[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1001-S1060]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT OF 1996

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the unfinished 
business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1541) to extend, reform, and improve 
     agricultural commodity, trade, conservation, and other 
     programs, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Craig (for Leahy/Lugar) amendment No. 3184, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       Wellstone (for Kohl) amendment No. 3442 (to amendment No. 
     3184) to eliminate the provision granting consent to the 
     Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.


                Amendment No. 3442 to Amendment No. 3184

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time on the amendment?
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to call up our amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is the pending question.
  Mr. KOHL. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. President, today, I and others rise in opposition to the 
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. While we have only a short time to 
discuss this matter, I think that it is important to fully understand 
its ramifications--for farmers of other regions, for consumers in the 
Northeast, and for the principle of free trade within our country.
  As I have said before, it is difficult for me to stand here and 
oppose my friends from the Northeast in their efforts to help the dairy 
farmers of their region. But I feel that this is a very important 
issue, and that it is the wrong thing to do.
  The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact is a regional compact unlike 
any we have seen before. It is an effort by six Northeastern States to 
wall themselves off from the rest of the Nation economically. The 
compact would bring about artificially increased milk prices in the 
Northeast, for the benefit of the farmers in those States, at the 
expense of that region's consumers, without regard to market forces. 
And it would do so by imposing a prohibitive compensatory payment 
scheme to prevent more reasonably priced milk from coming in from other 
regions. It is at its heart anticompetitive.
  I will be the first to say that dairy issues are regionally divisive, 
and the first to agree that we should get beyond our divisions and find 
common ground. And I believe that compromise and consensus are 
possible, even in dairy policy.
  But the Northeast Dairy Compact ignores all efforts at compromise, 
and instead is an effort by one region to remove itself from the 
national system and establish a regional dairy policy. It takes an 
already outmoded milk pricing system, and twists it even further.
  While the context for this compact is dairy, I believe its 
ramifications are far more broad.
  Make no mistake about it. This compact is unprecedented in the 
history of the Nation. It is true that the Constitution allows States 
to enter into a compact with other States, as long as those compacts 
are approved by Congress. This authority has been used many times, 
without controversy, by States that seek to address multistate 
environmental or transportation concerns. But I know of no instance 
where it has been used to allow States to engage in price-fixing 
activities, or as a way to circumvent the commerce clause of the 
Constitution. Congressional approval of this compact is an invitation 
for all sorts of economic balkanization.
  The Framers of the Constitution had the foresight to see the dangers 
of allowing States and regions to erect economic barriers against other 
States in the Union. 

[[Page S1002]]

  Two years ago, when the Northeast Dairy Compact was considered in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, many of my colleagues raised valid 
constitutional concerns with the compact.
  If we set the precedent today by granting consent to one region of 
the Nation to wall itself off economically from the rest, we must ask 
ourselves, where will it stop?
  If we deny free trade within our own borders, we are whittling away 
at the economic unity that is one of the core principles of this 
country. And I will not stand for it.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to strike the 
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact from this bill.
  I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I want to thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his 
exceptional leadership. Last night, when I laid down this amendment the 
Senator is speaking about, I did it because of what I think all of us 
in the Midwest feel very, very strongly about. First of all, many of us 
have been working for 5 years to have milk marketing order reform. That 
is what we really stand for. That makes all the sense in the world.
  We have had a system in place since 1933, and it worked in the 
beginning, but it is archaic and it has a discriminatory effect on 
dairy producers in the upper Midwest. We have lost thousands of dairy 
farms in my State of Minnesota.
  Mr. President, the problem with the Northeast Dairy Compact, above 
and beyond what the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken about, in terms 
of some of the regional barriers it creates, is that this also will 
forestall the kind of genuine reform that we really need of the milk 
marketing order system.
  Mr. President, it is not appropriate to cut a special deal for one 
region's dairy farmers to the detriment of dairy farmers in other 
regions, especially in the upper Midwest. So, Mr. President, I think 
this is a critical vote, and I am proud to stand with the Senator from 
Wisconsin. I hope that our colleagues will support this amendment. It 
is absolutely key to the future of the dairy industry in this country 
to have a fair milk marketing order system, to have real reform. This 
amendment really takes us in that direction.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in offering this 
amendment to strike the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact from the 
farm bill.
  As a Senator from Minnesota, I rise today for the over 11,000 dairy 
farmers I represent--the most productive, yet overburdened, dairy 
producers in the world.
  For years, Minnesota's dairy industry has struggled against the 
harmful impact of an archaic Federal milk marketing order pricing 
scheme, which has played a key role in the loss of over 10,000 dairy 
farms over the last decade--an average of nearly 3 farms every day.
  These statistics emphasize the importance of fixing the dairy 
program. Yet, today we are faced with a proposal which would impose 
another set of burdensome regulations and harmful trade barriers on our 
dairy producers.
  If this dairy compact is enacted, it will increase the minimum price 
paid to dairy farmers in New England. These higher prices will likely 
increase dairy production in that region, causing New England milk 
producers and processors to seek additional markets in States like 
Minnesota. In the process, this overproduction has the potential to 
flood markets and depress milk prices paid to dairy farmers outside of 
the compact States.
  The long-term effect of these lower prices would be to drive the 
dairy industry from States like Minnesota out of business--leading to a 
shortage of milk within the region and requiring processors to import 
more expensive milk from other regions.
  Due to the 20-percent loss of milk production in Minnesota over the 
last decade, this is already happening. With the dairy compact, we run 
the risk of making this even worse for dairy producers around the 
country.
  In addition, the compact will result in the proliferation of 
anticompetitive trade barriers between the States. If enacted, the 
Compact Commission will have to make immediate decisions about how to 
keep lower priced milk in States outside the Northeast from entering 
their region.
  In order for the compact to survive, New England would have to engage 
in protectionist behavior, not from other countries, but from within 
the United States itself.
  At a time when we are trying to open up global markets for our 
Nation's farm producers, it makes no sense to encourage protectionism 
within our own borders. Yet, that is exactly what the dairy compact 
would do.
  The Nation's dairy industry should be exactly that--a national 
industry. Special favors for one region of the country will have a 
detrimental impact on the others.
  For far too long, regional politics have made the dairy program what 
it is today: archaic, unfair, unwise, and unworkable. Let us not take 
another step backward by authorizing this Northeast Dairy Compact.
  After all, the purpose of the Agricultural Marketing Transition Act 
is to remove the Government from interfering in the agricultural 
decisionmaking process and reduce the regional conflicts that have 
plagued our farm policy for years.
  The dairy compact would do just the opposite: It would expand the 
role of government in dairy policy, create an unfair advantage for 
dairy producers in New England, and further weaken the dairy industry 
in States like Minnesota.
  I will not stand for that. And neither should any other Senator. It 
is time to put an end to the failed dairy policies of the past--and 
certainly to the unwise proposal before us today.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for small dairy 
farmers across the country and voting to strike the Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact from this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, who controls time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I believe I control the time on our side, Mr. 
President.
  Let us get down to what we are talking about. I think it was brought 
out well by the Senator from Minnesota. That is, they want to protect 
their farmers. That is understandable. They would like to have no milk 
orders. They would like to have nothing in this country because they 
believe they are lowest producers. That is fine.
  This issue was raised before. I want to remind everybody, the Senate 
voted 65 to 35 earlier this year to say that, yes, the six States of 
New England, a small area of our country, has the right to act like any 
big State, because California and several other States have done the 
same thing we seek to do. Many have said, ``We want to protect and help 
our dairy farmers stay in business.'' Little old New England, six 
States are no bigger than many of the other small States.
  We talk about the State's rights here. These six legislatures voted 
to do this. Two of those are metropolitan States. They said, ``We want 
to protect the farms of Vermont.'' We are tucked way up in there. We do 
not bother anybody with our milk supply. We could not. We are too far 
away. We are at the end of the energy, the end of everything up there. 
We are bordering on Canada that has milk prices 50 percent higher than 
ours. We cannot get into their markets. Hopefully with NAFTA we can.
  All we are saying, ``Let us do what any other State can do and let us 
get our producers a little more money for their milk that goes to the 
consumers.'' The consumers agreed, ``We are willing to pay it, we are 
willing to pay it.''
  So why does Minnesota and Wisconsin--later on we will have a chance 
to vote for something to protect them, something to give them what they 
want. We are willing to go along with it if they leave us alone. They 
do not, no. We will have the ability to be able to help our producers. 
It is only 5 years, a sunset, that says try it for 5 years and keep it 
going until NAFTA or something comes by.
  It is hard to understand why they would pick on our farmers up there 
so far away. There is no way we are a threat to their markets. I cannot 
understand why they have taken this position. Fortunately, the Senate 
has already said 65 to 35 that you are right, 

[[Page S1003]]
New England, your States have a right to act like any big State.
  I yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend and colleague from Vermont.
  Mr. President, it probably makes sense this is the first thing we are 
debating this morning because of the fact that it is a dairy amendment 
and dairy farmers get up early, work hard, maybe a little bit early for 
some of our friends in the Senate, but Senator Jeffords' and my good 
friend, Harold Howrigan, up in Franklin County, VT, is up there. He has 
already finished milking, had breakfast, and probably back in the barn 
now feeding the calves.
  I mention him for this reason: Harold is the president of the St. 
Albans Cooperative, but first and foremost a hard working dairy farmer 
like so many men and women in Vermont. I hope when we debate this 
amendment we consider how it will affect the average dairy farmer. This 
compact was an idea that came from Vermont. It could help Vermont's 
hard working farmers get a better return for their work. It will also 
help consumers gets more stable prices.
  All of New England is united in this effort. I ask those who would 
vote against it, how would they explain to somebody in New England why 
they did it? It allows the States to take over their own destiny.
  We hear all kinds of talk about the need to give more responsibility 
back to the States. We heard it across town at the National Governors' 
Association, telling Members of Congress to do that. In fact, I tell my 
colleagues, if I understand the wire service copy I was reading at 
about 1 o'clock this morning, the National Governors' Association has 
voted to support this concept. Now, the Senate also voted that way, 65 
to 34.
  This is not something that is anticonsumer legislation. It is 
something where people come together in their own region to help their 
own region.
  We are talking about beverage milk. That is a regional market. You do 
not drive milk halfway across a country. You do it in the region. Over 
97 percent of the package milk sold in New England comes from bottlers 
regulated in New England. The rest comes from outside. Less than 1 
percent comes from outside our region.
  This is also not closing out other markets. They are not there, 
anyway. Fluid milk remains within the region where it is. It also is 
not something where the consumers are going to be gouged. This compact 
would increase prices only if four of the six New England States agree 
to it.
  Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts have 11 
million consumers. They have fewer among all of them than 1,000 
farmers. This is not a case where some farm bloc is going to roll over 
consumers. It is going to have to be something where the consumers want 
to do it, not that the farmers want to do it. They are an infinitesimal 
part of the population involved.

  It also will make the point that it is not the farmer that is getting 
this money, it is the retailer. The past 12 years, farm prices fell 5 
percent. Retail prices, I ask my friend from Vermont, I believe went up 
about 30 percent, is that not right, or more, during that same time? If 
you want to look at the price of milk, look to the retailers. It is 
amazing, as the price goes down to the producer, the cost goes up in 
the supermarket.
  I yield back to my friend from Vermont, but I ask if that is not the 
case?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That certainly is. I happen to have a chart here.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thought you might.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have a chart that displays that fact. The farmers are 
the most important group that the consumers ever have to keep prices 
down, but they cannot do it if the retailers keep going up. Our farm 
prices have been going down for the last 10 years, and the retail 
prices have been going up. Every time we go down, they go up. Anybody 
that tries to say we are the cause of high retail prices, there is just 
no evidence of that whatever.
  Mr. LEAHY. I hope, Mr. President, that the 65 Senators who voted for 
this last time, who obviously felt it was important to do so, felt they 
had legitimate reasons to do so, would not suddenly decide to change 
exactly as they voted last time.
  To reiterate:
  Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by Senators Wellstone, Feingold, Kohl, and others.
  The underlying bill would grant congressional consent to the 
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. This compact is an agreement among 
the six New England States to create a commission that will have the 
authority to oversee the pricing of fluid milk. All six States' 
Governors and legislatures strongly support this amendment.
  All year we have heard about the need to give more responsibility 
back to the States. Across town, at the National Governor's Association 
meeting, Members of Congress are lining up to tell the Governors how 
they are willing to turn more control back to the States.
  The underlying bill would allow the six New England States to take 
more control over milk pricing. The Senate voted 65 to 34 in favor of 
an amendment that added the compact during the budget bill debate.
  Even though the 6 New England States have debated this compact for 7 
years, and even though 65 Senators voted in favor of the compact, my 
colleagues from Wisconsin insist that they know what is best for new 
England. So they want to strip this provision from the bill.
  They claim that the compact would hurt their region, but that claim 
is false. We are talking about beverage milk, which is a limited 
regional market. It does not travel long distances because it is 
perishable. Fluid milk from Minnesota or Wisconsin is not sold in New 
England.
  Over 97 percent of the packaged milk sold in New England comes from 
bottlers regulated in New England. The rest comes from the neighboring 
milk marketing order. Less than 1 percent comes from outside our 
region.
  Even if fluid milk did come in from outside our region, which it does 
not, the compact would allow the flow of milk into and out of the 
region just as it occurs now.
  Opponents make a lot of claims about this compact. They claim it 
would erect a trade barrier around New England.
  This is simply not true. Over 20 percent of the milk sold in New 
England comes from New York. The compact would ensure that these 
farmers also receive their share of benefits from the compact.
  The compact works just like the current Federal order system. Any 
producer supplying the market would receive the benefits.
  I agree that the national industry needs to come together behind a 
unified dairy policy. I will support reasonable reforms of the milk 
marketing orders and the dairy program.
  In the meantime, I do not see how we can hold the New England States 
hostage. This compact is State law in the six New England States, an 
idea that came from the countryside, not from Washington. The New 
England States think they have a better way of pricing milk. We should 
let them.
  Some try to make the claim that the compact would raise consumer 
prices. The link between farm and retail milk prices is tenuous at 
best. In the past 12 years, farm prices have fallen 5 percent, while 
retail prices have increased over 30 percent.
  There is no guarantee there would be any price increase. The compact 
would increase prices only if four of the six New England States 
agreed. Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts 
have 11 million consumers and fewer than 1,000 farmers. Their consumer 
interests far outweigh their farmer interests. Both farmers and 
consumers would have to be represented on the commission.
  The New England State legislatures have voted overwhelmingly to give 
the compact commission this authority. All 12 members of the New 
England delegation are cosponsors of the compact and it has already 
received the support of 65 Senators.
  This is a grassroots effort. New England is asking for nothing from 
this body nor the Federal treasury--just the opportunity to act in 
concert for their common good. In the spirit of federalism I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this amendment and give this opportunity to 
the New England States.
  I yield back to the Senator from Vermont. 
  
[[Page S1004]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont controls 7 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me make one comment. We are not 
ruling out anybody else flowing their milk in. Hey, guys, bring it up 
if you can get the price. Bring it in, Minnesota. You can get the 
price. We are not trying to lock anybody out. You can get the price, 
Pennsylvania, then ship milk in, come on in, and take advantage of the 
price. That is your right.
  We have not ruled anybody out, and we are not trying to make a market 
for ourselves. We are trying to be generous in helping the dairy 
farmers to stay alive in our area. If you can do it, if the price goes 
up, and it attracts you, what you are saying, and the end result is, we 
have to knock you out so that price gets even higher so we can ship in. 
If you cannot ship in with the high price, we will give you--you want 
it higher than that. You want to really rip our consumers off it you 
are going to get into our markets because you can get into them now.
  Mr. President, I retain the balance of my time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Dole, Senator Lugar, 
Senator Leahy, and others for their tireless efforts in bringing us a 
farm bill. I know that they have overcome many obstacles, and that it 
has not been an easy task. I also understand that there is an urgency 
to pass this bill. It is important for all those in the business of 
providing food for America that we act to improve these programs. 
Overall, I support these improvements and will vote for this bill.
  I do object, however, to the provision added to the compromise 
version of S. 1541 that would give congressional approval to the 
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. This proposal was introduced and 
placed directly on the Senate calendar, bypassing the Judiciary 
Committee which has jurisdiction over interstate compacts. In other 
words, we are being asked to vote on this controversial compact without 
having had a hearing or a committee markup on the issue during this 
Congress.
  Although some changes and minor improvements were made to the 
proposal from the version that was debated in the 103d Congress, those 
changes have not altered the essential nature of this compact. It would 
still permit member States to set the price for fluid milk above the 
existing Federal order price, effectively setting up a dairy cartel. 
These member States would be protected from competition from other 
States. This form of trade barrier is exactly the kind of practice 
prohibited by the commerce clause of the Constitution, and it is not 
one we should sanction in an interstate compact. Compacts have been 
used to build bridges, roads, and tunnels; to dispose of waste; or to 
set boundaries. Never have they been used to restrict interstate 
commerce.
  Despite the modifications its proponents have made, I remain 
concerned about the dairy compact's potential anticompetitive effects, 
the burdens it places on interstate commerce, and the harm it would 
cause to consumers by increasing prices. The compact would raise the 
prices milk processors would have to pay for milk sold in the compact 
States, and those costs would be passed on to consumers.
  I am equally concerned that the compact will disrupt existing Federal 
programs that regulate milk prices and that it will increase costs to 
the Federal Government. Costs to the Government will undoubtedly 
increase if the Government is forced to purchase more surplus when 
farmers are encouraged to increase production well beyond demand. This 
is certainly not a time when we should be increasing pressure on the 
Federal budget.
  The fact is that we already have a Federal system for setting minimum 
milk prices to dairy farmers. That system provides a safety net through 
the dairy price support program and dictates minimum prices paid 
through the Federal milk marketing order program. I see no reason to 
establish a second milk pricing mechanism that will benefit only a few 
States.
  In short, I remain seriously concerned that the dairy compact will 
hurt consumers, milk processors, and taxpayers. At a minimum, it 
embodies a concept that requires deeper scrutiny and further 
discussion.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Wellstone amendment to strike the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact 
from this bill.
  Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk in this debate about the 
need to preserve the family farm, and how the farm legislation that we 
pass should, at the very least, not cause more family farmers to go out 
of business.
  Well, I can tell you that what we have at stake in this vote on the 
Wellstone amendment is nothing less than the survival of many family 
dairy farms in Maine and the other New England States.
  It's very simple. If this amendment wins, large numbers of family 
dairy farms in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and other New England 
States go out of business. If we defeat the Wellstone amendment and 
retain the Craig-Leahy language, more farmers have an opportunity to 
keep their farms, the rural economy of our region stays afloat, and 
consumers and processors in our region have the satisfaction of knowing 
that the price they pay for fresh milk provides a fair return to the 
farmer who produced it.
  And that is one thing that I hope everyone keeps in mind on this 
vote: The only people directly affected by the compact--the farmers, 
consumers, and processors of New England--all support it.
  What is also at stake is the concept of State-based problem-solving. 
In the debates held so far in this Congress, and surely in the debates 
to come, we have heard and will hear many Members argue that the States 
are often best positioned to solve their own problems, and that they 
should be allowed to do so without interference from Washington. I 
couldn't agree more.
  With this vote on the Wellstone amendment today, Senators will have 
an opportunity to match words on this concept with deeds. The compact 
represents a regional response to a regional problem. It directly 
affects only those States that belong to the compact, and it doesn't 
cost the Federal Government anything. We have to decide whether we are 
going to support State problem solving, or obstruct it.
  As in many other rural regions of the country, agriculture is a 
cornerstone of Maine's economy. Within the agricultural sector, dairy 
farming usually ranks second or third in cash receipts every year. The 
dairy industry provides not only jobs for the farmers themselves, but 
for the people who sell farm machinery, service the machinery, sell 
fuel and feed, and provide other goods and services. Dairy farms also 
account for large shares of the municipal tax base throughout rural 
Maine, making them critical contributors to local schools and essential 
town services.
  Unfortunately, all is not well in the Maine dairy industry. In 1978, 
Maine had 1,133 dairy farms. By 1988, that number had declined to 800. 
In 1991, there were 680. And today we are down to roughly 600. I 
understand that our New England States have experienced the same 
devastating trend, and that Vermont, especially, has been losing huge 
numbers of family farmers. Without the compact in this bill, I can tell 
you: the bleeding of our family farms will continue.
  The precipitous decline in the number of dairy farms can be 
attributed to several factors, but most notably to the fact that 
Federal market order prices in New England are generally much lower 
than the costs of production in the region. Opponents sometimes like to 
say that New England has some of the highest average order prices in 
the East. This is generally the case because most of New England's milk 
market involves fresh, fluid milk, which brings a higher price than 
milk sold for other products; whereas, in other regions like the Upper 
Midwest, less than one-sixth of the milk producers is sold for the 
fresh fluid market. But the average order price in New England in the 
first half of 1995 was $13.17 a hundred, while the costs of production 
in Maine, which is a fresh fluid milk market, are close to $17 per 
hundred. New England farmers cannot make it under the existing order 
system.
  Mailbox prices provide a better illustration of the fact. The mailbox 
price is the actual price that the farmers receive after deducting the 
costs of marketing their milk. And if we look at mailbox prices, we see 
that New England farmers get the lowest take-home prices east of the 
Mississippi River. 

