to name a single time when the authorization bill was really 
on the floor and available for markup in either body. It may have been 
because of what was going on when I was in each particular House. But 
in the House of Representatives when it came up, there were restricted 
rules.
  Frankly, what happens is reform in this area is difficult to come by 
because it is difficult to author. Why do you need reform? For this 
reason: This program hurts the consumers of America. The world price of 
peanuts runs in the neighborhood of $350 a ton. Members will appreciate 
that it varies, as any commodity price does. But the established target 
price under the marketing control program here is $678. In other words, 
the price that American consumers pay for the domestic consumption is 
nearly double the real price. If somebody said you are going to pay 
double for this commodity what anybody else in the world pays, I do not 
think you would necessarily think they were consumers' friends.
  This program clearly hurts consumers. This program hurts producers, 
too, Mr. President. How can that be? It hurts producers even though the 
program allows producers to produce other than products for the target 
price maintained under a special loan program. Even though it does 
allow them to produce additional peanuts that can be sold worldwide or 
inventoried to meet future quotas, what it does do is lead to the 
export of this industry.
  This is a relatively new adjustment, but let me explain why I think 
it is so important that this be noted and that people understand why 
this program, as currently configured, does hurt producers. Under the 
new GATT market rules, access to the U.S. market has increased. Now, in 
the past, we could maintain a higher price in the world market because 
we had a protected market, because we not only restricted producers' 
ability to sell in the domestic market, but we restricted foreign 
competitors from selling under the U.S. rules.
  Under the new GATT rules, foreign producers will gain greater access 
to the U.S. market. As that happens, it will be very difficult to 
maintain the target prices, and the cost of the program will skyrocket. 
Members want to do something about that.
  Secondly--and this is perhaps the most important of all--it ought to 
be noted--this is, I think, quoted from Government sources, but I will 
quote it because I think it is so important here: ``However, future 
imports of peanut products from Mexico under NAFTA are exempt from this 
quota.'' There are some exceptions.
  Mr. President, what that means is, with NAFTA, we have let the 
Mexicans produce peanuts and sell them into our markets. They have not 
produced as big quantities in the past as they will in the future. They 
are rapidly expanding production in Mexico, and that will come out of 
United States production, because they will have access to our 
protected market. They will have the benefit of the significantly 
higher prices, even though they are not part of our program directly.
  What is happening right now is processors of peanuts are trying to 
decide as to whether they pick up their processing equipment and move 
it to Mexico. If they do, they accommodate the vast expansion of 
competition for us in Mexico, and incidentally, they reduce our ability 
to process and maintain an industry here in the States.
  So whether we want to deal with this or not, we are being forced to. 
Having signed the trade agreement under NAFTA, we have new competition 
in Mexico, and that Mexican competition can produce peanuts at world 
prices, and those prices can dramatically undercut what we have in this 
program. Unless we act to change the program, we will drive much of 
this industry overseas.
  It is a shame because American farmers are the best in the world. 
They are the most efficient, productive, and creative, and they are 
some of the hardest working people anywhere on the globe. To lose an 
industry that we do not have to lose because we cling to an out-of-
date, above-market-price program would be a tragedy; it would be a 
tragedy for the good farmers and for this country's competitiveness.
  Mr. President, I am sensitive to the argument that was so eloquently 
made by the Senators from Georgia and Alabama and other Members who 
have spoken on the floor about this. I think they are right when they 
say the best way to draft these reforms is in committee. I do not want 
this moment to pass without having this body go on record that we ought 
to at least address that and that it ought to be part of the 
consideration of a new farm bill.
  So, Mr. President, at this point, in an effort to move the body 
forward, I would like to offer for consideration for the Senate a 
compromise that I believe has the approval of Members on both sides, 
which assigns this task of redrafting this area to the committee. But 
it puts the Senate on record of doing exactly what this original 
amendment was intended to do, and that is to add an assessment that 
goes to the people who enjoy the benefit of the program, have that 
assessment be big enough to cover the administrative costs.
  Having stated clearly in this bill that it is the sense of the Senate 
that we should do that, I think it gives a strong foundation for the 
authorizing committee to do just that when they reauthorize this 
program and reconsider the changes that need to be made in it.