[[Page S1005]]
Farmers in Wisconsin and Minnesota receive significantly higher mailbox 
prices--nearly 50 cents a hundredweight more.
  Faced with the same problems throughout the region, the six New 
England States banded together to develop a joint regional solution. 
They painstakingly negotiated an interstate dairy compact that will 
ensure a fairer and more stable price for dairy farmers in the region. 
But it is a pricing program that also protects the interests of 
consumers in the region. As evidence of the balance and fairness 
achieved by the compact, both the net-producing and net-consuming 
States in the region all approved the compact with strong support.
  The compact creates a regional commission which has the authority to 
set minimum prices paid to farmers for fluid, or class I milk. 
Delegations from each State comprise the voting membership of the 
commission, and these delegations in turn will include both farmer and 
consumer representatives. The minimum price established by the 
commission is the Federal market order price plus a small ``over-
order'' differential that would be paid by milk processing plants. This 
over-order price is capped in the compact, and a two-thirds voting 
majority of the commission is required before any over-order price can 
be instituted.
  Mr. President, until a court struck down the Main dairy vendor's fee 
in 1994 because we did not have the required congressional 
authorization, milk in my State was priced by a mechanism that is 
similar to that which could be utilized by the Compact Commission. 
Maine's experience was uniformly positive. Farm prices were stable and 
reasonable, but no farmers got rich on the minimal adjustment provided 
by the ``over-order'' price under the vendor's fee program. It only 
helped the farmers keep their heads above water. Dairy processors and 
vendors maintained their business, and consumers did not see any 
significant increases in the price of milk. It was a win-win 
proposition for everyone in Maine, and I am confident that the compact 
will achieve the same success throughout New England without violating 
the constitution's interstate commerce clause.
  With very few exceptions, the compact only affects New England 
consumers, farmers, and dairy processors. The compact applies only to 
fluid or class I milk, and approximately 97 percent of the fluid milk 
consumed in New England is processed by New England-based processors. 
Approximately 75 percent of the milk that these processors process 
comes from New England farmers; the rest comes from New York, whose 
farmers would receive any higher prices for their milk sold to New 
England under a compact.
  Although the direct impacts of the compact fall only on the New 
England States, we have shown a more than ample willingness to address 
the concerns expressed by Senators from other States. The compact 
consent provision in this bill provides additional assurances that the 
compact only applies to class I, fluid milk. The provision also 
includes a 5-year sunset, so that another act of Congress will be 
required to continue the compact after years. It's a fail-safe. If 
problems do arise with this compact, then Congress can let it expire 
after 5 years. In effect, what we are proposing in a kind of pilot 
program.
  And we would be willing to go even further. Senate Joint Resolution 
28, the consent resolution that we introduced last year, explicitly 
provides that no additional States will be allowed into the compact 
without the formal approval of both Houses of Congress, that out-of-
region farmers who sell milk in the compact region will get the same 
price as farmers in the region, that the commission's pricing authority 
is strictly limited, and that the commission must develop a plan to 
ensure that over-order prices do not lead to increases in production. 
Unfortunately, the amendment before us ignores the good-faith, 
constructive offerings that we have made in the past.
  Mr. President, why should the Federal Government deny the States an 
opportunity to solve their own problems, especially when it doesn't 
cost the Federal taxpayers? The answer is that we shouldn't. We should 
praise the States for their self-reliance and ingenuity when they 
devise creative ways to solve their problems, as they have done in the 
case of this compact. I hope that Senators will recognize the value in 
this kind of state-based problem-solving, support the wishes of the 
people who will really be affected by this legislation, and vote no on 
the Wellstone amendment.
 Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, yesterday, I voted for cloture on 
the Craig/Leahy substitute to the farm bill. I cast my vote in hopes of 
reaching cloture so that we could debate and discuss the 1995 farm 
bill. I have consistently voted in the past in favor of moving forward 
with debate to ensure the integrity of farm legislation which would 
allow our farmers to plant their crops. We were not able to obtain 
cloture yesterday, however, late yesterday evening, the leadership came 
to an agreement to complete a farm bill. Unfortunately, I am not able 
to be present for today's debate due to business which takes me away 
from the Senate. These past months I have postponed scheduled meetings 
and trips in order to meet the Senate schedule. The business which 
takes me away from the Senate today was planned many months ago with 
the knowledge that we would be in recess for the month of February. I 
am leading an important delegation from Oregon, which includes members 
of the Port of Portland, on a vital trade mission to Taiwan and Korea.
  Mr. President, I know that millions of jobs, including those of 
truckers, retailers, farm implement dealers, bankers and exporters, are 
dependent upon a healthy farm economy. Consumers are accustomed to 
consistently having quality, yet, inexpensive agricultural products on 
their grocery shelves. Yet, there is no more troubled sector in the 
American economy than agriculture. Agricultural surpluses, declining 
farm exports, failed farm and farm related businesses are constant 
reminders of the need to reestablish strength and stability of American 
agriculture.
  The roots of our farm crisis are many and the solutions to the 
problems are indeed complex. The Senate and House Agriculture 
Committees have labored for the past year in an attempt to bring bills 
to a vote in our respective Chambers. Truly, it has been a daunting 
year. We are now in a crisis situation where we have reverted to laws 
written in the 1930's and 1940's. If we do not find compromise and pass 
a farm bill now, we face much greater costs and exacerbate 
instabilities in the agricultural sector. Many of the programs of the 
1930's are unpopular because they call for strict acreage allotments 
and marketing quotas on major crops. However, a simple extension of the 
current law for more than a few months will prove to be economically 
disastrous for both the Federal Treasury and beleaguered farmers who 
fall behind daily as talks continue in the Senate Chamber.
  I cannot say that I agree entirely with the proposed farm bill, S. 
1541. The proposed 7-year contracts with the Federal Government, 
guaranteeing continued payments regardless of market conditions will 
allow farmers broad flexibility to grow crops in accordance with market 
conditions and not Government regulations. However, I am concerned that 
the bill would cut spending for the Export Enhancement Program, which 
subsidizes overseas sale of U.S. commodities, such as wheat. I am also 
concerned that the Market Promotion Program [MPP], which helps U.S. 
companies fund overseas promotional and advertising campaigns, would be 
capped. If we are to allow flexibility to meet market demands we must 
also tap into as well as create markets in foreign countries, 
especially in the Pacific rim in order to achieve the goal of 
independence from traditional Government assistance to farmers.
  Mr. President, I also offer an amendment which addresses a problem in 
Oregon that deals with the Oregon Public Broadcasting's [OPB] 
eligibility for the Public Television Demonstration Program 
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. OPB's eligibility 
for the program was held in suspension last year when it was discovered 
that OPB's broadcast coverage did not meet the statute's statewide 
requirement. OPB covers 90 percent of the State's population and 84 
percent of the State's rural area. And, since all of OPB's productions 
are rebroadcast by one local public television station, 

[[Page S1006]]
OPB's programs are essentially available to all Oregonians. Until the 
definition of ``statewide'' is clarified, OPB will not be eligible for 
the grant program. Thus I submit my amendment to clarify the language 
for the eligibility criteria for the Public Television Demonstration 
Program.
  In conclusion, I find sections of this farm bill which I would like 
to change, as do many of my colleagues. However, we must continue to 
find and forge compromise in order to move toward not only a farm bill 
but balancing our national budget. I sincerely believe we will soon 
achieve that goal.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes of our time to 
Senator Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator 
Wellstone's amendment to strike the congressional approval to the 
Northeast Dairy Compact contained in this Leahy substitute. I am 
pleased to be a cosponsor of his amendment.
  Mr. President, there are so many things wrong with this Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact, it is difficult to know where to begin.
  The greatest irony of the Northeast Dairy Compact's inclusion in 
freedom to farm is that the package, in the words of the Agriculture 
Committee Chairman Lugar, purports to be market oriented. He called 
this package a bold departure from current law. Well, he's right. The 
Northeast Compact is a bold departure from current law, but it is far, 
very far, from the goal of market orientation.
  Mr. President, the Northeast Dairy Compact is the antithesis of 
market orientation. It is exactly the type of program that reformers in 
this body have been targeting for 2 years. Many of those who support 
the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact have been among the most 
outspoken critics of farm programs which impose taxes on consumers to 
support agricultural producers--which is exactly what the Northeast 
Compact does. But it does far more than that, Mr. President.
  The compact allows six States with far more consumers than dairy 
producers, to artificially raise the price that consumers pay for fluid 
milk. It is a price fixing compact, pure and simple, Mr. President. And 
it is without precedent in our Nation's history.
  This is not about States rights. Never was the 10th amendment or the 
compact clause of our Constitution intended to allow several States to 
collude to fix prices for products produced in those States while 
simultaneously keeping products produced in other States out of the 
compact region. Mr. President, that would be a restraint of interstate 
commerce. Well, Mr. President, that is what this compact does--it 
restrains trade and it allows States to fix prices. And it has far-
reaching consequences for the entire Nation.
  Who will pay for the generosity of these compact States to their 
dairy farmers?
  Consumers in the compact region and dairy farmers throughout the 
country.
  Since this bill has not been the subject of a single hearing in the 
Senate, and has never been marked up by the committee of jurisdiction, 
the Judiciary Committee, in the 104th Congress, I think it is important 
that we review what the compact actually does.
  First, it allows six States to enter into to a compact to fix prices 
for fluid milk at a level substantially higher than allowed under the 
current Federal milk marketing order system.
  It would also allow six additional States to enter the compact if 
they wish, along with any States contiguous to those additional six 
States. This is no small compact, Mr. President. If those additional 
States are added--and how could Congress justify denying those States 
if we approve the initial six?--the compact area would comprise 20 
percent of national milk production.
  That is a significant level of production that would substantially 
disrupt national milk markets and ultimately depress prices for all 
dairy producers in this country--except those in the compact.
  Second, the compact would allow those States to set the price for 
fluid milk up to $17.40 per hundredweight--a full $1.35 above the 
current minimum fluid milk price in that region established by Federal 
orders. I would also caution my colleagues that the current fluid milk 
price for the Northeast is at one of its highest levels in years. What 
this means is that the $1.35 bonus for New England milk producers is 
likely the smallest that bonus will be for the 5-year period of this 
compact. That minimum bonus would translate into a minimum consumer-
funded payment of $4,000 for a farmer with a 50-cow herd.
  Also keep in mind that the minimum price in the compact States is 
allowed to be adjusted by inflation using 1990 as a base year. By the 
year 2000 the cap on fluid milk prices could be well over $20 if 
inflation increases by 3 percent per year.
  That consumers will pay dearly for the privilege of supporting the 
New England dairy industry is proven by the provision in this bill that 
requires the compact States to reimburse the Women, Infants and 
Children's Supplemental Food Program for the increased cost of milk 
purchased under the program. However, taxpayers would not be reimbursed 
for the higher costs of mandatory nutrition programs such as national 
school lunch and breakfast programs, food stamps, and others.
  For a Congress so fervently promoting tax breaks for Americans, I am 
surprised to see this tax on consumers so heartily embraced by the 
compact supporters and the supporters of the Leahy substitute which 
contains the compact.
  I am sure the many consumers in the compact region would like a 
taxbreak of $4,000 or more each year. Instead they will receive a tax 
increase through their purchases of milk.
  I also urge my colleagues to keep in mind, that while in-region milk 
producers get to vote on whether or not they want the higher price for 
the compact milk, consumers are afforded no such voice. Mr. President, 
I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the New York Times, 
entitled ``Milking Consumers,'' be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the New York Times, Saturday, July 22, 1995]

       New England senators and governors are pressuring Bob Dole, 
     the Senate majority leader, to submit a pernicious bill to a 
     hasty vote before it clears committee.
       The bill creates a compact among Maine, Vermont, New 
     Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts to 
     raise milk prices above Federal levels. By some estimates, 
     the cost of a gallon of milk would rise from about $2.50 to 
     between $2.85 and $3.
       Over all, the price increase would pump perhaps $500 
     million a year into the bank accounts of New England dairy 
     farmers. But it would needlessly pummel poor parents by 
     forcing them to spend up to 20 percent more to buy milk.
       Besides discouraging milk drinking, the compact sets an 
     ugly precedent. New England cannot enforce artifically high 
     prices unless it keeps milk produced outside New England from 
     flowing into the region. That is why the bill imposes what 
     amounts to a protective tariff on ``imported'' milk.
       The compact would in effect create a barrier to interstate 
     commerce, sharing our milk produced in the Middle West the 
     way the United States threatened to shut out luxury cars from 
     Japan. The precedent so set would be ill advised, if not 
     unconstitutional. What might be next? An oil compact in the 
     Southwest? A wheat compact in the Midwest?
       Mr. Dole ought to reject a quick vote on the dairy compact 
     because it raises unexplored constitutional issues. Senators 
     ought to reject the compact because it needlessly harms 
     children. Mark Goldman, president of a New Jersey milk 
     processor, poses the right question. Who believes that the 
     voters of New England if forthrightly asked, would approve 
     paying an additional 56 cents for a gallon of milk for the 
     privilege of fattening the bank accounts of a few nearby 
     farmers?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. The New York Times editorial states:

       The price increase [provided in the Compact] would pump 
     perhaps $50 million a year into the bank accounts of New 
     England dairy farmers. But it would needlessly pummel poor 
     parents by forcing them to spend up to 20 percent more to buy 
     milk.

  The editorial provides some good advice to Senators who will soon 
vote on this measure--Senators ought to reject the compact because it 
needlessly harms children. I think that is pretty good advice, Mr. 
President.
  In addition to the ill effects on consumers, the compact erects 
barriers to 

[[Page S1007]]
keep milk from other States from flowing into the compact region. The 
Compact requires that lower cost milk produced in surrounding States 
must receive the higher compact price, through compensatory payments, 
even if producers in those other States can provide that milk at a 
lower cost to buyers. When you include transportation costs, any buyer 
of milk in the compact region would be foolish to acquire milk from 
outside the compact region. Any unwise buyer who did so would soon be 
put out of business by their competitors.
  That producers from noncompact States are free to sell into the 
compact region, as the supporters claim, is accurate. However, there 
would be no demand for that milk because of the disincentives the 
compact creates for its acquisition.
  While compact supporters claim that any producer in the country will 
be able to benefit from this, it is illogical to conclude that is true. 
If it were, the compact itself would be rendered ineffective because 
the compact region would be flooded with less expensive milk from 
surrounding States. Make no mistake, this compact is only supported by 
its sponsors because the walls it erects around the compact region are 
high and well-reinforced.
  Third, while milk from outside the compact region is prevented from 
entering, milk processors in the compact region who must pay the higher 
price for the raw product, may receive a subsidy to allow them to ship 
their products outside the compact region. The compact includes that 
trade subsidy because those compact region processors will be required 
to pay so much for milk that their products would be uncompetitive in 
other parts of the country where milk producers do not receive 
artificially inflated prices.
  For members who think the impacts of the compact are isolated to 
compact States, I suggest they take a careful look at this provision. 
The very export subsidies we have been trying to tear down in 
international trade through GATT and NAFTA will be imposed by the 
compact region States to the disadvantage of milk processors and 
producers in other States.
  In summary, Mr. President, this compact provides authority for six 
States--and potentially many more--to fix artificially high prices for 
milk at the expense of consumers. It erects barriers to any noncompact 
milk, and it subsidizes exports of compact region products.
  I've talked about the impacts on consumers. But what of the impact on 
dairy farmers throughout the country?
  The compact balkanizes the U.S. dairy industry by insulating the 
Northeast dairy industry from the market conditions that all other 
farmers in this country must face. And, Mr. President, there are dairy 
farmers in every State of this Nation that will be affected by this. 
That is because there is a national market for milk, not a regional 
one. A surplus in one region depresses prices for all farmers 
nationally, and a shortage in one region raises prices for all farmers. 
That is why there is a national system for the marketing and pricing of 
milk.
  However, with this compact, when national prices that farmers receive 
for milk plummet due to changing market conditions, the Northeast 
compact States will be completely isolated from those price 
fluctuations. When dairy farmers in Texas or New Mexico or Florida are 
responding to lower milk prices by reducing supply, the Northeast 
producers will continue to over-produce milk despite the market 
signals. And that, Mr. President, will exacerbate the excess supply 
situation depressing prices nationwide.
  Not only will the compact insulate Northeast producers from price 
shocks that all other farmers face, it will also have the effect of 
driving down prices for dairy farmers in other parts of the country 
even if supply and demand are in balance.
  It is a simple fact of economics that dairy farmers respond to higher 
prices with greater production. The exorbitant compact prices will 
surely increase production in the Northeast and yet the compact 
provides for no effective method of supply control. Those surpluses 
produced in the Northeast will drive down prices for farmers 
everywhere.
  In addition, without a market for that surplus milk in fluid form, it 
will go into secondary milk markets. It will be manufactured into 
cheese and butter and powdered milk. Those products, generated by 
excess production in the Northeast, will then compete on the national 
market alongside products produced in other States by producers 
receiving far lower milk prices.
  Not only will noncompact producers suffer from lower prices, but they 
would also lose markets for their products.
  Mr. President, not only does this compact fail to recognize the 
national nature of milk markets, but it builds additional regional 
biases into current law.
  The compact exacerbates current inequities of the Federal milk 
marketing order system that have discriminated against upper Midwest 
dairy producers for years. It is inherently market distorting and 
regionally discriminatory.
  I want to just reiterate, the Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, 
indicated we will have a opportunity later in the day to vote on 
something to help the Midwest. That is not clear at all, unless there 
is an agreement between the parties. We are trying very hard, but if 
that is not achieved we will be ending up with current law in this 
area, so there is no real help for the rest of the country in that 
regard.
  In addition, this compact will also have a significant impact on the 
entire U.S. dairy industry. It insulates New England dairy producers 
from the market.
  Mr. President, I understand why the compact States want the consent 
of Congress for this compact. The Northeast is losing dairy farmers. 
But, Mr. President, the decline in dairy farmer numbers is a national 
trend and the pain is felt nationwide.
  Today there are 27,000 dairy farmers in my home State of Wisconsin, 
more than any other State in the Nation; 15 years ago, Mr. President, 
there were 45,000. Mr. President, our average herd size in Wisconsin is 
small--55 cows. These are small farmers who have experienced the same 
problems facing the Northeast--but far more acutely than any other 
region of the country and more than any other individual State. My 
State of Wisconsin, which until 1993 was the No. 1 milk producing State 
in the country, suffers from the loss of over 1,000 dairy farmers per 
year. We lose more farms per year than the current number of dairy 
farmers in five of the six compact States.
  A recent survey indicated that in the next 5 years 40 percent of our 
remaining farmers will go out of business. That is over 10,000 family 
dairy farmers.
  This trend is mirrored in other States throughout the upper Midwest. 
While we recognize that there are many reasons for this decline, the 
overwhelming message I hear from family dairy farmers in Wisconsin, 
Minnesota, and throughout the Midwest is that we need reform of 
outdated Federal milk marketing orders which provide artificial 
advantages to other regions of the country driving Wisconsin farmers 
out of business.
  So I understand the desire of the Northeast to remedy their local and 
regional problems in their dairy industry, however further 
regionalizing dairy policy is not the answer. Congressional changes to 
dairy policy must recognize the national nature of milk marketing as 
well as the comprehensive and interrelated nature of fluid and 
manufactured milk products.
  Wisconsin dairy farmers can no longer afford to help other regions at 
their own expense.
  The supporters of this legislation have tried to present this as a 
very simple idea--that of a simple interstate compact designed to help 
the struggling producers of that region in isolation from national 
markets and having no unintended effects on non-compact producers.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to recognize that simply is not 
the case. This compact is unprecedented and Members should not be 
surprised that approval of this package will result in additional 
request to approve price fixing compacts.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to strike the Northeast 
Dairy Compact from the bill. It is not market oriented. It is the 
antithesis of market orientation and its inclusion in this bill is 
completely inconsistent with the rhetoric of this Congress including 
many of the supporters of this compact.

[[Page S1008]]

  Providing congressional consent to this compact in a bill which 
purports to allow farmers to take their signals from the marketplace 
not the Government would be the ultimate irony of this farm bill.
  If we pass this compact today, I believe every Member will soon 
regret it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion to strike the Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact from the farm bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Feingold, 
Senator Wellstone, Senator Grams, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator 
Hatch, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to strike 
the Northeast Dairy Compact.
  I would also like to point out the 65- to 35-vote that Senator 
Jeffords and Senator Leahy referred to was a vote on a much broader 
reconciliation amendment that had other things in it beside the 
Northeast Dairy Compact, so that was not a clean vote. What we are 
going to have today on the Northeast Dairy Compact is a clean vote 
without any other considerations. I hope that will elicit a different 
and a more correct response than the vote that occurred heretofore.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 5 minutes and 50 
seconds left.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. The Northeast interstate dairy compact is the remarkable 
product of 7 years of formal, interstate cooperation in New England. It 
has the bipartisan support of the region's six Governors--four 
Republicans, one Democrat and one Independent. And it is backed by the 
region's farmers, consumers, and milk processors alike.
  Mr. President, we have spoken often this past year in this Chamber 
about returning power back to our sovereign States, to allow the States 
to work together with the Federal Government to solve the problems we 
face. Here is a fine example of such a cooperative federalism, most 
appropriately presented in the context of this farm bill.
  The compact is a pilot project, with a 5-year sunset. It simply needs 
congressional consent to be approved. I urge this body to give the New 
England States an opportunity to implement this test program.
  Mr. President, the compact has had an impressive journey through the 
six New England State legislatures. In fact, it has passed with 
overwhelming margins in both producing and consuming States. The Rhode 
Island State Legislature, representing over 1 million consumers and 
only 31 dairy farms voted near unanimously to pass the compact.
  Some of my colleagues have been misinformed about what the compact 
would or would not do. Not surprisingly, the dairy processors' lobby 
have been promoting misguided information on how the compact will work. 
They have a long history of working against legislation that protects 
and improves dairy farmer income.
  However, the compact, which has been approved overwhelming in each of 
the six New England State legislatures is not the monster that a select 
few have made it out to be.

  The Northeast dairy compact is intended to help give farmers and 
consumers fair and stable milk prices. The compact has been carefully 
crafted so that it will not affect the national diary industry or 
burden the consumer. The compact can only regulate class I milk in New 
England, that is beverage or fluid milk, which makes up only 1.5 
percent of the national milk supply. We are dealing with a very small 
amount of fluid milk. National processors will not be affected by this 
compact. It will have no affect on class II of class III milk which is 
used for manufactured products.
  Mr. President, my own State of Vermont has lost over 1,200 farms in 
the last 10 years. Today, Vermont dairy farmers are receiving milk 
prices well below the cost of production. Current milk prices for 
farmers are as low as they were over 10 years ago.
  I understand that Vermont is not the only State to witness a decline 
in its number of dairy farms. Dairy farms throughout the country 
deserve price stability and enhancement and I hope that a dairy 
compromise amendment will be offered and accepted today that will 
benefit farms across this Nation.
  Mr. President, New England is not asking Washington to solve its 
problem, it is asking Washington to allow New England to solve its 
problem on its own. The compact is a regional solution to a regional 
problem. The six New England States should not be denied the 
opportunity to do just that.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment 
and allow the people of Vermont and New England the opportunity to help 
themselves protect the future of their dairy farms.
  Mr. President, let me remind everyone again, you have been reminded, 
you voted for this and I think you ought to keep that in mind. You 
voted for it in a very similar situation. It was a bigger bill, yes, 
but it was the same issue exactly.
  The New England States have taken 7 years to examine what they can do 
to help the dairy farmers. I have here, and I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record, a letter from the six New England Governors 
to the leader here, telling him that they support this bill, together 
with some other material. It is very important.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                       New England


                                  Governors' Conference, Inc.,

                                        Boston, MA, July 17, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: We, the Governors of the New England 
     States, have learned that you will soon consider the 
     Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, SJR 28, on the Senate 
     Floor. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you 
     for agreeing to take this critical, procedural step on behalf 
     of the Compact, and to reaffirm our strong support of its 
     passage.
       Enclosed, you will find the New England Governor's 
     Conference resolution which was adopted in support of 
     Congressional approval of the Compact. The resolution details 
     the significance of the Compact to our region with regard to 
     its specific importance to both New England dairy farmers and 
     consumers, and, equally, as a model of formal, interstate 
     cooperation.
       Thank you again for agreeing to move the Compact forward. 
     We are hopeful that, when it comes to the Floor, you will 
     consider its importance to our region.
           Very truly yours,
     Stephen Merrill,
                                Governor, New Hampshire, Chairman.
     William F. Weld,
                                          Governor, Massachusetts.
     John G. Rowland,
                                            Governor, Connecticut.
     Howard Dean, M.D.,
                                 Governor, Vermont, Vice Chairman.
     Angus King, Jr.,
                                                  Governor, Maine.
     Lincoln C. Almond,
     Governor, Rhode Island.
                                                                    ____


                Resolution 127--Northeast Dairy Compact

       A Resolution of the New England Governors' Conference, Inc. 
     in support of congressional enactment of the Northeast Dairy 
     Compact.
       Whereas, the six New England states have enacted the 
     Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact to address the alarming 
     loss of dairy farms in the region; and
       Whereas, the Compact is a unique partnership of the 
     region's governments and the dairy industry supported by a 
     broad and active coalition of organizations and people 
     committed to maintaining the vitality of the region's dairy 
     industry, including consumers, processors, bankers, equipment 
     dealers, veterinarians, the tourist and travel industry, 
     environmentalists, land conservationists and recreational 
     users of open land; and
       Whereas, the Compact would not harm but instead complement 
     the existing federal structure for milk pricing, nor 
     adversely affect the competitive position of any dairy 
     farmer, processor or other market participant in the nation's 
     dairy industry; and
       Whereas, the limited and relatively isolated market 
     position of the New England dairy industry makes it an 
     appropriate locality in which to assess the effectiveness of 
     regional regulation of milk pricing, and
       Whereas, the Constitution of the United States expressly 
     authorizes states to enter into interstate compacts with the 
     approval of Congress and government at all levels 
     increasingly recognizes the need to promote cooperative, 
     federalist solutions to local and regional problems; and
       Whereas, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has been 
     submitted to Congress for approval as required by the 
     Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the New England Governors' Conference, Inc. 
     requests that Congress approve the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
     Compact; and be it further
     
[[Page S1009]]

       Resolved, That, a copy of this resolution be sent to the 
     leadership of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 
     the Chairs of the appropriate legislative committees, and the 
     Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture.
       Adoption certified by the New England Governors' 
     Conference, Inc. on January 31, 1995.
                                                  Stephen Merrill,
     Governor of New Hampshire, Chairman.
                                                                    ____


                 Interstate Compact Legislative Process

       Connecticut: (P.L. 93-320) House vote--143-4; Senate vote--
     30-6. (Joint Committee on Environment voted bill out 22-2; 
     Joint Committee on Government Administration and Relations 
     voted bill out 15-3; Joint Committee on Judiciary voted bill 
     out 28-0.)
       Maine: Originally adopted Compact enabling legislation in 
     1989 (P.L. 89-437) Floor votes and Joint Committee on 
     Agriculture vote not recorded. The law was amended in 1993. 
     (P.L. 93-274) House vote--114-1; Senate vote--25-0. (Joint 
     Committee on Agriculture vote not recorded.)
       Massachusetts: (P.L. 93-370) Approved by unrecorded voice 
     votes.
       New Hampshire: (P.L. 93-336) Senate vote--18-4; House 
     vote--unrecorded voice vote; (Senate Committee on Interstate 
     Cooperation vote--unrecorded voice vote; House Committee on 
     Agriculture voted bill out 17-0.)
       Rhode Island: (P.L. 93-336) House vote--80-7; Senate vote--
     38-0. (House Committee on Judiciary voted bill out 11-2; 
     Senate Committee on Judiciary voice vote not recorded.)
       Vermont: Originally adopted Compact in 1989. (P.L. 89-95) 
     House vote--unanimous voice vote; Senate vote--29-1. The law 
     was amended in 1993. (P.L. 93-57) Floor voice votes, and 
     House and Senate Agriculture Committee voice votes, not 
     recorded.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Also, I have letters from the Governors to all of us 
with respect to that. We have brought this over here. We have explained 
it to staffs and they agreed with us, 65 to 35. I wanted you to keep 
that in mind.
  Second, we are a negative producer. What are they afraid of? We only 
produce 70 percent of the milk consumed in New England. We are not a 
threat to anybody. Mr. President, 30 percent of our milk comes from New 
York and Pennsylvania. It can come from Wisconsin. It can come from 
Minnesota. We are not creating any barriers to anybody.
  We say our consumers are so desirous of making sure that our farmers 
are there--they love the cows on the hillsides. That is New England. It 
is tradition.
  All we are asking is to be treated as any other big State can be. New 
York has an order that helps protect their producers, California does, 
other States do. Why can we not, as six little States up in New England 
tucked off up in the corner there, have the ability to protect our 
dairy farms?
  I yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, obviously I agree completely with my 
colleague from Vermont on this. The point is, this goes beyond 
questions even of romanticism or anything else. It is not romanticism 
when we talk about the hard work of the dairy farmers. This is one of 
the most difficult jobs in America today.
  They have also, though, created even more problems for themselves 
because they are the most efficient producers in America today. Their 
efficiency and their hard work is not being rewarded. It tends to be 
punished, with the system we have.
  What we are saying is at least allow us, consumers and producers 
alike in New England, to set our own destiny. It is the only fair 
thing. This is not a case where it is farmers against consumers, as 
though the two are different; or consumers against farmers. This is a 
case where producers and users come together to make it work.
  I hope we defeat the effort to strike the New England Dairy Compact. 
It has been put together by Republicans and Democrats alike. This 
Senate ought to approve it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have spoken often in the past year, 
in this Chamber, about returning power back to the sovereign States to 
allow the States to work together with the Federal Government to solve 
the problems we face. Here is a fine example of such cooperative 
federalism.
  Most appropriately presented in the context of this farm bill here, 
the compact is a pilot project with a 5-year sunset. It simply needs 
congressional consent to be approved. Other States can do it by 
themselves. They are big enough. We cannot.

  I urge this body to give the New England States an opportunity to 
implement this test program. The compact has had an impressive journey 
through six New England State legislatures --six State legislatures. 
Two of them, primarily consumers have approved so they can help keep 
their dairy farmers and the rural life of Vermont alive. The Rhode 
Island State Legislature, representing over 1 million consumers and 
only 31 dairy farms, nearly unanimously passed this. Why should we be 
prohibited from doing what other States can do, merely because the 
Midwest believes and hopes that sometime in the future they can ship 
their milk to us because the price would get so high, because our 
farmers are out of business, that they could ship it over there to 
profit?
  They are welcome now. Why do they want to be so greedy?
  Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 minute and 25 
seconds.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to add that Senator Pressler is 
cosponsor of this amendment. He was an original sponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like, in closing, to remind Senators 
that if we allow this kind of a price-fixing scheme to make its way 
through the Congress, then there will be no way to prevent in a logical 
way any other group of States setting up similar price-fixing 
mechanisms under the same justification, not only in dairy but in any 
other industry. That is not what we intend to do in this country. We 
need a national market for our products in this country.
  So every Senator is affected by what will occur if we allow the 
Northeast Dairy Compact to make its way through Congress. It is for 
that reason--and the other reasons that we have discussed--that I urge 
my colleagues to reject the Northeast Dairy Compact.
  I thank you.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as we bring this to a close, I know 
everyone is interested in saving their dairy farms. The question is 
whether you try to do it at the expense of some other dairy farmer. 
Vermont has lost one-third of its farms in the last 10 years. I know 
the Midwest has done likewise. But they are not hurt by us. As pointed 
out, they can ship to us now. They can ship at a higher price if this 
goes through. But they cannot do it; they are too far away. That is our 
problem. We are too far away from anything. We are at the end of the 
energy stream. We are at the end of everything. We are tucked up in 
that little corner barricaded from markets in Canada. We could get 50 
percent more for our milk if we could go across the border. We want to 
stay alive, and our States and our State legislators want us to stay 
alive. When you get six States to approve something that helps the 
farmers primarily in two States, you have got to really believe that 
they are sincere in their efforts to try to do what is best for their 
State.
  Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to strike. By a 
vote of 65 to 35 the Senate voted against what they are being asked to 
do today. I hope they will recognize that and keep the same wonderful 
logic that they used for those 65 votes.
  I yield to the Senator from Vermont for a final comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kohl amendment be 
temporarily set aside with the vote to occur on or in relation to the 
amendment and the time to be set by the majority leader after 
consultation with the Democratic leader. I also ask unanimous consent 
that if there are stacked votes, the votes occur in the order they were 
offered.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, for the benefit and information of all 
Members, the agreement calls for several amendments in sequence. To the 
best 

[[Page S1010]]
of our ability, we will shift back from one party to the other, 
although the agreement reached last evening was that if there are not 
Members present from the opposite party, we would feel free to move to 
whoever had an amendment. There are 10 amendments offered on the 
Democratic side and five on the Republican side if the maximum were to 
be offered.
  Next in sequence we are anticipating the amendment by the 
distinguished Senator from Colorado, who is in fact present. He will 
control the time on our side on that amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield for 
another housekeeping observation?
  I urge Senators who may have amendments, or issues, if they can to 
come and talk with the distinguished Senator from Indiana and myself to 
see if maybe not all amendments necessarily need a vote. If it is 
possible for us to come together on something, now is the time to do 
it.
  The other thing is that I hope when we stack the votes-- and I 
believe it is the intention of the leaders to do this at that time--
that after the first vote there would be a shortened time for 
subsequent votes. But I urge the cooperation of Senators, certainly on 
my side of the aisle, and I am sure the distinguished Senator from 
Indiana feels that way about his side of the aisle we as we move 
forward on these issues.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I concur in all the distinguished Senator 
has said.
  Let me also mention that one reason for having votes late in the 
morning is literally to clear the trail--it is the intent of the 
leadership to complete action on this bill at 4:45--so that everyone 
has been heard, and votes occurring may in fact be stacked votes later 
in the morning.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                Amendment No. 3443 to Amendment No. 3184

(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure that private 
    property rights, including water rights, will be recognized and 
    protected in the course of special use permitting decisions for 
                   existing water supply facilities)

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3443 to amendment No. 3184.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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.   . CLARIFICATION OF EFFECT OF RESOURCE PLANNING ON 
                   ALLOCATION OR USE OF WATER.

       (a) National Forest System Resource Planning.--Section 6 of 
     the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 
     1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(n) Limitation on Authority.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to supersede, abrogate or otherwise impair 
     any right or authority of a State to allocate quantities of 
     water (including boundary waters). Nothing in this section 
     shall be implemented, enforced, or construed to allow any 
     officer or agency of the United States to utilize directly or 
     indirectly the authorities established under this section to 
     impose any requirement not imposed by the State which would 
     supersede, abrogate, or otherwise impair rights to the use of 
     water resources allocated under State law, interstate water 
     compact, or Supreme Court decree, or held by the United 
     States for use by a State, its political subdivisions, or its 
     citizens. No water rights arise in the United States or any 
     other person under the provisions of this Act.''
       (b) Land Use Planning Under Bureau of Land Management 
     Authorities.--Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Limitation of Authority.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to supersede, abrogate, or otherwise 
     impair any right or authority of a State to allocate 
     quantities of water (including boundary waters). Nothing in 
     this section shall be implemented, enforced, or construed to 
     allow any officer or agency of the United States to utilize 
     directly or indirectly the authorities established under this 
     section to impose any requirement not imposed by the State 
     which would supersede, abrogate, or otherwise impair rights 
     to the use of water resources allocated under State law, 
     interstate compact, or Supreme Court decree, or held by the 
     United States for use by a State, its political subdivisions, 
     or its citizens. No water rights arise in the United States 
     or any other person under the provisions of this Act.''
       (c) Authorization To Grant Rights-of-Way.--Section 501 of 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1761) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``originally 
     constructed'';
       (C) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``1996'' and inserting 
     ``1998''; and
       (D) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (G) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (F), respectively:
       (2) in subsection (c)(3)(A), by striking the second and 
     third sentences; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Effect on Valid Existing Rights.--Notwithstanding any 
     provision of this section, no Federal agency may require, as 
     a condition of, or in connection with, the granting, 
     issuance, or renewal of a right-of-way under this section, a 
     restriction or limitation on the operation, use, repair, or 
     replacement of an existing water supply facility which is 
     located on or above National Forest lands or the exercise and 
     use of existing water rights, if such condition would reduce 
     the quantity of water which would otherwise be made available 
     for use by the owner of such facility or water rights, or 
     cause an increase in the cost of the water supply provided 
     from such facility.''

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, both sides have a copy of this amendment. 
It simply is a clarification of an action that the Senate had taken 
earlier in the year. That action was taken on an appropriations bill. 
As I am sure Members will appreciate, the members of the Appropriations 
Committee are reluctant to legislate on an appropriations bill. The 
form it took was a restriction in spending of funds by the Secretary of 
Agriculture.
  Mr. President, to be brief, the situation arises out of a rather 
difficult circumstance that involved what I believe is a maverick 
regional forester. The situation is this: Colorado has about 37 percent 
of its State owned by the Federal Government. It is literally very 
difficult, or impossible in some areas, to transfer water from the 
mountain areas where it is accumulated from the snow melt and the 
reservoirs to the cities for drinking water without crossing Federal 
ground. There are a few areas where it is possible to get drinking to 
the cities and deliver drinking water and agricultural water without 
crossing Federal ground, but very few.
  To cross Federal ground, what has traditionally been the case is 
permits have been offered by the Federal Government. As the Senate is 
well aware, when someone applies for a new permit, an extensive review 
takes place. That is to ensure that it meets the environmental 
standards of the Forest Service. What is happening in Colorado is an 
entirely new event which has begun to take place, and in other places 
around the country. That is, when these permits to cross Federal ground 
came up for renewal, the Forest Service has demanded that the cities 
forfeit a third of their drinking water for them to be allowed to renew 
their permit to cross Federal ground.
  No provision for forfeiting water is included in the statutes. One 
would certainly understand if these were new permissions, but they are 
not. They are existing permits. In a number of cases, the permits 
preexisted the existence of the Forest Service. Some had literally been 
in existence for well over 100 years. They are the absolute lifeblood 
of the State. I may say this practice appears to do be followed by a 
number of other foresters around the country as they look at it and 
begin to apply this same consent to other States.
  Literally what happened is the Forest Service wanted to extort--I use 
that word advisedly because it is a strong word, but I think it fits--
water from the cities as a condition to renew an existing permit. Let 
me emphasize that nothing was changed. If something was different, if 
there was an expansion of the permit or a change in the use of the 
permit, one would understand action by the Forest Service. But these 
were circumstances where the city wanted to specifically use its 
drinking water the way it had for over 100 years. The Forest Service 
used the event of renewing the permit to demand a forfeiture of the 
water. No statute gives them that authority, but when they have the 
ability to stop the 

[[Page S1011]]
renewal of the permit, they have enormous leverage.
  Our cities and our water districts spent literally millions of 
dollars. One of the most environmentally conscious communities, I 
believe, in the Nation--Boulder, CO--had attorney's fees that exceeded 
millions of dollars just in that one city's case alone. What happened 
is some of the small cities that could not afford the attorney's fees 
forfeited a third of their water, or a portion of their water 
rights. Others, through negotiation, forfeited less. Others fought it 
through court and continue with longstanding studies and expensive 
attorneys' fees to negotiate the process out.

  All this amendment does is exactly what was done earlier in the year 
through the appropriations process. It simply says when you have an 
existing permit, where you are not changing it, that they cannot 
require you to forfeit your water rights. It stops extortion in effect.
  I do not know of any opposition. The amendment, when it came up on 
the appropriations bill, enjoyed strong bipartisan support. It was 
adopted by the House conferees on the Appropriations Committee.
  Let me emphasize, it is important because the cities continue to 
spend millions of dollars in attorneys' fees. To change the rules after 
the project is built, after the drinking water is delivered, is wrong. 
It is not simply bad policy, but it is wrong in terms of a moral 
standard. To change the rules of the game after you have set up your 
water system, spent millions of dollars, and you have thousands of 
people dependent on it for drinking supplies is a travesty.
  This sets forth in the statute clear guidelines so that you cannot 
retroactively repeal someone's water rights or extort water. It does 
not, let me emphasize, apply to new projects. Everyone should 
understand that the Forest Service has an appropriate job in renewing 
new applications, but it is a very important item to be included in 
this measure and a very important protection for cities, municipalities 
and farmers around the Nation.
  I do not know of opposition. I will be happy to answer questions from 
other Members, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is available to any who might 
speak in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I reserve that time.
  I should say that I do have a concern. This came up quite late last 
night, and I have just had a chance to start looking at it. I am 
concerned that the amendment would change permanent Forest Service law 
and does so without the normal hearings and debate or committee 
consideration. We have done this before. The Senate one other time 
changed Forest Service law on an ad hoc basis, and I think many of us 
rued the day for that. The so-called salvage rider was done on an ad 
hoc basis. It was done to address dead and dying trees. In fact, the 
measure instead suspended laws in Oregon and Washington and forced the 
Forest Service to cut live, green, ancient forest.

  What I worry about is under the constricted and contracted situation 
in which we find ourselves we might do something similar.
  The Senator has held a dozen hearings this year on Forest Service law 
focusing especially on conflicts within the existing law, but this 
issue has not received significant attention in this logical forum 
despite representation on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
  I worry when we tell the Forest Service that they have to mandate for 
multiple use, which we have. That is a law passed long before any of us 
were in the Senate. That means the Forest Service has to manage for 
anglers, boaters, fisheries, wildlife, recreation, skiing, and a dozen 
other uses. They have to do that by law. Now we have this amendment 
though that says a single use gets preference but yet the multiple use 
law which has been there for 35 years still stands.
  If we have a problem here, let us find a better way of doing it. I 
think it can be solved administratively. The Department of Agriculture 
spent a lot of time, I am told, on this issue. I am informed that all 
the parties involved have been invited to participate and that the 
relevant parties have agreed to a settlement. If that is the case, I 
think we should follow that procedure, not venture into unknown 
territory with a sweeping amendment to laws that have been on the books 
for decades.
  The Forest Service was established to serve the many interests of all 
Americans. This amendment says that is fine, they can serve all 
Americans except that one becomes more equal than the other, water 
uses. And the idea of multiple use goes out the window.
  So between now and the time of the vote I would be happy to talk with 
the proponent of the amendment, but, frankly, at this point I would 
have to oppose it because I believe it steps into a major area of law 
and does it in a way that could have unforeseen and difficult results.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, if I could respond to the Senator from 
Vermont, I appreciate his remarks, and I think he is right to be 
concerned that we take a thorough look at these amendments as they come 
up.
  Let me say that this was not only the action as a result of debate, 
extensive debate in the Chamber on an amendment to the appropriations 
bill earlier this year, but it was the very subject on which a high 
ranking member official of the Department of Agriculture had 
misrepresented the facts to Congress. It was extensively debated during 
that debate last year.

  I might say this has gone on for several years, and the 
administrative response, of course, is the first thing you would think 
of and the most natural, and I might say when this first happened, let 
me spell out if I could what happened.
  When I first heard about this, I learned that Boulder, which has had 
reservoirs in the mountains and used them for drinking water for well 
over 100 years, had been denied the reissuance of the permit even 
though they intended to use it exactly the same way they had always 
used it, and they had demanded from them a third of their water rights.
  When I heard that and I found it applied to other cities, I went to 
the Secretary of Agriculture, who was at that time Secretary Madigan.
  So I might say to the Senator from Vermont I did follow the 
administrative route on this. I did talk to Secretary Madigan. He 
issued a specific directive ordering them to issue the permit. 
Secretary Madigan gave out a special directive, signed by the 
Secretary, directing the regional forester to issue the permit. The 
regional forester received that directive and did not follow it--
ignored it--until Secretary Madigan had left office. It was at that 
time that the administration indicated to us that policy was still in 
effect and they intended to eventually issue the permits.
  So we have followed the administrative route.
  Now, what happened was a high ranking official from the Department of 
Agriculture testified that this was still the policy, testified under 
oath before Congress that this was still the policy, and it was not. 
They had repealed it secretly. So this has had extensive debate and 
extensive review.
  I have to tell the Senator in the strongest words I know I cannot sit 
back and have my cities lose their direct drinking water on a permit 
that is over 100 years old when they do not intend to change it.
  Now, that is not reasonable. I do not intend to change existing law 
one single bit, not one bit. The McCarran law discusses specifically 
the primacy of State with regard to water allocation and water rights. 
But let me assure the Senator and the Members of the Senate this in no 
way mandates multiple use--no way.
  This is a restatement of the McCarran law as it applies to permits. I 
want to indicate to the distinguished Senator from Vermont, I would be 
happy to work with him on this amendment. If he has suggestions for it, 
I would be happy to look at those and review them. I would be happy to 
work with him in any way I can. But one thing I cannot do--and I cannot 
believe any Member of the Senate could do--is 

[[Page S1012]]
stand idly by and watch their cities lose their drinking water. That 
does not make good sense. That is what is involved. The millions and 
millions of dollars our taxpayers have had to pay in attorneys fees to 
get an existing permit renewed without any change is outrageous.
  So I make that offer to the Senator. I hope very much that if there 
are improvements or suggestions he has for me, he would bring them 
forth. But I hope he would join me in supporting this measure.
  I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Idaho at this point.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, before the Senator does that, would the 
Senator yield to me on my time for just a response?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, obviously my concern is, as I stated, that 
I do not want to see a major change in the multiple-use Forest Service 
law on an amendment within a forum of this nature. I would also say to 
the Senator from Colorado, this is a matter that I first heard of I 
think about 11:30 last night. I know he is aware of that. I think most 
of us heard of this amendment at about 11:30 last night.
  As you know, I have been fairly active in the negotiations on the 
bill. This was not the first item that I was looking at. It is going to 
be some time before we actually have a vote. It will be after 11 
o'clock, in any event. Between now and then, I will meet with the 
Senator from Colorado. We will discuss it further.
  Mr. BROWN. I appreciate very much the Senator's willingness to review 
this.
  I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for 
yielding.
  If I could have the attention of the ranking member of the committee, 
the Senator from Vermont. I would like to express to him that I have 
been involved with the Senator from Colorado for well over 2 years as 
he fought this battle, and chairing the subcommittee that deals with 
forestry, we have taken a close look at the amendment and the problems 
involved.
  What has happened in the West historically--and I think the Senator 
from Vermont appreciates this--while the watersheds, largely the head 
waters, were owned or retained by the Federal Government, the right of 
water acquisition and water management and control was given to the 
States. And, of course, municipalities and irrigation districts went 
into those head waters and developed facilities under the permits of 
the Forest Service and the McCarran Act. That established the water 
systems of the West.

  In many situations we find Federal agencies, for whatever reasons, 
saying, ``To get reissuance of your permits, you have to give us some 
of the water.'' Instead of going in and filing for water like every 
other citizen has the responsibility to do to acquire a water right, 
they are extorting, as the Senator from Colorado said, by arguing that 
you cannot continue--we will not renew your permit or you cannot gain 
this right-of-way or continued access unless you do this. And in almost 
all instances, it gives up some of the water, even though that is not 
the responsibility of the Federal Government in the West, and 
historically it has never been.
  I know that is an issue that is being fought by many, but it is an 
issue that Western States will simply not give up, nor should they. 
They must retain primacy on water.
  While I have found, in all instances, cities and irrigation districts 
and others willing to comply in the modernization and in the safety 
codes of their facilities, this is not an issue about safety, it is not 
an issue about the environment; it is an issue about water, power, the 
power of holding the water or controlling it.
  So what the Senator from Colorado is doing, in my opinion, is exactly 
right. It is a reinstatement, not an expansion, of law, a reinstatement 
of the existing law and the way it has operated and provided the 
municipalities of the West, provided the irrigation districts that have 
allowed the arid West to flourish, the kind of position and control in 
the water that we think is critically necessary.
  I strongly support my colleague and hope that the Senate will concur 
with him in this amendment. And I hope, Mr. President, that if at all 
possible, we could work this out and take this amendment. I think it 
fits very nicely into existing law.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask Members of the Chamber to think how 
they would feel if they represented California and the Federal 
Government said that the drinking supply crosses the Federal highway 
and goes into San Francisco, and we are going to cut off the water for 
San Francisco. I do not think any reasonable person in this Chamber 
would think that made sense.
  How would they feel if they represented New York City and the Federal 
Government said, ``Your water line crosses over a Federal property and 
naval base that the Federal Government owns, and as a condition of 
being able to continue to cross that ground, we are going to take a 
third of your drinking water''? I do not think there is a Member of 
this Chamber who would think that made sense.
  That is literally what we face here. We face a bureaucrat at the 
regional forestry level that has made up their own law and provided 
conditions that the statute does not call for. The only way we can deal 
with it is to make this very clear that this clarifies existing law. It 
does not change it.
  Mr. President, it is essential that we do this. Without it, our 
cities face literally millions of dollars of attorneys' fees, long, 
dragged-out court cases. What we see is a real danger to solid, 
reliable municipal planning.
  I want to assure the distinguished Senator from Vermont I want to 
work with him, and I will be happy to do that between now and the time 
the votes come up later this morning.
  Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I am authorized by the distinguished Senator from Vermont 
to yield back all time on his side of the amendment.
  Is there further debate by the distinguished Senator from Colorado?
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the distinguished chairman. I have no other 
requests for time. I believe that the Senator from Vermont indicated 
that at the appropriate point he was going to yield back.
  Mr. LUGAR. He has indeed. I am prepared to do that.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back on the 
amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Brown 
amendment be temporarily set aside, with a vote to occur on or in 
relation to the amendment at a time set by the majority leader after 
consultation with the Democratic leader. For a matter of information, 
that would come after the Kohl amendment that we considered earlier.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.


                Amendment No. 3444 To Amendment No. 3184

                    (Purpose: To improve the bill.)

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3444 to amendment No. 3184.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield to myself such time as I may 
require on this amendment.
  I rise to offer an amendment to the Agriculture Reform and 
Improvement Act of 1996. In July 1995, the Agriculture Committee gave 
preliminary, but unanimous, approval to four titles of the farm bill. 
They covered farm credit, trade, rural development, and 

[[Page S1013]]
research. Since then, there has been further bipartisan work on a 
miscellaneous title and an agriculture promotion title. I present the 
fruits of those labors to the Chamber today.
  The Government's role in agricultural lending is substantial. This 
amendment provides direction to USDA to focus on helping beginning 
farmers and ranchers to get started and progress in farming and 
ranching. The amendment emphasizes that the USDA's assistance is 
temporary, and, most importantly, it modifies or ends a variety of 
risky farm loan policies which the committee considered during hearings 
this year.
  The amendment will expand and maintain our presence in overseas 
markets for high-value and bulk commodities. It establishes measurable 
benchmarks to evaluate U.S. export performance programs, including 
dollar value and market share growth goals. In addition, increased 
flexibility in the operation of export credit programs will allow us to 
seize future opportunities.
  We know that all leadership is local. Rural businesses and 
communities cannot sustain themselves without first taking a hard look 
at the human capital and resources at their disposal.
  This amendment provides for a new rural program delivery mechanism 
that depends on local and State leadership and consolidates over a 
dozen duplicate programs.
  The amendment also address the vital role that agricultural research, 
extension, and education play in ensuring a productive, efficient and 
competitive agricultural sector in our Nation. Research is the 
foundation for agriculture's future success.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will bring 
agricultural policy into the 21st century.
  Mr. President, this amendment also contains a number of miscellaneous 
provisions supported by various Senators. We are not aware that these 
are controversial. Among them are provisions to set oilseed loan rates 
according to a market-based formula, proposed by Senator Moseley-Braun; 
to provide equitable treatment for beginning farmers under the 
Agricultural Market Transition Program, proposed by Senator Pressler; 
and numerous other amendments. I ask unanimous consent that a 
description of these provisions be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       The Lugar amendment will:
       1. Correct a typographical error in the Leahy substitute.
       2. Establish oilseed loan rates under a formula similar to 
     that used for wheat and feed grains, at 85% of a five-year 
     olympic average of market prices within a range of $4.92 to 
     $5.26.
       3. Make a technical change to haying and grazing rules that 
     will allow current practices to continue with respect to 
     grazing on wheat stubble.
       4. Make three changes in the peanut provisions of the Leahy 
     substitute: (1) Allow producer gains from the sale of 
     additional peanuts to be used to offset quota pool losses; 
     (2) reduce the quota loan rate 5% for producers that refuse a 
     bona fide offer from a handler at the quota loan rate and 
     instead opt to place their peanuts under loan; and (3) 
     prohibit government entities and out-of-state non-farmers 
     from holding quota.
       5. Make a technical change to ensure the continuation of 
     current treatment for fruit and vegetable crops double-
     cropped on contract acres.
       6. Include titles of the farm bill earlier agreed to by the 
     Agriculture Committee, including provisions on trade, 
     research, credit, rural development, promotion and 
     miscellaneous items.
       7. Restore a previously-stricken authorization for ethanol 
     research.
       8. Allow 20% of available funding from commodity purchases 
     in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to be permanently 
     carried over for administrative purposes.
       9. Authorize a Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program to 
     promote implementation of various management practices to 
     improve habitat, utilizing $10 million in Conservation 
     Reserve Program funding, and make other changes to 
     conservation programs.
       10. Make technical changes in Leahy substitute language 
     authorizing land purchases in the Florida Everglades.
       11. Clarify disqualification of food stores when knowingly 
     employing Food Stamp traffickers.
       12. Reauthorize an existing fluid milk promotion program.
       13. Provide a specific authorization for the existing 
     Foreign Market Development Cooperator program.
       14. Allow USDA to make adjustments in contract acres (for 
     purposes of the Agricultural Market Transition Program) if 
     necessary to provide equitable treatment for beginning 
     farmers.
       15. Clarify definition of ``statewide'' coverage under the 
     USDA's Television Broadcasting Demonstration Grant program.
       16. Authorize grants for water and wastewater systems in 
     rural and native villages in Alaska.
       17. Provide for a reduced application process for the 
     Indian Reservation Extension Agent program and for equitable 
     participation in USDA programs by tribally-controlled 
     colleges.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I know of no opposition to these 
provisions. As the Chair may interpret correctly, this is an attempt to 
provide in this bill amendments that have been offered by many Senators 
that have been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I will yield to any 
Senator who may have comments.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for yielding. I thank the chairman 
publicly for the work he has done on behalf of farm legislation this 
year, the extensive hearings on almost all of the titles of the farm 
bill, working them out in a very intricate way, under some very 
difficult circumstances--circumstances from a Budget Committee that 
said to the chairman and to the Agriculture Committee that we had to 
find substantial savings in agricultural appropriations.
  I say that, Mr. President, in light of what we have done since 1986. 
Since 1986, direct payment to production agriculture in this country 
from Government programs has been reduced by this Congress by 60 
percent. So we have continually, over the period of now a decade, 
progressively reduced the amount of money on a program-by-program basis 
that was going to production agriculture for one reason or another. In 
almost all instances, I have agreed with that and voted for it. I think 
agriculture today is stronger because of it, because they have 
progressively moved to farm to the market instead of to the program. 
That is part of the debate today and part of the consideration in the 
farm legislation we have before us.
  But my point is that it made it increasingly difficult for the 
chairman, myself, and other members of the Agriculture Committee to 
deal with the important issues of the day. But, I must tell you, I 
think we accomplished that. Not only did we accomplish that, but I have 
worked in cooperation with the chairman, the committee, and committee 
staff in developing what I think is an excellent bill.
  Now, the en bloc amendment the Senator has just introduced is a very 
positive approach in many areas. It looks at foreign market development 
in a line-item authorization. We all know that, because of the 
tremendous efficiencies of American agriculture today, if we are going 
to hold those prices in the marketplace, we have to move a lot of that 
production to the world market. The chairman is tremendously sensitive 
to that, and these amendments reflect that.