                Amendment No. 2688, As Further Modified

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``It is the Sense of the Senate that the current 
     nonrefundable marketing assessment for the peanut program 
     should be amended to direct that the current assessment is 
     utilized in a manner to help defray the cost of the peanut 
     program, particularly to cover all administrative costs of 
     the peanut program, including the salaries and expenses of 
     Department of Agriculture employees who carry out the price 
     support or production adjustment program for peanuts.''

  Mr. BROWN. I believe this amendment is approved by both sides. It 
says this:

       It is a sense of the Senate that the current nonrefundable 
     marketing assessment for the 

[[Page S13809]]
     peanut program should be amended to direct that the current assessment 
     is utilized in a manner to help defray the cost of the peanut 
     program, particularly to cover all administrative costs of 
     the peanut program, including the salaries and expenses of 
     the Department of Agriculture employees who carried out the 
     price support or production adjustment program for peanuts.

  Mr. President, at this point, I yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator. I thank him for his original 
amendment, which I think is in the right direction, I think, reducing 
this cost to the Government. He recognizes this as someone who sees 
this program as really a flawed, but futilely flawed program--not 
fatally, but futilely, as in ``futilism.'' He recognizes this is a much 
bigger issue than just the administrative costs. We are talking about 
literally millions or more dollars to the consumers of America in 
paying more for peanuts.
  I think the key point, I think that Members who may not be familiar 
with the peanut program, the key point that the Senator from Colorado 
pointed out is that this system is doomed to fail. It cannot be 
sustained because of what is going to happen with NAFTA and with other 
trade agreements.
  Mexico is in the process right now of planting more peanuts. They 
come into this country without the restrictions in place. They are 
going to replace growers here in this country, which means of course 
that we will be paying more money here at the Federal level to maintain 
that target price.
  I think it is a system that if you talk to peanut growers and people 
who hold the quotas, as the Senator from Colorado pointed out, 70 
percent of the quotas are held by people who do not grow peanuts.
  It is a feudal system. You do not have to grow peanuts to own these 
quotas. To allow you to grow peanuts you basically have this passed 
down from your grandfather or great-grandfather. You hold and you 
collect all this money for someone else to grow peanuts on their land.
  As I said, feudal system best describes it. Seventy percent are owned 
by people who do not farm the land. They are the ones getting rich on 
this program. They are the ones making all the money on this program. 
They are the ones running the ads that say, boy, you cannot touch the 
peanut program. I would not either.
  I have a lot of peanut quota holders in Pennsylvania who do not like 
what I am doing, but I have a lot of jobs leaving the State of 
Pennsylvania from Hershey's, which just moved a plant to Mexico because 
of the sugar problem, which is another thing we need to talk about.
  Peanuts is another problem. We lost jobs to Canada and other places 
in the confection industry, and by the hundreds.
  If we were benefiting small farmers who are trying to grow their 
patch, that is one thing, but these are large quota interest holders 
who simply are making money because their granddaddy was around at the 
time they were passing them out.
  I think that is not what our tax dollars should be used for. It is 
destroying the market. It is costing consumers literally billions of 
dollars a year.
  The Senator had a very modest amendment. I agree with his 
modification in the sense that this should be worked out by the 
Agriculture Committee. It should be worked out in the reconciliation 
bill and in the farm bill.
  We had meetings, as I am sure the Senator from Colorado did, today we 
had meetings in the Agriculture Committee on the Republican side and we 
will continue to meet to see if we can work out something to address 
this program, save the taxpayers' dollars and save the consumer money 
in peanut butter costs downstream.
  I appreciate the Senator from Colorado who has really been a stalwart 
on this issue, who has been out here fighting this battle. I am a 
recent joiner of his forces. I want to congratulate him for coming to 
the floor, offering this amendment, keeping the pressure on the 
committee, keeping us moving forward so we can get rid of this system 
which is simply indefensible under any kind of budget restrictions.
  I yield back the time of the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLIN. It is my understanding Senator Domenici desires to speak. 
Since this was worked out I did not intend to make a speech, but there 
have been certain statements that I do not want to leave that are 
erroneous.
  No. 1, the peanut program does not have a target price and does not 
have a subsidy. It has a loan rate. Historically, the loan rate has 
every year been substantially lower than the price paid to the peanut 
farmer for his peanuts.
  Historically over 10 years, the peanut program has averaged only $13 
million a year in cost to the U.S. Government. It varies as to what may 
happen at various times.
  In regard to the savings of the consumer, there was a GAO study that 
indicated that there could be savings to the first purchaser of 
peanuts.
  In testimony before the Agriculture Committee of the House the GAO 
representative who was there testifying made a distinction between the 
first purchaser and the final consumer, and he went on to say that in 
the study they contacted the manufacturers and asked them, ``Will the 
savings be passed on to the consumer?'' The answer was ``Well, we may 
develop new products and have a different promotional program.''
  There have been many studies over the years that have shown that as 
the price of peanuts goes up and down they are not passed on to the 
consumer. Purdue University has conducted two such studies and have 
traced over the history what the price has been.
  I just wanted to make those statements. I can go into much more 
detail and make a further statement and speech but I see Senator 
Domenici is on the floor.
  I yield 2 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I might ask that chairman of the 
committee, as I understand it, Senator Brown has changed his amendment 
to a sense of the Senate.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is correct. Senator Brown is on the floor 
and has modified his amendment substantially.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say to Senator Brown, it is a 
little known fact that New Mexico is a peanut grower. We all know about 
the South, but New Mexico grows a rare peanut called Valencia peanuts. 
They are a little bit different than peanuts grown in your State, 
Senator Heflin, or in Georgia.
  Our program does not cost any money, and I understand that 
reconciliation is going to look at all the farm bill and all the 
commodity programs and in the process they will look at the peanut 
program, which would include New Mexico and a piece of Texas of the 
Valencia peanuts, and the industry is committed to a program that has 
no cost to the Federal Treasury.
  As I understand it, Senator Heflin, that is not just what the 
Valencia peanut industry is saying but the peanut industry at large is 
committed to working out a bill in reconciliation with no cost to the 
Federal Government.
  That is all I wanted to say. With that interpretation I assume we are 
not seriously opposed to this sense-of-the-Senate proposal that the 
distinguished Senator from Colorado offers.
  I want to thank the Senator for leaving the issue--the real issue of 
how they go about doing that--to the Committee on Agriculture in the 
Reconciliation Act.
  I was going to argue on your first amendment that you were not really 
saving money but I do not want to do that now. The truth of the matter 
is you would not have been, so maybe I will just say it.
  Actually, unless you were willing to reduce the caps, that money 
would be spent by some other committee somewhere else. I was going to 
make that point, but you were judicious and amended it before we had to 
come down and do that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New Mexico 
for being enlightened, and I hope he has not given up on that task 
because I suspect that effort will be needed again.
  I simply add to the Record, Mr. President, information included by 
the Congressional Research Service on this subject because we talked 
about the costs of the program.
  CRS reports that in 1983 to 1986 the program averaged a cost of $9.9 
million a year; in the periods of 1987 to 1991 the program averaged a 
cost of $15.5 million; more than a 50-percent increase; 