  I have worked for some time to strengthen the ability of alternative 
crops in the region of the Pacific Northwest and in the State of Idaho 
and in surrounding States. One of those alternative crops is an oilseed 
crop known as canola. Many in agriculture are familiar with it. It is a 
new crop for our region. I have worked with that industry to provide a 
checkoff, much like the dairy industry has, the beef industry has, and 
other industries have, so that they can use their own money to promote 
their own programs, to promote their sales internationally, to do 
research for the development of a better crop and better alternatives 
or varieties. That is included in this en bloc amendment, along with an 
important amendment for the sheep industry's improvement center. We 
know that the domestic sheep industry today is struggling to stay 
alive. They need to look at alternative methods for marketing and 
general improvement of the livestock of that industry. That has been a 
consideration by the chairman, and I greatly appreciate that.
  I hope the Senate can agree on this en bloc amendment. I think it 
complements the legislation that is before us today, rounds it out into 
what is a positive farm bill, I think, for American agriculture. I 
thank the chairman very much for the work he has done in this area and 
the cooperation he has offered us. 

[[Page S1014]]

  Mr. LUGAR. 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. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BREAUX. Is it appropriate to make comments, I ask the 
distinguished chairman?
  Mr. LUGAR. I respond to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana that 
we are discussing the Lugar amendment, and as in each of these 
amendments, there is 15 minutes to each side. I control the time on our 
side. It is certainly appropriate if the Senator wishes to use the 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Louisiana. There are 7 minutes remaining on your side.
  Mr. LUGAR. The Lugar amendment is pending.
  Mr. BREAUX. I will just be brief in my comments. I guess time is 
running, so if no other Democrat is here, I will make comments.
  Mr. President and Members and, really, indeed, everyone who is 
concerned about the farm situation in this country must be wondering 
whether the Congress will have the ability to get the job done. Here we 
are in February, and people in the Deep South, and Louisiana in 
particular, my farmers, are wondering what is going to happen this 
year. They have their implements being prepared, the combines, the 
tractors, the irrigation systems they are concerned about putting into 
place, and they are wondering while they are working on the equipment 
what in the world is the program they will operate under for 1996.
  I think it is extremely important that the Congress move 
expeditiously on this legislation. We should have done it last year. I 
have been in Congress for 20 some-odd years, almost 24 now, and we have 
always had farm bills done the year before. Generally, farmers had to 
be in the field deciding what to do.
  I think we are late. Farmers cannot be late in their planning. 
Congress should not be late in tending to our business, the business of 
passing a farm bill of substance.
  I hope we can conclude action today. There will be a number of 
amendments and I think some may improve the legislation; some, I think, 
may do damage to the legislation. It is so critically important that we 
get a bill in place so that the farmers in this country could know what 
to do, when to do it, and under what economic terms and conditions they 
are going to have to operate.
  I think it would be insane for Members of the Senate to leave 
Washington, DC, to take a vacation back in our respective States or 
anywhere else while this pending business is not completed. I think it 
would be a very serious mistake. We should stay here, get the job done, 
before we think about moving any further down the line.

  My final comment, Mr. President, this morning I think there is going 
to be an amendment dealing with the sugar program. We fought this fight 
for years and years and years. It is the only program that operates at 
no net cost to the taxpayers of America, but ensures a stable and 
dependable supply of sugar to the consumers of this country. There are 
some large industrial users that would probably like to get their sugar 
for free. I can understand that, but it does not certainly serve the 
needs of the overall farm policy in this country.
  Our plan that is in this legislation is a dependable, stable program. 
Again, it operates at no net cost. It guarantees when additional sugar 
from foreign sources is needed that it can come into this country to 
meet the needs of our domestic producers, suppliers and refiners in 
this country. It has worked well. ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' 
has been said so many times before in different context. It certainly 
fits very well in this current situation. We have a program that works. 
Is it perfect? Of course not. But it works, it is solid, it is stable. 
I have never, I think, ever, received any letter from consumers or 
housewives complaining about the price of sugar.
  People know that it has been a dependable price. It has always been 
there. We have had some foreign sugar come in when it is necessary. Yet 
the suppliers and domestic producers in this country have been able to 
survive under difficult circumstances.
  We have a situation, I understand, in Florida that has brought about 
some concern. This bill addresses it in a way that I think the Members 
of the Senate from Florida who are very attentive to the needs of their 
States have supported, and strongly support.
  I conclude by urging that any amendments dealing with sugar in this 
area to eliminate the program be eliminated as an amendment because we 
have something that works. We should keep it that way. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Louisiana. 
We serve jointly as cochairs of the Sweetener Caucus here on the Senate 
side and work cooperatively together to solve the problems that this 
industry has had. I think we have accomplished that over the years, 
both in cane and sugar beet production, critical crops to the South, 
certainly to my State and other States in the West and Midwest.
  What is important, as the Senator has spoken to, is creating a 
balance that offers stability to a program and at a reasonable cost to 
consumers. It is not just a good program in Idaho for Idaho 
agriculture, but it employs a tremendous number of people and provides 
a necessary and important commodity. I will discuss this later if 
amendments are offered to the program that we have worked very closely 
on to develop.


                   Modification of Amendment No. 3184

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to modify amendment 3184 with permanent law provisions and, 
once that modification has been made, no amendments be in order to 
strike the permanent law modification during the pending action on S. 
1541.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify without 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. CRAIG. With that, I send that modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The underlying amendment is so modified.
  The modification follows:
       On page 1-1, line 12, strike ``amendment made by section 
     110(b)(2)'' and insert ``suspension under section 
     110(b)(1)(J)''.
       On page 1-1, line 20, strike ``amendment made by section 
     110(b)(2)'' and insert ``suspension under section 
     110(b)(1)(J)''.
       On page 1-1, line 22, strike ``amendment made by section 
     110(b)(2)'' and insert ``suspension under section 
     110(b)(1)(J)''.
       On page 1-2, line 12, strike ``amendment made by section 
     110(b)(2)'' and insert ``suspension under section 
     110(b)(1)(J)''.
       On page 1-11, lines 1 and 2, strike ``(as in effect prior 
     to the amendment made by section 110(b)(2))''.
       On page 1-41, lines 14 and 15, strike ``and the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1281 et 
     seq.)''.
       On page 1-42, lines 13 and 14, strike ``or the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.)''.
       On page 1-42, lines 21 and 24, strike ``or the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.)''.
       On page 1-43, lines 10 and 11, strike ``or the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938''.
       On page 1-43, lines 14 and 15, strike ``or the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938''.
       On page 1-50, lines 20 and 21, strike ``section 411 of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938'' and insert ``section 
     104(i)(1)''.
       On page 1-53, line 15, insert ``that was produced outside 
     the State'' before the period.
       On page 1-73, strike lines 6 through 8.
       On page 1-73, line 9, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(h)''.
       Beginning on page 1-76, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through page 1-78, line 4, and insert the following:

     SEC. 110. SUSPENSION AND REPEAL OF PERMANENT AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.--
       (1) In general.--The following provisions of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 shall not be applicable 
     to the 1996 through 2002 crops:
       (A) Parts II through V of subtitle B of title III (7 U.S.C. 
     1326-1351).
       (B) Subsections (a) through (j) of section 358 (7 U.S.C. 
     1358).
       (C) Subsections (a) through (h) of section 358a (7 U.S.C. 
     1358a).
       (D) Subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e) of section 358d (7 
     U.S.C. 1359).
       (E) Part VII of subtitle B of title III (7 U.S.C. 1359aa-
     1359jj).
       (F) In the case of peanuts, part I of subtitle C of title 
     III (7 U.S.C. 1361-1368).
       (G) In the case of upland cotton, section 377 (7 U.S.C. 
     1377).
       (H) Subtitle D of title III (7 U.S.C. 1379a-1379j).
       (I) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1401-1407).
       (2) Reports and records.--Effective only for the 1996 
     through 2002 crops of peanuts, 

[[Page S1015]]
     the first sentence of section 373(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act 
     of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1373(a)) is amended by inserting before 
     ``all brokers and dealers in peanuts'' the following: ``all 
     producers engaged in the production of peanuts,''.
       (b) Agricultural Act of 1949.--
       (1) Suspensions.--The following provisions of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 shall not be applicable to the 1996 
     through 2002 crops:
       (A) Section 101 (7 U.S.C. 1441).
       (B) Section 103(a) (7 U.S.C. 1444(a)).
       (C) Section 105 (7 U.S.C. 1444b).
       (D) Section 107 (7 U.S.C. 1445a).
       (E) Section 110 (7 U.S.C. 1445e).
       (F) Section 112 (7 U.S.C. 1445g).
       (G) Section 115 (7 U.S.C. 1445k).
       (H) Title III (7 U.S.C. 1447-1449).
       (I) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1421-1433d), other than sections 
     404, 406, 412, 416, and 427 (7 U.S.C. 1424, 1426, 1429, 1431, 
     and 1433f).
       (J) Title V (7 U.S.C. 1461-1469).
       (K) Title VI (7 U.S.C. 1471-1471j).
       (2) Repeals.--The following provisions of the Agricultural 
     Act of 1949 are repealed:
       (A) Section 103B (7 U.S.C. 1444-2).
       (B) Section 108B (7 U.S.C. 1445c-3).
       (C) Section 113 (7 U.S.C. 1445h).
       (D) Section 114(b) (7 U.S.C. 1445j(b)).
       (E) Sections 205, 206, and 207 (7 U.S.C. 1446f, 1446g, and 
     1446h).
       (F) Section 406 (7 U.S.C. 1426).
       (c) Suspension of Certain Quota Provisions.--The joint 
     resolution entitled ``A joint resolution relating to corn and 
     wheat marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act 
     of 1938, as amended'', approved May 26, 1941 (7 U.S.C. 1330 
     and 1340), shall not be applicable to the crops of wheat 
     planted for harvest in the calendar years 1996 through 2002.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3444

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Iowa?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I understand we are 
now on amendment No. 3184, proposed by Mr. Leahy, as modified by the 
amendment just sent to the desk by Mr. Craig?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3444, the Lugar amendment, is 
still pending.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will be sending an amendment to the 
desk. Is the bill open for amendment at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not.
  Mr. HARKIN. The bill is not open for amendment. Will the Chair advise 
the Senator when the bill is open for amendment?
  Mr. LUGAR. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will be delighted to yield when I can figure out what 
is going on around this place.
  Mr. LUGAR. The Lugar amendment is the pending business; as in each 
case, 15 minutes to a side. We are still on that amendment, and we 
anticipate within a few minutes there may be clearance on the 
Democratic side for the Lugar amendment, in which case it will be 
accepted and we will move on. The distinguished Senator from Iowa will 
be recognized to offer his amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I see. I did not understand the process under which we 
were operating. I was not privy to those deliberations that went on 
late last night.
  Mr. President, let me say I do not even know what the Lugar amendment 
is, right now. It is probably OK. I just want to take at least a couple 
of minutes--I guess I have the floor--to raise my voice in protest 
against this process we are now undertaking.
  Agricultural legislation is serious business. It not only affects the 
farmers in my home State and farmers and ranchers all across the 
country, it affects consumers and affects people who live in small 
towns in rural areas.
  I have been here 22 years. I have been on the Ag Committee that long, 
10 in the House and now 12 in the Senate. I have been through a lot of 
farm bills. I have never seen such an obscene process as what we are 
going through right now, and I use the word with its full import and 
meaning, ``obscene.''
  The fact that we have before us a 7-year farm bill--I do not mind 
debating the farm bill and offering amendments and whatever comes out 
of this body, fine. That is the will of the body to do that. But, to be 
choked by a process that only allows several hours of debate, that only 
allows 10 amendments on this side, allows 5 amendments on that side; 
that only allows a half-hour evenly divided for any amendment--what 
kind of deliberative process is this? Is this the U.S. Senate? Or is 
this some Third World dictatorship, where somebody is trying to cram 
something through?
  I just want to say I protest to the utmost what we are doing here and 
how we are doing it today. Farm legislation deserves more than 7 hours. 
We can spend 2 weeks on a telecommunications bill, or longer. I do not 
know how long it took. We can spend days and days debating other 
things. But for perhaps the most important thing for farmers and 
ranchers and rural people, what do we get, 8 hours, 7 hours, to debate 
and amend and try to fashion a bill?
  I am sorry, this process smells to high heaven. I have some 
amendments I am going to be offering, but I want to make the record 
very clear I object to the way this bill is being pushed through, the 
way we are being choked off and strangled in this process. The Senate 
deserves better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Lugar amendment 
be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the floor is now open. In fact an amendment 
from the Democratic side would be in order.


                Amendment No. 3445 to Amendment No. 3184

   (Purpose: To strike the section relating to the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation interest rate and continue the farmer owned reserve)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3445 to amendment No. 3184.

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

       (1) Strike section 505 and insert: ``Notwithstanding the 
     provisions of section 110, the Secretary shall carry out the 
     Farmer Owned Reserve program in accordance of with section 
     110 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.) 
     as it existed prior to the enactment of this Act.''

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, my amendment would do two things. First of 
all, it strikes section 505. What is section 505? Section 505--believe 
it or not, I know this is going to come as a shock to you, Mr. 
President, and others who may not have been privy to what is in this 
so-called farm bill--section 505 raises interest rates that the 
Commodity Credit Corporation charges farmers. Under current law, the 
USDA charges farmers interest on commodity loans at a rate based on the 
costs of money to the CCC, the Commodity Credit Corporation. It is a 
Treasury-based rate. This is the way it always has been. 

[[Page S1016]]

  But the bill and the Leahy-Lugar or Lugar-Leahy amendment would 
increase the interest rate on commodity loans by 100 basis points above 
the rate, as calculated under the formula in effect on October 1, 1989.
  There is simply no justification for hiking the interest on farmers 
above a level representing the cost of funds to USDA. This bill, as 
drafted, would constitute usury against farmers. It is unreasonable. 
Here we have the Fed finally, I think, coming to its senses, I hope, in 
starting to reduce interest rates. They never should have hiked them in 
the first place over the last couple of years. Yet, on the other hand, 
we are going to charge more interest to farmers.
  I wonder how many farmers know that. I wonder how many farmers know 
that in this bill their interest charges are going to go up 100 basis 
points, for no reason. There is no reason for it. The Treasury rates 
are going down, not going up. These commodity loans are among the most 
effective and cost-effective of all farm programs because they do allow 
farmers to market their grain in a more orderly fashion. It helps them 
obtain funds to pay their expenses using their commodity as a 
collateral while improving their opportunity to take advantage of 
higher prices that usually occur after a harvest.
  So maybe that is the reason they are raising the interest rates to 
farmers. Maybe they will not be able to keep their grain and they will 
have to dump it at harvest time when prices are low. That is OK for the 
grain dealers, OK for the processors--bad deal for farmers. These loans 
also help alleviate the stress and overloading on transportation and 
marketing channels during the harvest season.
  Mr. President, there is simply no reason for USDA to make money from 
farmers using this program by charging interest rates exceeding the 
cost of money to USDA. So my amendment would simply retain current law. 
Because it would simply retain current law, there would be no cost 
relative to baseline for the amendment. As for the cost of the overall 
bill relative to baseline, adding the cost of this amendment would 
still leave the cost of the bill well below CBO baselines.
  Mr. President, that is the first part of my amendment, to strike that 
section that raises interest rates to farmers, leave it as under 
current law that is the cost of money to the Government.
  As I said, these commodity loans help farmers market their grain in 
an orderly fashion. They can hold their grain and market it when prices 
are higher. It leaves the farmer more in charge of when he wants to 
market it rather than when he has to dump it to pay his bills.
  But there is another important tool that farmers use in order to 
maximize their income and to ensure that they can sell their grain at 
the appropriate time. That is something called the farmer-owned 
reserve. That is the second part of my amendment. That is to reinstate 
and restore the farmer-owned reserve, which is eliminated in this bill 
and in the Lugar-Leahy amendment.
  The farmer-owned reserve again helps farmers store crops in times of 
surplus when prices are low. It alleviates the glut on the market. It 
helps farmers await opportunities for better prices. It is a marketing 
tool for farmers. The farmer-owned reserve also protects consumers 
because it helps to hold grain grown in good times in reserve so that 
drought or other natural disasters will not drive prices to extremely 
high levels.
  The availability of grain in reserve is also important in bringing a 
little stability to both grain and livestock sectors. The reserve helps 
to keep grain prices from going as high as they might otherwise. It 
helps prevent the liquidation of livestock herds in teams of short feed 
reduction. The liquidation of these herds eventually leads to higher 
meat prices at a later point for consumers.
  The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University 
of Missouri and Iowa State University estimated that substantial stocks 
that we held on hand going into the 1988 drought prevented some $40 
billion in extra food costs to consumers mostly in keeping the meat 
prices from going sharply higher. So the farmer-owned reserve bill is 
good for the grain farmer, has allowed that grain farmer to market the 
grain when he wants, and it is a marketing tool.
  Second, it is good for livestock producers because in times of short 
production or over demand, it keeps their prices from spiking up, which 
may cause them to liquidate their herds. They do not have the luxury of 
not feeding their cattle for a long period of time and waiting until 
the prices go down. A lot of herds are liquidated because of the sharp 
spikes in prices.
  The other thing is, if we get a glut in the price, they go way down. 
A lot of livestock people put on more animals, and that leads to great 
fluctuations in the livestock market.
  So the farmer-owned reserve bill provides stability, a marketing tool 
for grain farmers, some stability in protection for our livestock 
producers, and it provides a great deal of protection for our 
consumers. Who knows when we will have the next drought or the next 
flood? Who knows what crop conditions are going to be like next year 
with global warming and everything else that is going on and the crazy 
winter weather? Who knows? It is in our best interest to ensure that we 
have a farmer-owned reserve.
  I remember when the farmer-owned reserve came into existence. I 
remember the debate at that time. The farmer ought to keep the grain, 
not the processors, not the shippers, not the elevators. The farmers 
ought to have control over that grain and sell it when that farmer 
wants to. That was the whole idea behind the farmer-owned reserve. It 
had broad bipartisan support. Check the record. I am right. Republicans 
and Democrats across the board supported the institution of the farmer-
owned reserve. There is no reason to do away with it.
  Yet, this bill, and the Lugar-Leahy amendment, does away with the 
farmer-owned reserve. My amendment simply reinstates it as it was. My 
amendment does not include an offset because the bill is well below the 
Congressional Budget Office baseline. The amendment would only 
constitute a continuation of the farmer-owned reserve as it was in the 
1990 farm bill. It would not result in spending on the farmer-owned 
reserve above a baseline level.
  So, again, Mr. President, my amendment does two things to help 
farmers and consumers. One, it knocks out the provision of the bill 
that raises interest rates to farmers.
  I see the chairman is here. Perhaps we can have some discussion. I do 
not know why we are raising interest rates to farmers 1 percent when 
the Fed is already starting to lower interest rates and Treasury rates 
are going down. There is no reason for that.
  So the first part of my amendment knocks that out and leaves interest 
rates on CCC loans at cost of money.
  The second part of my amendment reinstates the farmer-owned reserve.
  I reserve whatever remainder of time I might have.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes and forty seconds remain.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I require on 
this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, two elements of the amendment offered by 
the distinguished Senator from Iowa are costly provisions. I think 
Senators need to understand that there are expenses attached which the 
taxpayers would have if the amendments were to be adopted. 
Specifically, the Harkin amendment as it deals with CCC credits and the 
100-basis-point increase, which the pending legislation would provide 
in the CCC interest rates, if that were stricken, this would cost the 
taxpayers $260 million. So it is a significant item.

  The point made by the distinguished Senator is, why should interest 
rates for farmers be increased as represented by the CCC interest 
rates? And the fundamental answer is that these rates are well below 
commercial rates. In essence, as the Agriculture Committee dealt with 
this problem, we have tried to bring some equity among farmers, 
business people, and those who are involved in commerce generally in 
America. And the elimination of the 100-basis-point advantage likewise 
was a very important saving at the time that 

[[Page S1017]]
we were all considering the balanced budget amendment that was vetoed 
ultimately by President Clinton.
  I hope that simply because the President has vetoed this particular 
budget, even as the President and congressional leadership are still 
hard at work as far as we know attempting to find a balanced budget in 
7 years, that we would not abandon all of the thoughts that we had that 
were very important with regard to balancing the budget. This is a $260 
million item.
  Mr. President, the second part of the Harkin amendment would restore 
the farmer-owned grain reserve which pays farmers 26\1/2\ cents a 
bushel for storing grain. I would simply point out that restoration of 
this farmer-owned reserve will also be a costly item--in this case, 
$100 million of additional expense to taxpayers in this country.
  Furthermore, I would simply say as a farmer who has adequate storage 
capacity on my farm, and well aware of how the farmer-reserve plan 
worked in the past, that I do not think it is a very good idea. I say 
this as a farmer, not as somebody coming in from the outside offering 
advice to farmers.

  The truth of the matter is, so long as we had the farmer-owned 
reserve we had an enormous overhang of grain on markets. Those of us 
who looked to the markets to give signals for our marketing plans 
always had to take into consideration hoards of grain--hundreds of 
millions of bushels held out there that could depress markets strangely 
and sometimes almost capriciously.
  The thought was suggested this morning that this farmer-owned reserve 
gave some solace to consumers. But it is really quite to the contrary, 
Mr. President. It has led to fits and starts with regard to marketing 
plans for farmers that finally we got rid of all of this grain, and the 
farmer-owned reserve was finally depleted. It is gone. It is no longer 
a hanging sword over the market price.
  I would like to leave it that way, Mr. President. I think that is the 
desirable policy. In fact, the Senator's amendment does two unfortunate 
things: It would reestablish bad policy, and charge the taxpayers of 
the country $100 million for that dubious privilege.
  Mr. President, the arguments are starkly simple. I will not embellish 
them further--$260 million more cost if you strike the 100-point 
interest differential and $100 million more cost if you restore the 
farmer-owned reserve situation. In both cases, I think they are bad 
policy and very expensive.
  So, obviously, Mr. President, I strenuously oppose the amendment for 
the reasons I have suggested.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.


                    amendment no. 3445, as modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a modification of my amendment I 
send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       (1) Strike section 505.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the modification I sent to the desk was 
simply to strike the provision on the farmer-owned reserve and that 
leaves the amendment to strike section 505, which is striking that 
portion of the bill that raises the interest rates to farmers.
  I will have another amendment that I wish to send to the desk that 
would reinstate the farmer-owned reserve. I ask the chairman if I can 
do that now, or do I have to wait for another time?
  These are two separate issues, and I did not mean to get them 
together in one bill. So now I have an amendment at the desk that 
simply strikes that section which raises the interest rates. I wish to 
also offer the amendment to reinstate the farmer-owned reserve.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, if I may raise a question of the 
distinguished Senator, he wishes to separate the two issues?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. LUGAR. In two amendments?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. LUGAR. I have no objection.
  Mr. HARKIN. Could I send the other amendment to the desk?
  I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would suggest that until the first 
amendment is set aside, a second amendment would not be in order.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I will just take what remaining time I have to respond 
to the distinguished chairman's comments on the Commodity Credit 
Corporation. He said it would cost $260 million--that is true--over 7 
years, a very small price to pay for ensuring that farmers are not 
charged higher interest rates that are not even warranted.
  Now, when you say that it costs money, it does not really cost money. 
It just adds to what is in the present bill because the present bill 
raises interest rates. So if you take that out, you are saying it costs 
money.
  No, it does not. This is sort of a shell game. It does not really 
cost money. It only costs money because by the bill raising interest 
rates to farmers, the Government is going to make some money.
  Well, I do not think the Government ought to be making money off of 
farmers by charging them another percent interest rate on commodity 
credit loans. So let us not get caught up in that kind of nonsense.
  Second, on the farmer-owned reserve, the Senator is right; there is 
no grain in the farmer-owned reserve now because prices are high and 
farmers have sold their grain. Who can say next year or the year after 
or the year after or the year after for 7 years?
  He talks about the grain hanging over the marketplace. That is the 
way it used to be when the processors and the elevators got the grain 
and the grain companies. When Cargill got the grain, yes, they could 
hold it over. But now that farmers have it, they can market that grain 
whenever they want, and that is the way it ought to be. It is a 
marketing tool for farmers, not something that depresses the market. 
The 7-year cost of this amendment is $81 million, which still keeps the 
bill well within CBO's baseline. So I did not need an offset for that.
  So there are no pay-go problems relative to the baseline here. The 
bill now saves $784 million against the December 1995 CBO baseline. It 
saves about $8 billion against the February 1995 baseline, so there is 
room in the budget for these amendments.
  So this first amendment on the Commodity Credit Corporation will cost 
farmers $260 million. That is what it will do if we leave it in there. 
If we take it out, it is not going to cost the Government and it is 
well within the baseline. These increased interest rates on farmers are 
a tax on farmers. Make no mistake about it; it is an additional tax on 
farmers. I think it is usurious, and I hope we can get this stricken so 
the farmers do not have to pay increased interest rates when it is not 
even warranted by anything happening in the marketplace.

  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will just respond briefly to the 
distinguish Senator's argument. Obviously, we are not imposing a tax on 
farmers. A farmer wishing to borrow money does that as a citizen, a 
voluntary act. The question is whether that loan ought to be subsidized 
by all the rest of the taxpayers, people in various other businesses 
all over the country. To some extent it is now subsidized, and the 
legislation that the distinguished Senator from Idaho and I introduced 
eliminates 100 basis points of the subsidy. It brings the loan rate for 
farmers closer to that of commercial loans in our country, some basic 
fairness really with all borrowers. That is the issue.
  Now, if we offer a subsidy to farmers, I have pointed out it will 
cost taxpayers and other borrowers $260 million. That has no 
relationship whatever to baseline or budget or what have you. It is 
just a cost of the subsidy.
  In the agriculture legislation we provided this year, we have tried 
to bring about more equity among farmers and other taxpayers in the 
country. I believe the savings involved are substantial. They are over 
a 7-year period of time. They do not bring any injury to farmers as a 
group of people with relationship to anybody else. They bring about 
equity, and I believe the taxpayers care about that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is a good debate, and I appreciate 
the comments by the distinguished chairman 

[[Page S1018]]
on this issue. But I would engage him even further.
  The interest rate was raised in the bill to meet budget 
considerations. They were looking for every bit of money they could 
find to meet the budget, and so someone, I do not know whom, decided, 
well, we will raise the interest rates on Commodity Credit Corporation 
loans to farmers by a percent, and that gained us $260 million.
  We are not now engaged in a budget debate. That has gone. We have 
room within the budget for this. That is the key. There is room in the 
budget for this.
  Let us take this $260 million that my friend from Indiana said is 
costing taxpayers. No, it is not. What this $260 million represents is 
$260 million taken from farmers. That is what it is. Farmers pay it. If 
we do not have them pay it, that means farmers get to keep that $260 
million over 7 years. Now, if we take it from them, what is the 
difference between that and a tax, I ask you? It is a tax on farmers. 
And, no, it is not true that taxpayers have to pay it. That is not it 
at all.
  Why should farmers get a better rate on their commodity loans than 
they can get at the local bank? Why should they? I will tell you why. 
Because a farmer, an individual farmer out there does not have the 
economic clout to go to the big banks in Chicago or New York or Kansas 
City and get the prime rate. They have to pay whatever the local rate 
is. And it is usually a lot higher.
  Now, Cargill, if they want to borrow money, they go to Chicago and 
they get the prime rate. They might even get it better than that, for 
all I know, because they are big and they are a big customer. Farmer 
Joe Jones in Iowa, though, who goes to the local bank to borrow money 
so he can pay his bills and keep his crop and market it when he wants 
to, has to pay local going rates.
  That is why we have this in the bill. That is why we have had it for 
60 years, I think, if I am not mistaken. For pretty close to 60 years 
we have had that provision which allows farmers to borrow from CCC. And 
now they are getting slapped with a tax. I am sorry, I am just going to 
tell it like I see it. This is $260 million taken from farmers. Talk 
about takings, this is taken from the farmer. There is no reason for 
it.
  On the farmer-owned reserve, again, $81 million over 7 years is a 
small price to pay for stability for farmers and for consumers to know 
that if there is a drought or flood or some other national disaster, 
they are not going to get hit with exorbitantly high food prices. So on 
both of these issues, but especially on the interest rate issue, I say 
to my colleagues, do not stick it to the farmers and charge them more 
interest than what is necessary for the Government. By doing so, you 
are just taking $260 million more out of farmers' pockets over the next 
7 years, and we ought not allow that to happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, indeed, makes no 
apology for being candid. He always has been a truth teller, and I 
appreciate that. The facts are clear that the Senator believes farmers 
should receive lower interest rates in this particular instance in the 
CCC loan than commercial rates.
  Clearly, as a part of general equity, the committee felt otherwise. 
We feel as a matter of fact that the loan rates ought to be comparable 
for commercial activities in our country, and this was a good time to 
rectify that. It was a part of the budget consideration, and I hope we 
have not forgotten that altogether. That is not an issue that has been 
laid aside by the country, and it is not a question of sticking it to 
the farmers. The question is simply equity for farmers, equity for 
taxpayers, equity for all of us. I think this is an important 
consideration. It is a $260 million consideration, as a matter of fact.

  Finally, Mr. President, with regard to stability for consumers, the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa mentioned that because of high prices 
now the bins are empty. They will always be empty if prices are very 
high in the world. The point is, we ought not fill them up again and 
thus depress the prices because of this overhang. That is the principle 
and that is the policy. Furthermore, $100 million of savings to the 
taxpayers is involved in not reinstituting bad policy.
  Mr. President, how much time does our side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6\1/2\ minutes left.
  Mr. LUGAR. I am prepared to yield back, that is, if all time is 
yielded back on the Harkin amendment.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, has the Senator from Iowa used all his time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move that the Harkin amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3446 to Amendment No. 3184

            (Purpose: To continue the farmer owned reserve)

  The clerk will report the second Harkin amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3446 to amendment No. 3184.
       At the appropriate place insert the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding the provisions of section 110, the 
     Secretary shall carry out the Farmer Owned Reserve program in 
     accordance of with section 110 of the Agricultural Act of 
     1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.) as it existed prior to the 
     enactment of this Act.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is my second amendment. I yield back 
all my time. I already discussed it.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will follow the same course as the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa. We have had a good discussion of both 
amendments and, therefore, I yield our time back on our side. I ask 
unanimous consent that the second Harkin amendment be temporarily set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, might I note, I believe we are open for 
another amendment on the other side. I should note, Mr. President, for 
our colleagues that everybody has been very cooperative. A number of 
Senators have not used all their time. Things are moving forward. I 
almost hate to mention that as a compliment because it might spoil the 
rhythm of things.
  I encourage Senators to keep coming forward. I know there are others 
on the floor now. But it is my intention on this side that whenever 
possible--whenever possible--on an amendment to yield back time. I 
would not do anything to cut off anybody's time, of course, that is 
allotted to them, because it is a relatively short amount of time on 
each amendment. But when we can, we can yield it back.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the normal rotation would be now to come to 
our side of the aisle, if one of our Senators is ready.
  Is the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania ready?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Just 1 minute.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3225 To Amendment No. 3184

   (Purpose: To provide farm program equity by reforming the peanut 
                                program)

  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I have, I believe, at the 
desk amendment No. 3225. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] for himself, 
     Mr. Bradley, Mr. Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Gregg and Mr. Kyl, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3225 to amendment No. 3184.

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

       Amend Section 106, Peanut Program, by:
       (a) Striking paragraph (2) in subsection (a), Quota 
     Peanuts, and inserting the following: 
     
[[Page S1019]]

       ``(2) Support rates.--
       ``(A) Maximum levels.--The national average quota support 
     rate for each of the 1996 through 2000 crops of quota peanuts 
     shall not be more than $610 per ton for the 1996 crop, $542 
     per ton for the 1997 crop, $509 per ton for the 1998 crop, 
     $475 per ton for the 1999 and 2000 crops.
       ``(B) Disbursement.--The Secretary shall initially disburse 
     only 90 percent of the price support loan level required 
     under this paragraph to producers for the 1996 and 1997 
     crops, and 85 percent for the 1998 through 2000 crops and 
     provide for the disbursement to producers at maturity of any 
     balances due the producers on the loans that may remain to be 
     settled at maturity. The remainder of the loans for each crop 
     shall be applied to offset losses in pools under subsection 
     (d), if the losses exist, and shall be paid to producers only 
     after the losses are offset.''
       ``(C) Non-recourse loans.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, for the 2001 and 2002 crops of 
     peanuts, the quota is eliminated and the Secretary shall 
     offer to all peanut producers non-recourse loans at a level 
     not to exceed 70 percent of the estimated market price 
     anticipated for each crop.
       ``(D) Market price.--In estimating the market price for the 
     2001 and 2002 crops of peanuts, the Secrtary shall consider 
     the export prices of additional peanuts during the last 5 
     crop years for which price support was available for 
     additional peanuts and prices for peanuts in overseas 
     markets, but shall not base the non-recourse loan levels for 
     2001-2002 on quota or additional support rates established 
     under this Act.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have a very short period of time under 
the agreement to go through this. So if I can, I would like to first 
say I would like to describe our amendment so I can get that in; and 
then I would like to talk generally about the dramatic need for reform.
  What we have seen in the bill that is before us right now is an 
attempt to move farm programs, at least a lot of farm programs, into 
the 21st century--actually the 20th century; the late 20th century, not 
really the 21st century--in an effort for reform, the freedom to farm.
  There are a couple of programs that have been left aside, that have 
been allowed to continue as they are and have not been reformed. In 
fact, in the past several farm bills, while other commodity programs 
have been reformed, a couple of programs have been set aside for 
nontouched status. One such program is the Peanut Program.
  What we are trying to do with this amendment, Senator Bradley and I, 
is to do just a modest amount of reform over the next few years and 
really make this program look like programs like the Soybean Program 
looks today. So we are just trying to bring the Peanut Program into 
what is the 1960's and 1970's farm policy as opposed to the 1930's farm 
policy.
  What we do is gradually reduce the support price for peanuts from the 
current level, which is $678--and, by the way, the world market price 
for peanuts is not $678 a ton, which is what it is in this country for 
people who grow quota peanuts; it is $350 a ton. So we pay, as this 
chart shows, a tremendous amount more for peanuts in this country than 
the world does.
  What happens as a result of that? Well, a lot of our folks who 
process peanuts end up producing Snickers bars and the like up in 
Canada or Mexico where they can buy peanuts at the world price, not 
have to subsidize an arcane quota system at $678 a ton. So we are 
losing jobs. Not only are we losing jobs, but consumption of peanuts is 
going down. We are losing farms and losing processors and losing 
shellers.
  This is a doomed program. Keeping prices at this level is dooming 
this program, not just for the processors and consumers, but for 
farmers also. What we do is gradually reduce the support price for 
peanuts from $678 to $610 next year, and by the year 2000 it goes down 
to $475 for the years 1999 and 2000. After the year 2000, we go to a 
nonrecourse loan program which is similar to other agriculture programs 
in place right now as a safety net program.
  So we still have a program for peanuts when we are done. It looks 
more like the traditional farm programs. It is not a system, as I will 
explain in a minute, that is absolutely indecipherable, as well as 
unfair, to growers who do not happen to have passed on from generation 
to generation a quota that allows us to charge this outrageous price 
for peanuts that we do charge.
  Let me now talk very briefly about the peanut program. Mr. President, 
how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Senator from Pennsylvania 
has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me talk a little bit 
about this program. Freedom to farm is about simplifying agriculture 
programs, providing certainty and simplicity. We do that in a lot of 
areas of this farm bill, and I commend the chairman, Senator Lugar, and 
Senator Leahy for their work in moving farm programs, albeit slowly, 
but gradually toward simplicity and certainty.
  We do not touch this program. We do not reform this program, and this 
is how it works. I wish I had time to explain this monstrosity of a 
program. It has taken me, as a new member of the Agriculture Committee, 
a year to just begin to understand how this program works.
  It is discriminatory is probably the nicest thing you can say about 
it. If you are a quota farmer--that means, if you own a license to 
raise so many tons of peanuts--you can sell your peanuts at $678 a ton. 
If you do not have a license, which has been passed on usually from 
generation to generation--and, by the way, about 20 percent of the 
quota holders, 20 percent of the people who own quotas control 80 
percent of the quota peanuts in this country. So it is very few 
farmers, in some cases not even farmers, people who own these things 
live all over the world and lease out the quotas so people can grow 
their peanuts. If you do not own one of these quotas, you do not get 
$678 a ton, you get $132 a ton when the world market price is $350.
  There are literally hundreds of thousands of growers out there who 
cannot even make ends meet because of this program for the privileged 
few--for the privileged few--who just happened to have a granddaddy who 
knew somebody on the board when they handed out these quotas back in 
the 1930's.
  That is not the way we should run farm policy in this country, and it 
is discriminatory. If you look at the percentage of minorities who have 
quotas, that is another story altogether. Minorities were not given a 
lot of quotas in the South back in the 1930's to grow peanuts, and that 
is another inequity built into this program. It is a great reason to 
get rid of it.

  Let me talk about equity. As I said before, in the process of the 
last couple of farm bills, we have gradually begun to reform the farm 
programs. We have reduced support prices for a variety of commodities. 
In fact, we have reduced support prices for every single commodity but 
one: Peanuts.
  Peanuts have gone up. Price supports have gone up since the 1985 farm 
bill by 21 percent. Peanut support prices have gone up 21 percent. 
Every other program has gone down. Every other commodity support price 
has gone down, as we seek to get Government more and more out of 
supporting agriculture and allowing agriculture to work on its own.
  Only peanuts, with this horrible quota system that prejudices folks 
who were not lucky enough, as I said, to have their granddaddy give 
them a quota license--those are the folks who make money at the expense 
of other growers, of shellers, of processors and consumers, because we 
pay a heck of a lot more for peanuts in this country than they do 
anywhere else in the world. Why? For a privileged few, a privileged few 
who just happened to know someone back in the 1930's or their 
granddaddy happened to know someone in the 1930's.
  It is a system that needs to be done away with. Frankly, the right 
thing to do is to eliminate the program outright. But we understand 
there are a lot of people who own these quotas who have loans and 
relationships, that they borrowed money based on the fact they had 
these quotas and were able to get these increased prices, so we phased 
it out. We are not going to drop anybody off the quota right away. We 
phase it out over a period of 5 years and then go to a nonrecourse loan 
program. We still keep a safety net in place for all peanut growers, 
not just the privileged few who happen to own quotas, but for all 
peanut growers.
  I reserve the remainder of my time. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Kentucky. 

[[Page S1020]]



                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Katherine 
DeRemer, who is on detail from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, be granted the 
privilege of the floor during the consideration of S. 1541, the 
Agricultural Market Transition Act of 1996.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair and thank my colleague from Alabama.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from 
Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized next, for the purpose of offering an amendment, at the 
conclusion of the debate on the Santorum amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. I withdraw it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of 
misinformation about the peanut program. It is a very complicated 
program, but it is a cost-effective and consumer-oriented program.
  In the bill that is before us, the underlying bill, there is 
substantial reform. We have a reform peanut bill that is before us. It 
is reformed in a great number of ways. It will have the effect of 
lowering the cost of the peanut program to the extent that it is a no-
net-cost program. It is not going to cost the Government.
  Over the years, the peanut program has cost the Government about $13 
million a year. This past year, the cost has increased, but the peanut 
program is essentially very little cost to the taxpayer. The quota will 
be reduced by as much as 28 percent. Therefore, this change alone 
demonstrates significant reform. Frankly, I said, in my judgment, it 
went too far, but it prevailed on the Republican side. That is what 
they wanted to do, and they felt like that was the thing to do. I still 
believe that the reforms go too far. I do not like it, but it has been 
reformed.
  So all these figures that the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania 
is using do not show the reformation that has taken place.
  His bill will basically kill the peanut program. Actually, a similar 
amendment to his in the House was estimated by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture to cost the program $110 million in the first year alone, 
whereas the reform bill in the package before us in the Senate is a no-
net cost. In effect, we are talking about a cost to the Government of 
$110 million in the first year under the Santorum amendment.
  The amendment that Senator Santorum offers would bring the support 
and the market price below the cost of production, making financing 
impossible and driving farmers out of the business and reducing the 
supply to consumers.
  Two separate studies by the farm credit system shows that basically 
what he is doing will mean that somewhere between 40 and 45 percent of 
peanut farmers will not be able to get financing the first year. And 
then in the remaining years, none of them could get financing relative 
to this. This would leave the industry with a significant reduction in 
supply.
  I have some charts. This is a bag of salted peanuts. It sells for 20 
cents, 23 cents, and 7 cents. That is 50 cents. The farmer gets 7 
cents. The manufacturer gets 23 cents. The retailer gets 20 cents. That 
is 99 percent peanuts. I do not know what else you add to it. I suppose 
you add a little salt. And maybe you can cook them a little bit in 
peanut oil, which is a good oil relative to it.

  Whoever heard of one of these bags of peanuts selling for anything 
like the bottled drinks, like the colas? When they first started out 
talking about putting a 1-cent tax on them--it never materialized in 
that manner. Instead, they have always been increased in multiples of 
5. The price used to be 10 cents, and now we find soft drinks being 50 
cents, 55 or 60 cents.
  How are you going to save any money on a bag of peanuts when the 
farmer gets that little? Down here you have peanut butter. The peanut 
butter here contains 90 percent peanuts. This particular jar sells for 
$2.08. As it is, that is what we picked out in the store. There is a 
study by Purdue University, and they went out and picked out six cities 
to sample. The price varied for a jar of peanuts of the same size; I 
believe it was 18 ounces. It varied from $3.17 down to the lowest at a 
$1.23 a jar. We are going to show you a chart later showing what it 
cost the manufacturers to produce peanut butter and make a profit. For 
the School Lunch Program, manufacturers sell peanut butter and 
obviously make a profit at about 80 cents a jar, compared to an overall 
commercial retail average of $1.83. The manufacturer's cost is what 
they sell to the School Lunch Program, and they make money on that at 
80 cents a jar.
  Now, M&M's. We have here plain M&M's and peanut M&M's. The consumer 
pays the same retail price, ``disputing what candy manufacturers have 
been saying about the effect of peanuts on consumer prices.'' They sell 
for the same thing. No difference whatsoever when you go into the 
market.
  All right. Here we have Hershey. Bear Stearns, which is a leading 
investment house, on September 18, issued a new alert relative to 
Hershey Food Corp., and they upgraded it from neutral, to ``buy.'' Bear 
Stearns says: ``Hershey will be a major beneficiary of several 
legislative and regulatory reform measures expected to be put into 
effect in the near future; namely, the phaseout of Government price 
support for sugar and peanuts.''
  And on another page of this, Bear Stearns said--and this is 
information they sent out to their investors--``Phase out support for 
sugar and peanuts. As a new part of the farm legislation being hammered 
out, the U.S. Government could gradually phase out price supports for 
sugar and peanuts.'' Bear Stearns is making their stock recommendation 
based on the elimination of the Price Support Program. We expect this 
bill to go into effect in 1996. ``Such measures would lead to 
substantial margin improvements for Hershey, whose chocolate operations 
consumes huge quantities of these two commodities, sugar and peanuts.'' 
It goes on relative to profit margins for share-holders and other stock 
aspects.
  Now, several years ago, there was a GAO study pertaining to this, and 
they said, regarding the support price, there was a possibility of it 
meaning lower costs to the consumer. Yet, when they testified before 
the House regarding their report, they came up with a very changed and 
realistic thing. The GAO basically stated in testimony that by 
``consumer,'' they did not mean the final consumer of the product, but 
the first buyer of the peanuts to make them into candy or peanut 
butter. Further, GAO admitted that it could be zero that the homemaker 
would ever see of that savings. The GAO also stated that they had 
interviewed both small and large manufacturers of peanut products and 
were told that they may not pass the cost savings directly on to the 
final consumer of peanut products, but that they could develop some new 
product lines with a lower support price.
  I want to show you the history of what has happened relative to 
farmer price and retail price. Here are the various things. The support 
price is in blue on the chart here, and the red is farm prices, and 
green the retail price. Over the years, the farm price has always been 
above the support price. That has been consistent throughout. The loan 
rate has not been used much. Look at the difference as to what the 
manufacturers and the retailers make, in regards to retail price versus 
what the farmer makes.
  Let us see if we cannot get that chart now pertaining to the cost of 
the manufacturing. This is from USDA. This chart shows the 
manufacturers' cost. The manufacturers are able to make and sell peanut 
butter to the USDA School Lunch Program at 81 cents a pound, while 
consumers pay more than twice that amount for the very same peanut 
butter in grocery stores. The retail price illustrated in this chart is 
actually below the retail average. In some places, the retail price is 
over $3. As I indicated earlier, 90 percent of 

[[Page S1021]]
what is in a jar of peanut butter is peanuts. They may have added a 
little salt and oil and other things pertaining to that.
  Now we talked about prices paid by the School Lunch Program versus 
commercial retail. Let us now turn to the chart on the comparative 
prices in cities across the world. Again, USDA is the source of this 
information. In the United States, the average price as of that date--
and they vary according to the date--is $2.10. In Mexico, it is $2.55. 
In Canada $2.72. The argument has been made that peanut butter produced 
in Canada, or any foreign country, is made with the cheaper, world 
market peanuts. This chart illustrates Hong Kong, Paris, and Tokyo. The 
U.S. peanut butter prices are the lowest in the world. I point that 
out. Let us look at Canada. I will not attempt to quote this French, 
but they have labeling on this Canadian peanut butter. In Canada, the 
retail price is $2.99 and in the United States it is $2.21 on that 
particular date and location. This example even takes into account the 
exchange rate.
  Here we have a Snickers bar. They say they are going to pass on to 
the consumer savings on Snickers bars. Everybody knows Snickers is 
packed full of peanuts. But when you get down to it, it actually only 
has 2 cents worth of peanuts in it. The retail price for this Snickers 
bar is 55 cents. Furthermore, the sugar in a Snickers bar is only 3 
cents. This information is from a reliable source, a director of 
quality and supply of Nestle's Chocolate and Confections, who made this 
statement as of the 18th day of June 1995. If the peanut price is 
reduced what portion will a consumer see in regards to reduced retail 
price. I say the consumer will see no reduction in the retail price.
  Now, foes of the peanut program have been putting out a lot of 
misinformation about new farmers, that they are not getting into the 
program. Of course, there is basically not a great number of farmers 
that are in the program--somewhere between 10,000 to 15,000. However, 
we have seen a steady increase of new farmers that have gone into the 
peanut program. Actually, the peanut program is easier for a new farmer 
to access than is the cotton, wheat or corn program. In order to 
participate in these commodity programs, a farmer must produce that 
crop for 3 to 5 years building a base before they can participate.
  Really, when you get down to it, ``quota'' means no more than just 
base, relative to that. So the argument that peanut production is left 
to an exclusive group and therefore nobody else can get into the market 
is misleading. This chart illustrating program participation, using 
USDA figures, demonstrates that new farmers do have access to peanut 
production.
  The other argument, or criticism that is made, is that peanut quota 
holders do not produce their quota and instead lease, is also 
misleading. Let us compare it to the other crops. Here we have from the 
U.S. Bureau of Census: In the peanut industry, there are more farmers 
who own their land and do not rent than in wheat, soybeans or cotton. 
This is the percentage of those that rent. The reasons that an 
individual may rent can be all sorts of things. Say a widow only has 
Social Security, her husband is dead, she wants to rent the quota, but 
the critics say there is something wrong with that.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HEFLIN. I will yield at the end of my remarks.
  This chart illustrates the situation relative to wheat, soybeans and 
cotton, pertaining to the issue of owner-operated and rented. There are 
some who do rent. However, in this bill, there are provisions that 
would do away with some of the public entities who own peanut quota, 
but to do away with the concept of the right to lease one's land, and 
criticizing those that do, seems to me that we are losing sight of the 
overall situation pertaining to widows, children and others who have, 
over the years, rented their land, or rented their quota. That is a 
distinction we ought to certainly look at.
  Now, food safety. We want to show that American peanuts have all 
sorts of safety tests. There are certain prohibited chemicals that 
domestic producers cannot use in the production of peanuts. Producers 
in foreign countries do not have these same restrictions on pesticides 
that domestic producers must conform with.
  Today, under GATT, 74 percent of the peanuts allowed into the 
American edible market come from Argentina. Yet, 50 percent of the 
peanuts that come in from Argentina cannot pass FDA tests in regards to 
pesticide residues. They are listed here--I cannot pronounce all of 
these--including pirimiphos-methyl. And then China--the two leading 
sources of foreign produced peanuts they are talking about is in 
Argentina and China--all Chinese peanuts coming into this country 
contain pesticide residues that have been banned for in this country. 
They cannot use these chemicals, yet these chemicals are being used in 
Argentina and China and are then exported to the United States.
  China also has a particular disease known as stripe virus. Stripe 
virus is a disease we have to be very careful of. There is another 
disease called aflatoxin that comes in, when growing peanuts. In 
America, by electronic means, every peanut kernel is inspected. It goes 
through an electronic process to be sure that there is no aflatoxin 
contamination. Aflatoxin has been known to cause cancer, but that 
process does not exist in Argentina and does not exist in China. The 
food safety requirements in regard to peanuts in the United States is a 
very important issue and something that we ought to be very careful 
about.
  The issue of contamination was raised a while ago by one of the 
commissions on world trade matters in regard to peanuts that were 
stored in Amsterdam. When they were proposed to come into the United 
States, they were examined, and it was found that there was a 
substantial number of rat droppings in the peanuts.
  I yield to the Senator from Georgia for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Helms). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Alabama. The Senator from 
Alabama has done such a distinguished job in his describing this 
important agricultural program and its general benefit to our Nation.