[[Page S13810]]
the period of 1992 to 1996, the program averaged $54.8 million a year, 
which is 3.5 times what it was in the previous period.
  As we have noted, the program last year appears to be in the 
neighborhood of $120 million. CRS says $119.5 million is their 
estimate. That is not a finalized figure.
  Mr. President, the other point that I think is important, that the 
real cost of this program is not what it costs the taxpayers, which is 
significant and growing dramatically. It is what it costs the consumers 
of America, which CRS indicates may be in the neighborhood of $300 
million to $500 million a year.
  It is clear this is an area that merits reform. I appreciate my 
colleagues pointing out the proper role of the authorizing committee 
here. I hope we will make progress on it. Since we have reached 
agreement on the revised amendment, I believe Members will be 
comfortable in voting on this by voice. A rollcall vote will not be 
necessary.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for a 
response, the amendment now is acceptable, I am told, on both sides of 
the aisle.
  I understand, too, that the yeas and nays had been ordered but that 
we can vitiate the yeas and nays and no rollcall vote would be 
necessary.
  If there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I suggest to Senators who have time under the agreement 
if we yield back all time we can vote on the amendment on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield such time as I have.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I yield back what time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, and no one 
wishing to speak on this amendment, the question now occurs on the 
Brown amendment, No. 2688, as modified, to the committee amendment on 
page 83, line 4 of the bill.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2688), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


 Vote On Committee Amendment, On Page 83, Line 4 Through Line 2, Page 
                             84, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the committee 
amendment, as amended.
  The committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the committee 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________