  Let me just say briefly with regard to this particular program, my 
hat is off to the rural community, to the peanut growers who stepped 
forward very early in this process and became a true force in reform. 
The Senator from Alabama has already acknowledged the enormous reforms 
that exist in this bill.
  I might point out in the measure that passed the committee, in the 
measure that passed the Balanced Budget Act, this bill saves over $500 
million. This bill lowers the support price 10 percent. The price 
support escalator has been eliminated--a 200,000-ton reduction in quota 
has been accomplished. The bill is replete with reform. The growers, 
the rural community itself, were at the forefront of accomplishing 
this. They need to be acknowledged for that. They do not need to be set 
aside. They do not need to be reprimanded. This is a farm community 
that came forward and did what it needs to do.
  Let me say very quickly, the peanut program has been part of rural 
America for nearly 50 years. The amendment offered by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania is like throwing a light switch off. These farmers, these 
rural communities, have been functioning under the set of rules imposed 
upon them by the Government. The Government itself put this plan in 
place. If we are going to change it, we need to do it in a transitional 
form, which is what this bill does.
  This program now not only affects the farmers, but it affects the 
entire rural community--banking, the value of land, agribusiness in 
general. It is not the kind of thing that you can come in and 
arbitrarily change the rules in 24 months. You cannot do that without 
doing enormous damage.
  Let me say this. The communities affected by this program are rural 
and they are poor. In my State, these are the poorest counties in the 
entire State. They have poverty rates of 20 percent, and actions taken 
by the Government that are capricious and without sensitivity to time 
do enormous damage, enormous damage.
  The bill, as formed, moves in a market direction. The farm and rural 
communities have been a willing partner, but it is a transition so that 
the communities can adjust to the changes in our time. 

[[Page S1022]]

  I will oppose the amendment by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I think 
it is exceedingly important that when we change the way we conduct our 
business, when we change what the Government has put in place, there 
needs to be an enormous sensitivity to allow the communities to adjust 
and move to change, which is exactly what was accomplished in the bill 
that came out of committee, and is exactly what was accomplished in the 
bill we sent to the President which he vetoed and which we are 
attempting to replicate here this morning.
  I commend the Senators from Alabama, from North Carolina, from 
Virginia, for the work they have done to produce this market reform. I 
yield back my time to the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, 
Senator Coverdell, mentioned the economic effect. There has been a 
recent study by Auburn University on the economic impact in the tri-
State area of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, showing that the peanut 
industry there exceeds $1.3 billion and the employment associated with 
economic activity related to the peanut industry exceeds 16,000 jobs. 
This has been based on the way that the Base Closure Commission did 
their calculations, the effect not just on peanut farmers, but what 
effect it has on other dealers and communities--the COBRA effect that 
was set up under the base closures.
  Going with the Santorum type of amendment would really mean the end 
of the peanut program. You would eliminate 37,500 jobs, with $350 
million in lost farm revenue, $50 million in lost exports, a $750 
million drop in land values, and a $25 million loss in tax revenues. 
That is just in those three States referenced in the study. It does not 
take into account other peanut-producing regions. The conclusion is 
that changes made in the order proposed by Senator Santorum will have a 
tremendous negative economic effect.
  In order to accurately understand the situation faced by domestic 
producers relative to foreign growers of peanuts you have to examine 
the guidelines, restrictions, wage and labor laws, as well as 
environmental laws in order to put domestic producers on the same 
playing field. No. 1, as compared to American peanut producers, they 
are not subject to minimum wages. The farm labor in those countries--in 
China and in Argentina and even in Mexico or any of the rest of the 
peanut producing countries--is so drastically lower than the wages in 
the United States. There is no environmental protection, and, of 
course, there is no restricted chemical use, as we pointed out.
  There has to be rigorous post-harvest treatment and rigorous 
inspection here in the United States. None of that exists in the 
foreign countries. So you have a situation where, if you reduce the 
price support down to the Santorum level, what this is going to mean is 
you get it down below the cost of production. Then, what it is going to 
mean is you are going to drive those farmers out of business because 
they cannot afford to produce peanuts and make a profit and still 
comply with all the stricter wage, environmental, and pesticide 
regulations. Therefore, peanut production will be forced to go 
overseas. The peanut industry has already suffered from unfavorable 
trade agreements, such as NAFTA and GATT. You are going to have a 
situation in which you will see there will be no more peanuts grown in 
the United States. It is going to mean the end of peanut production. 
Then you are going to get peanuts coming in from Argentina, China, 
Mexico, and these other places.
  Another example? In the area which Senator Coverdell talked about, 
the poor areas of Georgia, there is a large minority participation in 
the peanut program. The ratio is more than 6 times greater than in the 
national average in those Southern States. It means those people are 
going to be losing jobs relative to the peanut industry.
  The reform package that is in the Lugar-Leahy-Craig bill, what we 
have today, already cuts the peanut program by 28 percent. It is a no-
cost-to-the-Government program, and it has made substantial reforms--
too many, in my judgment. I hope I can do something about it in 
conference to improve it. But, nevertheless, that is the bill before us 
right now. Today, it is a matter of whether you are going to kill a 
reformed peanut program that has worked well or you will support peanut 
production in the United States.
  I understand the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms, would 
like some time. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Senator has just over a 
minute.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I yield to the Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator for a little 
under a minute.
  Mr. HELMS. This may be the best speech I ever made, Mr. President.
  I want to compliment the distinguished Senator from Alabama for the 
lucid presentation he has made.
  I want to say to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, he is 
one of my favorites. I am glad he is in the Senate. I know he is 
sincere. But, on this matter, he is sincerely wrong. Mr. President, I 
must oppose the Santorum amendment because it will do grave harm to 
thousands of small farmers in North Carolina and other peanut-producing 
States.

  The issue here is the future of the peanut program--and thousands of 
jobs. The importance of this modest program can be measured 
statistically by emphasizing that it provides $1.2 billion in farm 
revenue, 150,000 jobs, while generating $200 million in exports. Peanut 
farmers also provide America with a safe and abundant supply of 
peanuts.
  Mr. President, in North Carolina, peanuts are a major commodity that 
produces more than $100 million in revenue, while directly and 
indirectly employing more than 200,000 people in the various aspects of 
the industry.
  Moreover, the subject of reforming the peanut program was considered 
and debated in the Senate Agriculture Committee.
  Interestingly enough, peanut farmers have already voluntarily 
reformed the program. They have cut their budgets, agreeing to a 10-
percent cut in their pockets, and going to a no-net-cost program to 
eliminate any cost of the program to the taxpayers.
  The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] estimates these reforms will 
save taxpayers over $400 million during the next 7 years.
  So, Mr. President, I must oppose the Santorum amendment, and urge 
other Senators to do likewise and support the distinguished majority 
leader in his motion to table this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to address the issue of the 
safety of foreign imported peanuts, which was raised previously by the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama, Senator Heflin.
  Mr. President, opponents of the peanut program would have you believe 
that American consumers are being defrauded. As evidence, critics cite 
a ``world peanut price'' hundreds of dollars lower per ton than that 
which American producers receive under the peanut-price-support 
program. What most Americans do not realize, Mr. President, is that 
those world price peanuts are of a quality and type that would be 
illegal to sell in the United States. I repeat, Mr. President, under 
USDA rules and regulations for pesticide use and diseased content, most 
of these so-called world price peanuts would be illegal to sell to 
American consumers.
  Around the world, U.S. peanuts, and especially those of the type 
grown in my State of Virginia, are recognized as a premium quality 
grade worthy of a premium price on the world market. American peanut 
farmers already are the leading exporters in the world, selling one-
fourth of their crop each year on the world market. This so-called 
world price for peanuts is artificially deflated because it is based on 
an inferior peanut used primarily for oil and animal feed rather than 
edible use.
  Domestic peanut growers must meet the strictest health, safety, and 
environmental standards in the world. Our producers are limited as to 
the types and amounts of pesticides and chemical additives that can be 
applied to their crops--restrictions that few, if any, imports can 
meet.
  American consumers should know that our peanut farmers cannot 

[[Page S1023]]
  produce peanuts cheaper than their Third World counterparts who are not 
subject to strict environmental regulations governing the use of 
pesticides, fertilizers, and other agrichemicals; worker protection 
laws; minimum wage laws; consumer protection laws; and USDA quality and 
safety inspections required of American peanuts.
  In short, Mr. President, the peanut program provides American 
consumers with a low cost, stable supply of the highest quality, and 
safest, peanuts in the world.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask Senator Chafee and Senator Reid be 
added as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama said we would 
not be growing peanuts in this country anymore. We would be driving all 
of these peanut farmers out of business with our amendment. What our 
amendment does is, over 5 years, we reduce the quota price by roughly 
30 percent, and we then eliminate the quota.
  How much of the cost of growing peanuts is the quota? The answer is 
roughly 30 percent. We reduce the support price equal to the cost the 
quota adds to the price of peanuts. So it is a wash.
  What we have done is open up the market so all these additional 
growers--we are talking about these little rural communities and all 
these poor growers. What about these growers who grow peanuts and do 
not have a quota? They grow peanuts, their price is $132 a ton as 
opposed to, if you are one of these privileged few quota holders, you 
get $678 a ton. So let us think about these folks who just did not 
happen to have a granddaddy who was at the trough 50, 60 years ago when 
they were handing out these quotas.
  Let us look at all the farmers out there working who have to buy 
quota seeds. To even grow additional peanuts, peanuts that do not get 
you this nice big price, you have to go to the quota holders and buy 
their peanuts at their high price so you can plant your poor peanuts, 
that are just as good in quality but you do not happen to have a quota.
  The Senator from Alabama said a lot of things. First off, CBO says 
our savings in our amendment are the same as under the bill. There will 
be no increased costs to the Government under the bill.
  Second, the Senator from Alabama said under our bill, 49 percent of 
the farmers would not be able to get loans in the first year. That is 
different from the underlying bill. I remind the Senator from Alabama 
we cut the support price in the first year of this bill the same as the 
underlying bill. We do not change the first year. We go to $610. The 
underlying bill is $610. To suggest we do the same thing and somehow 49 
percent more people are not going to be eligible for loans does not 
make any sense.

  The Senator talked about how we sell peanut butter to the School 
Lunch Program at a greatly reduced price, much less than market price. 
First off, I do not know anybody who does not sell bulk, to a mass 
consumer, in bulk quantities, cheaper than they do when they have to 
put it in little 6- or 8- or 10-ounce jars and market it. Of course, 
they are going to charge them less, as any bulk purchaser gets less 
when you are buying in that size than something you were going to 
market at a local convenience store. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, in 1991 the USDA suspended peanut butter purchases, peanut 
butter sales for school lunch. School lunch programs suspended it. Why? 
Because peanut butter prices were too high. They could not afford it 
anymore, so they had to suspend it. Why? Because we were making a lot 
of farmers who, again, their granddaddy had a quota, they were making a 
lot of money and our schoolchildren are not getting peanut butter 
because it is too expensive.
  He looked at foreign price. I remind the Senator, as I am sure he 
knows, America is somewhat unique in the world in the consumption of 
peanuts. Most of the people around the world do not eat peanuts like we 
do. Most grown in the rest of the world is used for feed for animals. 
Very little is used for food for consumers. It is considered, I would 
not say a delicacy, but in a sense a very rare item for people to 
consume.
  We consume in this country over 70 percent of the world's peanuts for 
human consumption. To suggest because a couple of countries that do not 
sell a lot of peanuts have very high prices, it would be like maybe in 
this country our prices for caviar are higher than they are in Russia, 
or something like that, where you have an indigenous food that people 
consume versus something that is a luxury in other countries. That is 
not a fair comparison.
  Another amazing point that was made, the Senator compared the peanut 
program with the cotton program and the wheat program and said these 
other programs rent out their land for production of this crop. The 
difference is, if you rent your land out for the production of cotton 
or wheat, you can still sell that cotton or wheat in this country. 
There is no quota. The difference with peanuts is, when you rent that 
land out, you rent the quota. If you do not have a quota, you cannot 
sell your peanuts in this country.
  So it is not the same. I mean, the difference is anyone can rent land 
to grow cotton. You can sell the cotton here. But unless you have a 
quota, you cannot sell your peanuts here in this country. You talk 
about the small rural farmer, the guy who goes out and sweats every day 
to grow those peanuts, and he cannot sell them because you had 
somebody's granddaddy at the trough 50 or 60 years ago because he was 
able to get a quota because he knew somebody.
  If people do not understand quotas--a liquor license is the same 
thing. What is a liquor license? It is a piece of paper. It is not 
worth anything. If you sell a liquor license, you get a lot of money 
because it gives one an opportunity to do something that nobody else 
can do. You cannot sell liquor in this country without a liquor 
license. And you cannot sell peanuts in this country unless you have a 
little piece of paper saying you can sell peanuts.
  Is that American? Is that what we want to do to allow the privileged 
few--by the way, 70 percent of the people who grow quota peanuts who 
have this license rent that license. It is owned by somebody else, some 
fat cat sitting in New York City, or Paris, or someplace. They trade 
them like securities.
  So what do they do? They make a lot of money so a bunch of folks can 
sit and work their tails off. For what? For what? Basically, the world 
price for peanuts is what they ultimately get. Who makes this 
different? A bunch of fat cats who buy liquor--quota--licenses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, you have to have a piece of paper, a 
license, to sell liquor. This is different. The largest peanut farmer 
in the country does not have a quota. He is in California, and he has 
5,000 acres of peanuts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, do I have time to ask unanimous consent?
  I ask unanimous consent that I may follow the Senator from Nevada 
with an amendment after the next majority amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Grahn 
and Craig Cox be given floor privileges during the consideration of the 
farm legislation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Santorum 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  I yield myself 7 minutes. 
  
[[Page S1024]]



                Amendment No. 3447 to Amendment No. 3184

(Purpose: To provide that funds made available for the market promotion 
  program under this Act may be used to provide cost-share assistance 
only to small businesses or Capper-Volstead cooperatives and to cap the 
                       market promotion program)

  Mr. BRYAN. I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for himself, Mr. 
     Kerry, Mr. Bumpers, and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3447 to amendment No. 3184.

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

       In Title II, Section 202, on page 2-2, line 8, strike 
     ``$100,000,000'' and insert ``$70,000,000'' where 
     appropriate.
       In Title II, Section 202, on page 2-2. after line 9 and 
     before line 10 insert the following:
       ``Provided further, That funds made available under this 
     Act to carry out the non-generic activities of the market 
     promotion program established under section 203 of the 
     Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) may be used to 
     provide cost-share assistance only to organizations that are 
     non-foreign entities and are recognized as small business 
     concerns under section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632(a)) or to associations described in the first 
     section of the Act entitled `An Act to authorize association 
     of producers of agricultural products,' approved February 22, 
     1922 (7 U.S.C. 291).
       Provided further, That such funds may not be used to 
     provide cost-share assistance to a foreign eligible trade 
     organization:
       Provided further, That none of the funds made available 
     under this Act may be used to carry out the market promotion 
     program established under section 203 of the Agricultural 
     Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) if the aggregate amount of 
     funds and value of commodities under the program exceeds 
     $70,000,000.''

  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  For the Record, I want to make sure that the Record reflects that 
this amendment is a joint amendment by my distinguished colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, Senator Bumpers, and Senator Reid.
  Mr. President, I think that those who have followed the debate on 
agricultural issues know that this Senator has not been a supporter of 
the Market Promotion Program. In the limited time that I have available 
this morning, I want to offer an amendment that was previously approved 
on the floor of the Senate on September 20 of last year by 62 to 36. My 
preference would be to eliminate the Market Promotion Program, which 
has cost the American taxpayer more than $1 billion, because I think it 
is a poster child for corporate entitlements in America and is without 
justification.
  I yield to the pragmatic consideration that, although I have 
attempted on a number of occasions, joined by my friends on the floor, 
Senator Kerry and Senator Bumpers, to eliminate this program, we have 
been unsuccessful. So last September we crafted a compromise which 
said, among other things, that we will limit this program so that 
foreign corporations will no longer be eligible to receive payments.
  I might say parenthetically that in the last year in which there is 
data available, some $12 million of taxpayer money went to foreign 
corporations to help them supplement their advertising budgets. In 
addition, some of the largest corporations in America are beneficiaries 
under this program--companies that ought to be charged with handling 
their own advertising and promotional expense without reference to 
taxpayer subsidies.
  Here are some of the major corporations in the country in 1993, 1994: 
Ernest & Julio Gallo, $7.9 million; Dole, $2.4 million; Pillsbury, 
$1.75 million; Tyson Foods, $1.7 million. And the list goes on.
  This amendment would limit the branded promotion programs to those 
that fall within the definition of the small business company under 
other provisions of the Federal Code.
  It is my view that we should adopt a responsible compromise that has 
enjoyed the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
place a limitation on this program in each of the two specifics which I 
have just mentioned, and also to cap the program at $70 million. Under 
the current proposed legislation which we are debating on the floor, 
the Market Promotion Program would continue in each of the 7 years at a 
$100 million annual funding level.
  We have talked a lot about curtailing Federal expenditures, taking a 
look and making some of the tough decisions, downsizing Government. I 
have listened to a great many speeches on both sides of the aisle. This 
is our opportunity to strike a modest blow for fiscal sanity by putting 
a cap on this program and limiting the expenditures to $70 million 
annually. There can be no conceivable justification for providing 
taxpayer-assisted funding to supplement the advertising budgets of 
companies the size of those that are listed in this exhibit that I have 
offered on the floor.
  I might add further that the number of companies who have received 
assistance, of the 200 largest corporate advertisers listed in the 1992 
Standard Directory of Advertisers, 13 of those companies received 
market promotion programs involving some $9 million in 1992.
  So we think that this is something that has been before the Senate. 
It has enjoyed bipartisan support. We think it makes sense, and we ask 
for its consideration.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and am prepared to yield 5 minutes 
to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Nevada for 
his persistent efforts and for his tenacity in trying to address this 
question of inappropriate corporate welfare. I think all of us here 
would understand and be sympathetic to the notion that, if there are 
situations in our trading relations where you have a company that is 
hard pressed and disadvantaged against competition, as some of our 
companies are in certain industries, then it is conceivable that you 
can make a legitimate argument that you want to find some kind of 
Government subsidy to redress the imbalance in the marketplace.
  I know, for instance, that Airbus received significant subsidies. And 
Boeing and McDonnell Douglas have to compete against the French, or 
against other countries in those industries where there is a very 
significant subsidy. But here we have a situation where companies that 
are extraordinarily profitable are going to sell their products abroad 
anyway for which there is a market for those products anyway, where 
they are profitable beyond any of the need criteria that you might try 
to establish, and nevertheless the taxpayers of this country are simply 
reimbursing them for a subsidy for an advertising budget that they 
would expend anyway.
  Let me be very explicit about that. The M&M Mars company, for 
instance, has about a $262 million advertising budget. They spend that 
no matter what. When a company spokesman was asked, ``What do you think 
about taking these Government funds?'' the company spokesman's answer 
was, ``Well, you know, it is sort of like the mortgage interest rate 
deduction. If it is there, you take advantage of it.'' So they take 
advantage of the funds. It is not even a question of being need based.
  At a time when everyone is looking for a responsible way to make 
judgments, critical judgments about who deserves Government assistance 
and who does not, it is simply wrong--it is just wrong, wrong 
economically, wrong politically, wrong morally, wrong on every kind of 
balance--to suggest that these companies with their--look at Tyson 
Foods. What is Tyson Foods doing getting a subsidy at this point in 
time for this?
  I like Tyson Foods. I like what they do. We are enormously proud of 
what they have accomplished and of what they are capable of doing. But 
at a time when we are being asked to cut back on education funding, on 
environmental cleanup, on science research, on the R&D tax credit, on 
all kinds of things that are important, how can you justify this kind 
of effort?
  There are some small companies, there are some people working at a 
great disadvantage in the international marketplace against countries 
that have a much greater degree of assistance and of partnership 
between the Government and the private sector than we do that may need 
some kind of leverage. It is with that in mind that 

[[Page S1025]]
the Senator from Nevada and those of us who are promoting a change are 
not suggesting, even though we think this is not an appropriate program 
overall, we think that it is fair to recognize those small areas of 
need and simply to cut this program back to the $70 million cap.
  When you measure this particular program and whatever justifications 
are given for it against the extraordinary reductions that we are 
facing in title I funds, in drug free safe school money, in Pell 
grants, in student loans, in environmental enforcement, in 
infrastructure development, in science and research, in global climate 
change research--you can run down the gambit and every one of those 
fundamental needs are being reduced--how can you justify continuing 
this kind of corporate welfare?
  I think most Americans are not even aware that this kind of subsidy 
is taking place, and every American that I have ever talked to, when 
you explain to them what is happening, their eyes bug out and they 
simply are aghast at the notion that this is what people in Washington 
are choosing to do with their money. The American citizen knows this is 
inappropriate, it is unnecessary, and measured against all the other 
choices that we are making in Washington it is plain and simply wrong.
  I am grateful to the Senator from Nevada for being willing to lead 
the charge here in an effort to try to redress it. I hope the Senate 
will once again vote as it did previously. We won this battle in the 
Senate. Unfortunately, as is so often the case here in Washington, the 
interests come into the conference committee or get one or two people 
to hold up everything and so it was taken out in the conference, and 
here we are back again. This is the same history that we had on a mink 
subsidy and on the wool and mohair subsidy, and ultimately we will win 
this battle because it is the right thing to do.

  I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi as 
much time as he wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is a subject we have debated on a 
number of different occasions on the floor of the Senate. I recall when 
we had the agriculture appropriations bill before the Senate this past 
year there were amendments offered to change various parts of the legal 
authorization for the program, the statutory authorization. We resisted 
those amendments on the appropriations bill and tried to keep the focus 
on the amount of money that was being appropriated for the program.
  As I understand the history of this amendment, when it was brought up 
on the appropriations bill, the Senate passed it, or a version of it. I 
am advised by members of my staff that on that occasion when we went to 
conference the House conferees did not agree to accept the language and 
the provision was dropped. It did not make it through the process to be 
included in the appropriations bill as finally adopted and submitted to 
the President for his signature. So that is why this issue is raised 
again.
  Let me just point out, while this is a controversial program, and 
some of the television networks have sort of made a hobby at least, if 
not a profession, of attacking it and exaggerating it and trying to 
sensationalize it as something that is evil and not workable, the facts 
are that this is a program which has created American jobs because it 
has expanded our level of exports in agriculture commodity trade and in 
food product trade to the extent that it has been reauthorized. It has 
been supported by this Senate and the House as well time after time 
because of the evidence. The evidence is that this program works. It 
was originally designed to be targeted against unfair trade practices 
by our competitors around the world. It was called the targeted export 
assistance program. The fact is it continues to work in that way 
because funds are allocated by the Department of Agriculture where 
there are special problems or special opportunities and only this kind 
of assistance is considered to be effective.

  So I urge Senators to look at this amendment very carefully. I am not 
going to get all out of breath, or red in the face, arguing against it 
again. But I am going to say we should vote against this. It 
unnecessarily restricts--unnecessarily restricts--the Department of 
Agriculture, in the administration of the program. The Department of 
Agriculture has submitted testimony time and time again about how this 
has been a very useful program. I hope the Senate will not be stampeded 
by the clever arguments that are being made by my good friends who 
continue to take this issue up and make a semicareer out of attacking 
the Market Promotion Program. It is a good program, and I am going to 
vote against the amendment. I hope Senators will join me in doing so.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes from my distinguished 
colleague.
  First of all, I compliment my good friend from Nevada for his 
perseverance in trying to rein in, if not torpedo totally, a program 
that has absolutely no justification. He has been very diligent about 
this, and I have been honored to stand by his side to try to bring some 
sanity to the agriculture program but especially to eliminate the 
Market Promotion Program. As long as this program is on the books, at 
least once a year every news magazine in the country, from ``60 
Minutes'' on down, is going to do a piece on it.
  Every time they do a piece on it, millions of Americans are going to 
say, ``What on Earth are those clowns thinking about? How on Earth can 
they justify such a program as this?'' Well, America, the answer is, we 
cannot.
  If I had my druthers, I would torpedo this program to zero. But the 
Senator from Nevada is not asking to cut the program totally. He is 
saying go back to the figure the Senate adopted 62 to 32 about 6 months 
ago, and put it back where the Senate had it at that time. It was 
passed overwhelmingly here.
  I am not going to belabor the arguments that have already been made, 
but the one salient argument that the Senator from Massachusetts and 
the Senator from Nevada has made--and I will make it again because you 
cannot make it often enough--what in the name of God are we doing 
subsidizing Ernest and Julio Gallo, even Tyson Foods, the biggest 
employer in my State, and Jim Beam? That ought to make the Christian 
Coalition happy.
  All we are saying is, in the future we are going to do what GAO 
recommended, except for one thing: They recommended that it be cut to a 
small business, generic, a new-to-exports small business program and 
funded at no more than $50 million. The Senator from Nevada's amendment 
says $70 million. Of course, that is $70 million too much, but we live 
in a real world around here. We know we cannot torpedo the thing 
because big business has too many defenders in this body.
  The second thing GAO said is there is absolutely no proof that we are 
not simply replacing money these corporations would use on their own. 
Everybody knows that is true. It is just a piece of welfare. If I were 
the Gallo brothers, if I were Ralston Purina, Tyson Foods, Campbell 
Soup, Jim Beam, whoever, I would take the money, too.
  But, colleagues, here is what this amendment does. It says, No. 1, 
you cannot give this money directly to a big business. You can give it 
to a generic institute. You can give it to Riceland Foods. You can give 
it to any of these national coalitions that have as their members all 
the poultry industry, all the liquor industry, those kinds of things. 
But we also confine it to generic small business as defined by the 
Small Business Administration.
  It is a tragedy that we cannot kill this program. When I think about 
what we are doing to worthy programs in discretionary spending and 
standing here, pleading with you to cut the most outrageous program 
that we fund from $110 to $70 million, it is unfathomable.
  So, Mr. President, let me say the jobs the Senator from Mississippi 
talks 

[[Page S1026]]
about this creating, GAO says those are jobs we created anyway. Do you 
think McDonald's is going to quit trying to sell Big Mac's all over the 
world if we do not give them money?
  Let me close by the saying I have had an excellent relationship with 
the Senator from Mississippi. Back before a terribly untoward event 
happened in November 1994, I was chairman of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee and he was my ranking member. Now he is 
chairman and I am his ranking member. This is one of the few 
disagreements he and I ever had. We get along just fine in that 
committee and worked out those appropriations bills jointly, and I hope 
for the country's benefit. This is one place I strongly disagree.
  I hope our colleagues will again vote 62 to 32 to pass this 
amendment. I yield the floor and yield back such time as I have to the 
Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield as much time to the distinguished Senator from 
Idaho that he may require.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank my chairman for yielding, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will not stand before any of the Members 
of the Senate today and attempt to justify large multinational, 
billion-dollar corporations getting taxpayer-subsidized promotion 
programs. That needs to be reformed, no question about it.
  In the committee this year we have reduced the overall level of 
funding from $110 to $100 million. But the reason the chairman of the 
appropriations subcommittee, who just spoke, and the reason I am on the 
floor defending the program is because we are trying to take the 
Government out of production agriculture and put the Government in the 
right and proper role as it relates to its relationship to domestic 
industries. And that is for small producers who have to compete against 
subsidized producers in foreign countries, our Government should serve 
as a leveler of the playing field.
  That is where our Government can work best. We know that in our 
country today for American agriculture to flourish, it must sell in 
foreign markets. And, oh, yes, by the way, every item that one of those 
companies sells in many instances is produced by a small producer and 
sold to that company that then markets it in a foreign country. That is 
the other side of the story.
  But what I am interested in are the marketing co-ops and the 
associations that go to countries to develop markets so that we can 
sell to them directly our products. That is where market promotion 
works at its very best. That is what the ag committee is really trying 
to get at.
  I am not going to be stampeded by a couple of great, dramatic 
television programs. That should not dictate policy on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate. It should make us aware of policy that is in trouble, that 
deserves to be corrected. That is exactly what we are trying to do.
  The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Nevada and the 
Senator from Idaho are not going to defend McDonald's. They do not need 
help. But those who produce the commodities that build the components 
of the food they sell need to be assured that they have full access to 
foreign markets under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and 
all other trade agreements we get into.

  The only way we can maintain profitability at the production level on 
the farm is to assure that our Government works in cooperation with 
that producer in assuring them the level playing field and the access 
to foreign markets.
  I am sorry, if we do not do that, if we allow foreign barriers to be 
constantly built against our producers, without the advantage of 
breaking those barriers down, then surplus arrives, profitability 
drops, and guess where we will be? We will have agriculture lined up at 
the door of the Congress once again, saying, ``You have got to help us 
out. You have got to provide a minimum income level. We're all going 
broke.''
  The transition that we have been involved in for well over a decade, 
Mr. President, has been to move the farmer to the market and allow that 
farmer to produce for a market. And that market is an international 
market as well as a domestic market. The Market Promotion Program has 
been designed to expand that foreign market and create a greater desire 
on the part of the foreign consumer for the U.S. agricultural product. 
It has worked in spades. We know that. USDA knows it. That is why it 
has defended it. It has been misused. We all know that. We are working 
to correct that. I am going be as aggressive as anyone in getting it 
done.
  We have cut the funding now. That is a responsible action to take. We 
will target and prioritize the money where it should be under the 
premise that I have laid out. That, I think, is the premise that all 
have agreed on was the intent of the program originally.
  So I hope the Senate will reject this amendment. It is important that 
we look internationally when we think about American agriculture. That 
is a role where Government can play a responsible part as a partner 
with our domestic U.S. farmer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Let me say briefly that I believe the Senator from Idaho 
ought to support this amendment. All it does is give the taxpayers' 
dollars to be used by foreign corporations with respect to the granting 
of promotions, like McDonald's.
  This says, look, no longer are they to be subsidized. We protect the 
rights of the co-ops to continue to participate in this program. I 
think we are in agreement, as I understood the thrust of his argument.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, as they did on 
September 20 of last year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The time 
remaining in opposition is 5 minutes, 57 seconds.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I see no other Senators on our side of the 
aisle who wish to be heard on this amendment. Therefore, I yield back 
our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has been yielded back. All time has 
been yielded back on the amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Bryan 
amendment be set aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on 
this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. 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. Without objection, the amendment is set aside.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Santorum 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask for the yeas and nays 
on the two amendments I offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to asking for the yeas and 
nays? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Might I inquire if there is going to be another amendment 
on the other side. The clock is ticking.
  Mr. LUGAR. I will respond to the distinguished Senator, there is no 
one present on our side of the aisle, therefore, the Senator can 
proceed.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand there is a unanimous-consent agreement that 
Senator Ford was going to go next. If he is not available, then I have 
an amendment I want to offer. I want to make sure Senator Ford offers 
his amendment, but I do not want to let the clock tick, because we are 
under time pressure.
  Mr. LUGAR. I suggest now it would be good to expedite the situation 
by asking the Senator from Iowa to offer his amendment. We are going to 
have a backup.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to 

[[Page S1027]]
offer my amendment but that Senator Ford be able to offer the next 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LUGAR. Will the Senator modify the request to state the next 
Democratic amendment?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3448 to Amendment No. 3184

   (Purpose: To amend the eligibility criteria for the Environmental 
                       Quality Incentive Program)

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

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3448 to amendment No. 3184.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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:

       Section 314 is amended by striking ``(ii) 10,000 beef 
     cattle'' and all that follows through ``lambs;'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(ii) 1,000 beef cattle;
       ``(iii) 100,000 laying hens or broilers;
       ``(iv) 55,000 turkeys;
       ``(v) 2,500 swine; or
       ``(vi) 10,000 sheep or lambs.''

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will try not to take much time on this. 
What this amendment does is to reinstate the limits on the size of 
livestock operations eligible to receive benefits under the 
Environmental Quality Incentive Program.
  Last year, the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, and 
Senator Leahy introduced a bill called the Environmental Quality 
Incentive Program. Quite frankly, it was based upon a bill I introduced 
several years earlier called the Water Quality Incentive Program. So I 
have been very supportive of it. I think it is a good bill. I have no 
problems with it because it provides for technical assistance. It 
provides for cost-sharing assistance and incentive payments for farmers 
to meet environmental problems with their livestock operations.
  In the original bill that the Senator from Indiana introduced last 
year, there were the following limits, and if you went over these 
limits, you would not be eligible for cost sharing by the Government, 
and things like that. Let me read the limits: 1,000 beef cattle; 
100,000 laying hens or broilers; 55,000 turkeys; 2,500 swine; or 10,000 
sheep and lambs. That was in the original bill last year.
  In the bill before us today, all of those numbers have been bumped up 
to incredible extremes. Rather than 1,000 cattle, we now have 10,000 
beef cattle. Rather than 2,500 hogs, we now have 15,000 hogs. And 
rather than 100,000 laying hens or broilers, which I do not know a 
great deal about, we have 150,000.
  I think the original bill that Senator Lugar and Senator Leahy 
introduced had good limits. Why? Because those numbers in the original 
bill corresponded to the provisions of the Clean Water Act--I should 
say, corresponded to the provisions of regulations implementing the 
Clean Water Act--in terms of livestock concentrations.
  So basically, the bill before us raises these limits up to what I 
think are really unconscionably high levels.
  You might say, ``Well, look, if they are big operators and they are 
polluting, we want to solve these environmental problems, so why not 
let some of this money in cost sharing and taxpayers' money go to some 
of the bigger operators to clean up their environmental problems?''
  My point is that these larger operators fall under the provisions of 
the Clean Water Act, and they have to clean up their act. They have to 
do that.
  Take a smaller farmer who has maybe 1,000 hogs, maybe he has 1,000 
beef cattle, a family-size operation. That farmer does not have to meet 
the provisions of the Clean Water Act, but it would be nice if he did 
so. It would help us all out. So the limited amount of money that we 
are going to have to help clean up our environmental problems, I think, 
would better be directed toward the smaller family farmers because it 
will give them an incentive to do so. They do not have to do so, but 
cost sharing, technical assistance and support will give them the kind 
of incentive to go ahead and put in waste management control systems, 
lagoons, and things like that.
  For these bigger operators who have 10,000 beef cattle or 15,000 
hogs, they have to do it anyway. They are so big, they ought to have 
the capital resources that would allow them to do that. Quite frankly, 
most of them do. So rather than taking the limited amount of money that 
we are going to have and try and spread it out--and let us face it, 
bigger operators have attorneys, they have accountants, they know how 
to go after Federal dollars. You can bet your bottom dollar that the 
biggest operators will be in there to get the cost share and technical 
assistance. What the heck, free money. If I am a big operator and I 
have to comply with the Clean Water Act and there is a pot of 
Government money over here that I can go after that will help me meet 
the requirements of the law and I do not have to dip into shareholders' 
equities or anything like that, well, I will do that, I will go after 
the free Government money.
  That is what will happen under the provisions in the bill before us. 
The larger operators will go after the Government money, squeeze out 
the smaller guy. The smaller family farmer has 500 hogs, 1,000 hogs, 
700 head of beef cattle. They do not even know this provision is there 
probably, or if it is there, they will not know how to apply for it. 
But if we limit it to those smaller operators, then that is where the 
money will go, and we can focus it where it is needed.
  So I really do not understand why the initial numbers that were in 
the Lugar-Leahy bill were changed. I thought they were quite adequate. 
I think there should be a limit on Federal assistance to these larger 
operations. In order to get large, they have to have capital resources. 
They could not get large if they did not have the capital. If they have 
the capital, then they have the money to make sure they meet the 
provisions of the Clean Water Act.
  So, again, I will just say, yes, they do have problems, but they can 
solve them themselves. The Federal Government should not be subsidizing 
the growth of large operations. My point is that large hog and cattle 
operations are first and foremost a State issue. States ought to 
address that issue forcefully. But second, I do not believe the Federal 
Government, the taxpayers, ought to be in the position of subsidizing 
in any way the growth of these large operations, and that really is 
what this would do under this bill as it is before us.
  So basically, to repeat, all my amendment does is it takes the 
numbers for livestock operations that would be eligible for technical 
assistance and cost-sharing incentive payments to meet environmental 
standards under the Environmental Quality Incentive Program.
  It just reinstates those numbers that were in the bill last year. 
Again, I want to make it clear that the large operations can still get 
the technical assistance. I do not mind that. They just cannot get cost 
share to build an animal waste facility. So that is all I am saying. As 
far as the cost share money goes, let us target that to the smaller 
operators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield time to myself as I may require.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the spirit of the argument. I pay tribute 
to the distinguished Senator from Iowa for the work he has done in this 
area of environmental consideration for livestock. It is an important 
area in his State and in mine and in the many States that our committee 
serves. The program does offer us, through the cost-sharing situation, 
an opportunity to make a difference in encouraging smaller operations 
to have more environmentally satisfactory hog operations, although it 
is not limited to that.
  The Senator pointed out that there are limits with regard to cattle 
and turkeys and chickens. The problem here, Mr. President, is trying to 
arrive at some compromise in terms of the size of operations farmers 
now have. 

[[Page S1028]]
 The original limitations on size, I believe, were derived from the 
Clean Water Act regulations that discussed confined feeding operations 
in the 1970's. That was the genesis, at least, as I recall of the 
figures at the time. Of course, the average size of the facilities for 
feeding of livestock and birds has increased very, very substantially.
  I make no case, specifically, for the figures that the committee came 
up with and that are incorporated in this legislation as having the 
wisdom of Solomon. They are clearly a compromise, after listening to a 
large number of producers and trying to think through the intent of the 
act, which, as the Senator from Iowa has stated correctly, is one of 
trying to help smaller producers, with the thought that the larger 
producers will have to take care of their own expenses.
  My point is that these terms are relative. Some can move way off the 
spectrum and they are very large indeed, and under no circumstances are 
they going to qualify for cost-sharing money. The argument has been 
about what ought to be the limits as to what is a small- or even 
medium-size producer under these terms. The Senator from Iowa has 
probably visited with the pork caucus in Iowa and, within the last week 
he will have discussed this, I suspect, with many Iowa hog producers 
who were raising questions about--in terms of the number of hogs in the 
operation, as well as the payment--the limit of $10,000. In both cases, 
the point they have made--and it is a very lively issue in Iowa--about 
the size of hog situations and environmental consequences, because Iowa 
is a very important pork production State. It is the same in Illinois, 
Indiana, really, across the corn belt where there are large hog 
production situations.
  Certainly, a number of farmers who came to visit with me about this 
wanted still a higher limit to qualify. In other words, they had more 
animals than the limit. They were past the cutoff and they were not 
going to qualify. They want to get the threshold up higher. They would 
like to see more money, likewise. I understand what they are saying. I 
was not able to offer them promises that this is likely to occur, given 
a limited amount of money and what have been some very extensive 
conversations with producers of all sizes.
  I say, Mr. President, that the Senator raises a good point and is the 
type of consideration probably best discussed in a roundtable 
discussion of many producers of different sizes to bring some reality 
into the argument as to how hogs and cattle are now produced in America 
and what size operations we are headed toward. It is in that spirit 
that I simply defend the work we have done and the reasonably pragmatic 
compromise, based upon the sums of money available, and the actual size 
of operation in the country now. I hope the Senate will support that, 
unless there is a substantially greater preponderance of evidence that 
we have simply missed the mark by a whole lot.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will not take much more time. I 
appreciate the arguments made by my friend from Indiana. I have visited 
with hog farmers in Iowa, too, and there is a battle going on in my 
State, and it is not a very pretty one. There are decisions being made 
about these large hog operations in Iowa. I do not think that is the 
point of this argument here. The point of my amendment is simply to 
say, in terms of cost-share money coming from the Government--and it is 
not a bottomless pit--let us focus that money on our smaller family 
farmers, who are really not that well-equipped with working capital 
sometimes to meet the higher standards of environmental quality. In 
many cases, they do not have to, but with the cost-share program, this 
would give them incentive to do so. The larger operations can handle 
themselves. They have the capital to do so. When you are talking about 
15,000 hogs, that is an extremely large operation in any State. If you 
are talking about 10,000 cattle, that is a lot of cattle.
  So I think the original numbers that were in the bill, which, as the 
Senator from Indiana pointed out, do correspond with the regulations 
covering the Clean Water Act. I believe they still hold pretty true 
today and will in the future, again, when we are looking at a limited 
pot of money we can use. I do not need to take any more time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to support the Harkin amendment. 
I had filed an amendment virtually identical to this, that I will place 
in the Record.
  Due to the unanimous-consent agreement reached last night between the 
2 leaders, the Republicans could offer only 5 amendments, while the 
Democrats are able to offer 10.
  Because of this limitation, I was not able to offer the amendment, so 
I will lend my support to the Harkin amendment.
  The Harkin amendment will lower the caps to determine what livestock 
producers are eligible for cost-share funds under the new Environmental 
Quality Incentive Program.
  Mr. President, it is good public policy to assist farmers in 
complying with environmental regulations; the environment benefits, the 
public benefits, and agriculture benefits. Farmers who grow corn, 
soybeans, cotton, wheat, and many other crops have for many years 
received cost-share funds to implement environmental measures.
  So, I approve of extending this assistance to livestock producers. 
However, there needs to be limits on what producers can receive USDA 
funds.
  In the original farm bill, contained in the Balanced Budget Act, the 
Senate approved limits on what producers can receive funds. Only hog 
producers with less than 2,500 hogs and cattle producers with less than 
1,000 head of cattle were eligible.
  But when this provision went into conference, these caps were raised 
to 15,000 hogs and 10,000 cattle. So now every large livestock 
continent and every factory hog farm can receive money from the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to help them comply with regulations.
  The problem is, these type of farmers already have the capital to 
implement these measures. In fact, the Clean Water Act already requires 
them to do so.
  This may not be a bad thing if Congress had an infinite amend of 
money to spend on this problem. But we do not.
  In fact, under this bill only $100 million is authorized for 
livestock assistance each year. With this limited amount of money, it 
is essential that we target assistance to the independent pork producer 
who is forced to compete with the large factory-type hog farmers.
  The independent hog producer can compete in this environment only if 
they have a level playing field. Providing funds to large factory 
farmers skews this playing field.
  The caps in the originally passed Senate bill were reasonable--as are 
the caps in the Harkin amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be printed in the Record so 
that you know exactly my intentions.
  There being no objection, the text of the amendment was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:


         amendment to substitute amendment no. 3184 to S. 1541

    (Purpose: To target benefits under the Livestock Environmental 
 Assistance Program to family farmers and to limit the amount any one 
                          farmer can receive)

       Page 3-14, line 25 strike ``10,000'' and replace with 
     ``1000''.
       Page 3-15, line 3 strike ``15,000'' and replace with 
     ``2500''.
       Page 3-27, line 11 insert a period after ``$10,000'' and 
     strike everything through line 12.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back his time.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time on 
the Harkin amendment on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana yields the remainder 
of his time.
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the Harkin amendment be 
temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that votes occur 

[[Page S1029]]
  beginning at 11:30 a.m. today, that they occur in the order in which 
they were offered, and that the first vote is a standard 20 minutes in 
length, and that all remaining stacked votes in the sequence be limited 
to 10 minutes in length, with 2 minutes to be equally divided between 
each vote for explanation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object. We 
have a series of votes lined up here.
  During the first votes that will require rollcalls, if there are any 
on that list where it is possible to vitiate rollcall votes, I urge the 
sponsors to talk with the distinguished Senator from Indiana and myself 
and see if that is possible.
  I have no objection to the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3449 to Amendment No. 3184

     (Purpose: To provide funds for rural development and related 
                              activities)

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for himself and Mr. 
     Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 3449 to amendment No. 
     3184.

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

       Title V is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 507. FUND FOR RURAL AMERICA.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall create an account 
     called the Fund for Rural America for the purposes of 
     providing funds for activities described in subsection (c).
       ``(b) Commodity Credit Corporation.--In each of the 1996 
     through 1998 fiscal years, the Secretary shall transfer into 
     the Fund for Rural America (hereafter referred to as the 
     ``Account'')--
       ``(1) $50,000,000 for the 1996 fiscal year;
       ``(2) $100,000,000 for the 1997 fiscal year; and
       ``(3) $150,000,000 for the 1998 fiscal year.
       ``(c) Purposes.--Except as provided in subsection (d), the 
     Secretary shall provide not more than one-third of the funds 
     from the Account for activities described in paragraph (2).
       ``(1) Rural development activities.--The Secretary may use 
     the funds in the Account for the following rural development 
     activities authorized in:
       ``(A) The Housing Act of 1949 for--
       ``(i) direct loans to low income borrowers pursuant to 
     section 502;
       ``(ii) loans for financial assistance for housing for 
     domestic farm laborers pursuant to section 514;
       ``(iii) financial assistance for housing of domestic farm 
     labor pursuant to section 516;
       ``(iv) grants and contracts for mutual and self help 
     housing pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A); and
       ``(v) grants for Rural Housing Preservation pursuant to 
     section 533;
       ``(B) The Food Security Act of 1985 for loans to 
     intermediary borrowers under the Rural Development Loan Fund;
       ``(C) Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act for--
       ``(i) grants for Rural Business Enterprises pursuant to 
     section 310B (c) and (j);
       ``(ii) direct loans, loan guarantees and grants for water 
     and waste water projects pursuant to section 306; and
       ``(iii) down payment assistance to farmers, section 310E;
       ``(D) grants for outreach to socially disadvantaged farmers 
     and ranchers pursuant to section 2501 of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     2279); and
       ``(E) grants pursuant to section 204(6) of the Agricultural 
     Marketing Act of 1946.
       ``(2) Research.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may use the funds in the 
     Account for research grants to increase the competitiveness 
     and farm profitability, protect and enhance natural 
     resources, increase economic opportunities in farming and 
     rural communities and expand locally owned value added 
     processing and marketing operations.
       ``(B) Eligible grantee.--The Secretary may make a grant 
     under this paragraph to--
       ``(i) a college or university;
       ``(ii) a State agricultural experiment station;
       ``(iii) a State Cooperative Extension Service;
       ``(iv) a research institution or organization;
       ``(v) a private organization or person; or
       ``(vi) a Federal agency.
       ``(C) Use of grant.--
       ``(i) In general.--A grant made under this paragraph may be 
     used by a grantee for 1 or more of the following uses:
       ``(I) research, ranging from discovery to principles of 
     application;
       ``(II) extension and related private-sector activities; and
       ``(III) education.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--No grant shall be made for any project, 
     determined by the Secretary, to be eligible for funding under 
     research and commodity promotion programs administered by the 
     Department.
       ``(D) Administration.--
       ``(i) Priority.--In administering this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(I) establish priorities for allocating grants, based on 
     needs and opportunities of the food and agriculture system in 
     the United States related to the goals of the paragraph;
       ``(II) seek and accept proposals for grants;
       ``(III) determine the relevance and merit of proposals 
     through a system of peer and stakeholder review; and
       ``(IV) award grants on the basis of merit, quality, and 
     relevance to advancing the national research and extension 
     purposes.
       ``(ii) Competitive awarding.--A grant under this paragraph 
     shall be awarded on a competitive basis.
       ``(iii) Terms.--A grant under this paragraph shall have a 
     term that does not exceed 5 years.
       ``(iv) Matching funds.--As a condition of receipts under 
     this paragraph, the Secretary shall require the funding of 
     the grant with equal matching funds from a non-Federal source 
     if the grant is--
       ``(I) for applied research that is commodity-specific; and
       ``(II) not of national scope.
       ``(v) Administrative costs.--
       ``(I) In general.--The Secretary may use not more than 4 
     percent of the funds made available under this paragraph for 
     administrative costs incurred by the Secretary in carrying 
     out this paragraph.
       ``(II) Limitation.--Funds made available under this 
     paragraph shall not be used--
       ``(aa) for the construction of a new building or the 
     acquisition, expansion, remodeling, or alteration of an 
     existing building (including site grading and improvement and 
     architect fees); or
       ``(bb) in excess of ten percent of the annual allocation 
     for commodity-specific projects not of the national scope.
       ``(d) Limitations.--No funds from the Fund for Rural 
     America may be used for an activity specified in subsection 
     (c) if the current level of appropriations for the activity 
     is less than 90 percent of the 1996 fiscal year 
     appropriations for the activity adjusted for inflation.''

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand we have 30 minutes equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have talked a lot this morning about 
commodity programs--for good reason, they are the heart of the farm 
bill and the heart of rural America. However, unless we turn our 
attention to other priorities in rural America, we will be neglecting 
the needs of millions of our citizens who live in our small towns.
  To make sure we stay competitive, we have to make sure we maintain 
the infrastructure that has made American agriculture second to none, 
our research, conservation, and economic opportunities for small towns.
  To meet those objectives, I am offering an amendment to create a fund 
for rural America. Over 3 years, this initiative will dedicate $300 
million to meeting those needs--$50 million in fiscal year 1996, $100 
million in fiscal year 1997, and $150 million in fiscal year 1998 for 
investing in meeting those priorities.
  One of the top priorities must be keeping our research programs 
going. They make sure our farmers have the most up-to-date, most 
efficient farming techniques. This amendment will enable the Secretary 
to augment current programs and keep American agricultural ahead of the 
competition.
  This amendment will, second, enable the Secretary to invest in 
priorities to enhance economic growth in rural towns--in sewer and 
water grants, for example. As we prepare American agriculture for the 
21st century, we have to make sure that our children, our grandchildren 
have economic opportunities to stay in our small towns.
  This piece of legislation is the only one the Senate will consider 
that will deal primarily with rural America. Unless we meet all the 
needs in rural America--not just the real and pressing needs of our 
farmers--then we will have done a disservice to rural Americans. We 
must take this opportunity to invest in meeting the needs agriculture 
will have to address to stay competitive and provide our citizens--and 
millions around the world--with an abundant, affordable food supply.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on our side of the aisle we share the need 
for a very, very, strong agriculture development program. I have 
confirmed with the distinguished Secretary of Agriculture, even again 
this morning, about the multiple uses of that money 

[[Page S1030]]
in our rural areas, including agricultural research, as well as sewer 
and water grants.
  I think it is an important initiative. It is one that has been 
extremely important, President Clinton's priorities and the Secretary 
of Agriculture's priorities, but equally important on our side of the 
aisle throughout the years in hearings we have held and work we have 
done in agriculture development.
  Therefore, I share in supporting the amendment of the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky. I am hopeful it might have unanimous passage.
  Mr. LUGAR. I am prepared to yield back time on our side unless other 
Senators wish to address the issue.
  Mr. FORD. I am perfectly willing to yield back my time, and if there 
is no objection, we can pass the amendment. I yield back my time, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The question is on agreeing to 
the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3449) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 3444

  Mr. LUGAR. I ask my amendment now be the pending business, and I send 
a modification of my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The modification is as follows:

       On page 1-3, strike lines 5 through 14.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I know of no objection to my amendment. I 
ask the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3444), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3450 to Amendment No. 3184

     (Purpose: To strike the section relating to the sugar program)

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, may I inquire of the manager the present 
status of the timeframe? I understand I have half an hour, but the vote 
is scheduled for 11:30. I ask, if it is agreeable to the managers, that 
I be given my half hour before the votes go forward.
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous-consent that the 30 minutes for debate 
originally agreed to in the unanimous consent request be in order and 
that the vote occur at the end of that debate of the Senator from New 
Hampshire, which will be approximately 11:35 a.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself, 
     Mr. Reid, Mr. Santorum, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. 
     Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 3450 to amendment No. 
     3184.

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

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of 
     the provisions dealing with or extending the Sugar Price 
     Support Program shall be enforced.

  Mr. GREGG. As I understand, I now control 15 minutes and someone in 
opposition controls 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, what this amendment does is address the sugar program. 
The sugar program has been an item of considerable controversy here in 
the Senate and in the House and in the farm program generally.
  The sugar program is, in my opinion, an outrage. I have said that a 
number of times on the floor of this Senate. It is a subsidy program 
where the consumers of this country are asked to pay somewhere between 
$1.5 and $2 billion of additional costs for sugar used in this country 
in order to benefit a few growers.
  It does not directly cost the Federal Government any money. It does, 
actually, cost money in the products we buy that are sugar related, but 
it is not a dramatic amount of money. What it is, essentially, is a tax 
on the consumers of this country in the form of the price for sugar, 
which greatly exceeds what the world market price is for sugar.
  In fact, if you look at the sugar program honestly, it is the only 
surviving element of Marxist economics in the Western Hemisphere 
outside of Cuba. It is a program totally dominated by the Government, 
where the Government sets the price, where the price is set in a manner 
which has no relationship to the marketplace, where market force has no 
impact on the production of the sugar, and where, as a practical 
matter, if the marketplace were allowed to come into play, American 
consumers would save around $1.5 billion a year.
  Now, the amendment which I offer does not repeal the sugar program. I 
have offered it on behalf of myself and Senator Reid from Nevada. The 
amendment that I have offered says, rather than giving the sugar 
program, which is an outrage on its face, a 7-year extension, we will 
only give it a 2-year extension. So we are essentially saying, listen, 
this program has enough problems so that it ought to be reviewed on a 
fairly regular basis. It should not be extended for 7 years.
  The benefits of this program run to a very small number of people. In 
fact, there is one sugarcane grower who gets about $60 billion a year. 
About 50 percent of the benefit of the program as it affects sugarcane 
growers runs to about 17 sugarcane growers which has been represented 
to us; whereas the detriment to this program runs to every American who 
has to pay an outrageous, inflated, arbitrary nonmarket price for 
sugar.
  Not only does the program have a debilitating effect on our 
consumers, but it has a negative impact on our international relations 
because our sister States who want to produce this product cannot 
produce it and sell it to the United States, specifically, our 
Caribbean neighbors. And it is having a significant environmental 
impact in Florida where sugarcane production, which has been 
arbitrarily increased as a result of this subsidy, is having a dramatic 
impact on the viability of the Everglades. So the program itself makes 
no sense. There will be a representation on the other side the program 
has been changed. That is not true. As a practical matter, the program 
may have been changed superficially, but the substantive effect of the 
program has not been changed. The bottom line question is: How much 
will sugar cost in the marketplace in the United States? Well, there is 
not a marketplace, really. It will cost about twice the rate it would 
cost in the world market under the changes. There will continue to be 
an inflated and subsidized sugar program under the proposal in this 
bill.

  So why the 7-year extension? It comes down to what is called greed, 
pure and simple greed. The fact is, people know they cannot defend the 
sugar program. They know if they did not stick it on this bill and bury 
it in the bowels of this bill, it would never survive the light of day. 
Even Johnny Cochran could not defend this program before a jury of fair 
arbiters. The fact is, this program is a pure and simple robbery of the 
American consumer for the benefit of a very small number of producers.
  Here we are, the center of capitalism in this country, rejecting the 
whole concept of capitalism, having a program which basically 
eliminates the marketplace.
  Mr. President, I yield myself an additional minute.
  It says, the marketplace does not have any bearing on how much you 
should pay for sugar but, rather, a few powerful lobbyists should 
control how much you pay for sugar. It really is outrageous. But, as I 
pointed out, even though I find the whole program unbelievable, 
especially in light of the fact that the Republicans, who are 
supposedly supporters and defenders of the marketplace, control this 
Congress, I find it unbelievable we are continuing this program. Our 
amendment, as supported by the Senator from Nevada, does not terminate 
the program. It 

[[Page S1031]]
simply takes it from a 7-year program to a 2-year program. That is 
still too long, but it seems to be a reasonable attempt at compromise.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is available on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. LEAHY. First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. 
Kate DeRemer have the privilege of the floor throughout the debate and 
votes today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield a minute--I yield such time as he 
needs to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3225

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, first, I would like to associate myself with 
the remarks made by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] the Senator 
from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] and others opposing the Santorum amendment 
on the peanut program. I will summarize my remarks in about 20 seconds 
in the following points. I oppose the Santorum amendment for three 
basic reasons.
  First, even without the reforms included in S. 1541, the peanut 
program is already one of the least expensive Federal commodity 
programs. Under S. 1541, it will be a no cost program. So this bill 
without the Santorum amendment represents fundamental changes in the 
peanut program.
  Second, the Santorum amendment does not recognize the evolutionary 
changes in the peanut program which began with competition from GATT 
and NAFTA. The peanut title reforms included in S. 1541 reflect the 
inevitable fact that peanut producers in this country are going to have 
to compete in the international market by reason of those agreements.
  Third, even those who support changing the peanut program, in my 
opinion, should oppose the Santorum amendment. The Santorum amendment 
does not give peanut producers or the rural communities which depend so 
much on the peanut program the time to adjust at all.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Santorum amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3450

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand in opposition to the amendment that 
my colleague from New Hampshire has offered this morning.
  Let me say at the outset, I ain't no Johnny Cochran, but I can defend 
the revisions in this program, and I hope the Senator from New 
Hampshire will listen this morning, because, if he was like many 
Americans who sat down in a restaurant this morning to eat some cereal 
for breakfast, they reached out and, for no cost to them, picked up a 
packet of sugar and spread it upon their cereal. They did not pay a 
dime for it or a dollar for it. The sugar price is such that it was a 
service provided by the restaurant. Why? Because the sugar price in 
America today, in a retail market, per pound is about 39 cents. In 
Japan it is $1. In Norway it is 70 cents. In Switzerland it is 55 
cents. Of the 20 developed countries of the world, we are the third 
from the bottom in the price of sugar.
  Why, then, is this Senator saying that consumers are getting ripped 
off, that consumers are paying billions of dollars for this program 
when in fact they are paying less than almost any other country in the 
world except Third World nations where near slave labor produces it?
  What we have today is a program that we are offering in this 
legislation that responds to what the Senator from New Hampshire was 
saying, and the Senator from Pennsylvania, and others. Reform needs to 
be offered to agricultural programs built within the farm bill. What 
did we do? We eliminated market allotments. No more domestic supply 
control. Any farmer can raise cane or any farmer can raise sugar beets. 
We do not restrict the market. We eliminated the 1 cent penalty, 
effectively lowering the loan rate an additional penny. What is real 
savings? What do we do? Also, by the assessment, we raise $300 million 
for deficit reduction.
  Then why do we still have a program? We have a program to create a 
level playing field for the 1,900 farm families in my State, not a few 
rich producers, but 1,900 farm families who raise sugar beets, who have 
found that an extremely valuable program.
  What this program, then, offers is a Government participation in 
allowing a flow of foreign raw commodity into the market to balance out 
domestic production. The 7.5 cents that might be saved if the Senator 
from New Hampshire succeeds will not be passed on to the consumer. That 
is 7.5 cents a pound. It will not be passed on to the consumer. It will 
go in the pocket of the large producers of candy and soft drinks. That 
would be fine if it did not destroy the market and the production 
environment for the domestic producer.

  What happened in 1974 without a sugar program? The price of sugar was 
not 39 cents a pound, it was 60 cents a pound. We saw radical gyrations 
in a market that nearly destroyed the production unit of American 
sweetener, both in the cane and the sugar beet market.
  What we have offered is stability, but we also have heard the Senator 
from New Hampshire. We also offered reform. In working with my growers 
and working with the sugar beet industry and the cane industry, we 
said--myself and Senator Breaux from Louisiana, with whom I have worked 
on this--we cannot accept business as usual. The Congress is changing. 
We want to change farm programs, and you have to farm to a market. And 
they said they will.
  What we also said is that we will not allow the massive dumping of 
foreign sugar in this market that is produced at little to no cost, 
oftentimes subsidized, sometimes by $1 a day labor. But that is what 
the large consumers of sugar want so their profits expand. But what 
they pass to the consumer will be not one dime of savings. They have 
openly admitted that after they spent millions of dollars in the 
television markets of this country trying to convince us there was some 
kind of a ripoff. This is not a ripoff. This is a program of reform 
that does not cost the American taxpayer one penny.
  I believe it saves them money by creating a stable market. So that 
the Senator from New Hampshire, or the Senator from Pennsylvania, or 
this Senator can reach out in a restaurant, pick up a pack of sugar for 
no cost to them, and spread it across their cereal like thousands of 
Americans do every day. It sounds like a good buy to me. I think it is 
a great buy to the taxpayer.
  I hope the Senate will reject this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. President, as I listen to all the evils that are being attributed 
to the sugar program during today's debate on the Senate floor, I 
hardly recognize the tiny white crystals that sweeten my cereal each 
morning.
  Sugar is an essential element of human nutrition. It is also the 
least expensive food item you will find in an American kitchen. When 
you go to a restaurant, there are only two things available at no 
charge and in an unlimited quantity: water and sugar. Yet on the Senate 
floor, sugar is the most maligned commodity grown in America.
  Despite all the criticism being circulated by corporate food 
processors that are trying to put American sugar farmers out of 
business, sugar is one of the best bargains you will find at the 
grocery store today. A pound of refined sugar costs 39 cents.
  But consumers elsewhere around the globe do not enjoy the same low 
prices as consumers in America. If you visited the grocery store in 
other industrialized nations you would get sticker shock when you came 
to the sugar display. In Tokyo, consumers pay nearly 90 cents for a 
pound of sugar, more than double the U.S. price. In Europe, prices 
average 50 to 70 cents per pound. 

[[Page S1032]]

  Among developed countries, the average retail price for a pound of 
sugar is 54 cents, which is a premium of 38 percent compared to the 
U.S. price. And what do these consumers get for the premium price they 
pay? Nothing. They get the same 1-pound box of sugar as we do in 
America, but they pay substantially more for it--38 percent more.
  Thanks to a farm program that assures stable supplies at reasonable 
prices, sugar is a remarkable bargain for American consumers. U.S. 
consumers pay an average of 17 cents less per pound of sugar than their 
counterparts in other industrialized nations. That is a savings of $1.4 
billion annually. So there is no doubt about one thing: the sugar 
program is a great deal for American consumers. By any measure, the 
sugar program has guaranteed U.S. consumers a stable supply of sugar at 
bargain prices.

  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. If Congress reduces or 
terminates the sugar program, not only will a dynamic part of the 
economy disappear from many rural areas, but consumers will also lose a 
reliable supply of high-quality, low-price sugar. I urge my colleagues 
to vote against the Reid-Gregg amendment.
  I am dumbfounded by the arguments of sugar opponents that the changes 
recommended by the Senate Agriculture Committee are inadequate. If 
anything, the reforms go too far. Cane sugar growers in my State will 
barely recognize the sugar program if the Senate bill becomes law.
  The Senate bill eliminates marketing controls, eliminates minimum 
price guarantees, and increases sugar imports by 20 percent. Growers 
will pay a 1-cent-per-pound penalty when they forfeit sugar, which 
amounts to a cut in the loan rate. Finally, all beet and cane sugar 
growers will face a 25-percent increase in fees paid to the Federal 
Government to market sugar. The only thing that has not changed is the 
requirement that the program operate at no cost to the taxpayer.
  The committee bill contains real reform. For sugar farmers in Hawaii 
and on the mainland these reforms will be painful, so painful that a 
number of them will not survive. I urge my colleagues to oppose deeper 
cuts than those proposed by the committee.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Gregg's 
amendment to delete the sugar program from this bill.
  Mr. President, California has not fared well under the current sugar 
program. Beet sugar production has declined markedly and the west 
coast's only cane sugar refinery, located in Crockett, CA, has suffered 
severe financial losses. As a result, California has lost several 
hundred sugar-related jobs in the past year alone.
  In November, I learned that the cane sugar refinery in California was 
forced to cease operation for a week because it ran out of sugar. I 
have since learned that the closing of this California refinery was not 
an isolated case and that other refineries in Baltimore, MD, and 
Brooklyn, NY, have been closed several times during the past year for 
the same reason--no sugar.
  Mr. President, the sugar program is complex. Under current law, the 
Secretary of Agriculture is required to provide price supports to 
growers through nonrecourse loans to processors, and to do so at no 
cost to the Federal Government. To accomplish this objective, the 
Secretary uses an elaborate supply management scheme that includes 
production and marketing allotments and strict import controls.
  As currently administered, the sugar program has caused serious 
financial stress on a major segment of the U.S. sugar industry. The 
Secretary's initial decision to restrict import imports of raw cane 
sugar to the minimum allowed by law so distorted the price relationship 
between raw cane sugar and refined white sugar that all U.S. cane 
refiners experienced severe operating losses for the past 2 years. The 
increases in the quota announced by the Secretary of Agriculture last 
fall and last month are steps in the right direction, but the industry 
has not yet recovered.
  As I understand it, the fundamental problem with the administration 
of the sugar program is the complete disregard of the relationship 
between raw cane sugar prices and refined beet and cane sugar prices.
  Present Government policy inflates raw sugar prices to unreasonable 
levels by restricting raw sugar imports.
  High price supports encourage excess beet production which, in turn, 
depresses refined sugar prices.
  As a result, the normal economic relationship between raw and refined 
sugar prices no longer exists.
  Raw costs have exceeded refined prices so that cane refiners can no 
longer recover their refining costs in the marketplace.
  And cane refiners have been forced to sell their production at a 
substantial loss.
  If continued as currently administered, the Government's sugar 
program will destroy the cane sugar refinery industry and seriously 
threaten the stability of the Nation's sugar supply.
  Cane sugar refiners have a vital role to play in the U.S. sugar 
industry.
  They provide over half of the refined sugar consumed in the United 
States under normal circumstances.
  Only cane refiners have the capability to supply sugar when domestic 
sugar production is adversely impacted by weather or other disruptions.
  Since the sugar program was put in place in 1981, 11 of the 
industry's 22 cane refiners have closed. The Government should not be 
in the business of deciding who is a winner and who is a loser in the 
sugar business.
  Of immediate concern in my State is the damage the sugar program has 
inflicted on the California and Hawaiian Sugar Co. in Crockett, CA. 
This 90-year-old cane sugar refinery is the Nation's largest and the 
only such facility on the west coast. C&H Sugar refines all the sugar 
produced in Hawaii, as well as some imported raw cane sugar brought in 
under the quota. C&H Sugar refines and distributes about 15 percent of 
the cane sugar consumed in the United States.
  As a direct result of the sugar program and its impact on imports, 
C&H Sugar lost about $13 million in 1994 and incurred operating losses 
of about $23 million in 1995.
  In 1981, C&H Sugar had 1,313 employees. Today C&H Sugar has 582 
employees. In other words, since 1981, over 700 jobs at C&H Sugar have 
been lost. Two hundred-six of these jobs were lost in January. More 
drastic measures are inevitable unless fundamental changes are made in 
the sugar program.
  Mr. President, the job losses at this refinery are significant. These 
are good blue-collar jobs, predominantly union, with heavy minority 
employment. C&H Sugar's work force is 50 percent minority and 75 
percent union members. C&H Sugar pays wages of $13.50 to $24 an hour, 
plus benefits, pension, and medical coverage for retirees. In most 
cases, these workers are not going to be able to duplicate these jobs.
  More recently, in January, Imperial Holly Corp. announced its 
agreement to purchase of three of Spreckles Sugar Co.'s beet sugar 
processing plants in California and plans to close all three facilities 
and consolidate operations at existing Holly facilities in California. 
This will result in a further loss of hundreds of sugar related jobs in 
California.
  Given the problems facing the sugar industry right now, I cannot 
support an extension of the current sugar program for 7 years as 
provided in this bill.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise in enthusiastic support of the 
amendment offered by Senator Gregg and Senator Reid to phase out sugar 
price supports over 2 years, rather than 7, which is the provision in 
the underlying bill.
  First, let me point out that sugar price supports are set to expire 
in 2 years under current law. So the pending amendment merely maintains 
the status quo. Under freedom to farm, the sugar price support program 
receives a 5-year reprieve. And the underlying bill contains a powerful 
incentive to hold raw sugar imports at 1.5 million tons, some 25 
percent below current levels. If the Gregg-Reid amendment is not 
adopted, I predict the domestic cane sugar refining industry will 
virtually disappear.
  The Federal sugar price support program properly belongs in Cuba, not 
in a free market economy. It is a caricature of how a farm program 
ought to work. The program is cleverly designed to operate at little or 
no direct cost to the Federal Government. The Department of Agriculture 
[USDA] provides nonrecourse commodity loans to sugar 

[[Page S1033]]
growers. If raw sugar prices fall below the loan rate currently 18 
cents per pound--the growers simply default on the loan and forfeit the 
sugar they put up for collateral. To prevent loan forfeitures from 
occurring, USDA sets very tight import quotas and domestic producer 
allotments which limit supply and drive prices above the loan rate.
  As a result of this program, at 22 to 25 cents per pound, domestic 
prices for raw sugar are about twice world market prices. Domestic cane 
refiners, such as Domino of Brooklyn and Refined Sugar of Yonkers, pay 
more for raw material acquisition and refining than they are able to 
receive for their finished product. Domestic food processors and 
confectioners lose market share to foreign competitors who purchase 
their sugar supply on the world market. The Federal Government pays 
higher prices about $90 million annually, for products it purchases for 
nutrition programs. And consumers pay $1.4 billion more than they need 
to for sugar and products containing sugar, according to the General 
Accounting Office.
  Since the mid-1980's, the number of cane sugar refineries nationwide 
has declined from 22 to 11. Fifteen hundred jobs have been lost in the 
refining industry just in the last 5 years; capacity has been reduced 
by 40 percent. Domino has been forced to close its Brooklyn and 
Baltimore refineries six times in the past year because of raw cane 
sugar shortages.
  What is particularly galling about the situation is that the refinery 
jobs are good-paying jobs located in inner cities and around dockyards 
where other employment opportunities are scarce. Moreover, the sugar 
program is, perhaps, more distorted than any other farm program in 
sending enormous benefits to the few largest producers. The top 1 
percent of sugar growers, about 150 farms garner 42 percent of program 
benefits in the form of higher prices. The largest 33 producers each 
receive over $1 million annually. The Fanjul brothers, who farm 180,000 
acres of cane in Florida, receive some $64 million annually. The 
Fanjuls, whose family dominated sugar production in Cuba before Fidel 
Castro took over in 1959, are not even United States citizens. All 
sugar producers receive price and income supports wildly 
disproportionate to the Federal support received by other farmers. USDA 
estimates that sugar price and income supports average $472.30 an acre. 
Corn is supported at the rate of about $33.60 per acre; wheat is 
supported at $23.40.
  Most important, Mr. President, is the fact that the artificially high 
price for sugar acts as a very regressive tax on low-income consumers. 
We committed ourselves to phasing out sugar price supports when we 
passed the 1990 farm bill. We ought to stick to that commitment. I urge 
the adoption of the pending amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Gregg-
Reid amendment to eliminate the sugar title in this bill.
  As a Senator from a State which is home to a major sugar refinery--
the Domino refinery in Baltimore which provides over 600 jobs--I will 
not support a bill which threatens their future existence.
  This bill is a bad deal for Domino and other refineries. It threatens 
the livelihoods of thousands of American working families--at 
refineries not only in Baltimore, but also in New York, in California 
and elsewhere.
  Too often, the sugar program squeezes refineries between artificially 
high raw cane sugar prices and low supply. The sugar program in this 
bill will worsen the problem.
  Almost half of American sugar cane refineries have gone out of 
business. Those refineries still in operation have faced temporary 
closures again and again. These disruptions create economic hardships 
for workers and disrupts production schedules.
  To give our refineries some relief, I offered an amendment called the 
Emergency Sugar Refiner Relief Act which requires the Secretary of 
Agriculture to increase imports of raw cane sugar if the price of raw 
cane sugar exceeds 120 percent of the loan rate. My amendment would 
have prevented refineries from future closings due to artificially high 
raw cane prices. Unfortunately, my amendment could not be accepted 
today but I will keep fighting for it at every opportunity.
  It is outrageous that our sugar program has to pit growers against 
refiners. There is no reason why our refiners have to be left out of 
the sugar program, threatening the future of this industry.
  Mr. President, I will not support legislation that threatens the jobs 
and livelihoods of hundreds of workers in Baltimore. The sugar program 
contained in this bill is simply bad policy and there is no excuse for 
it.
  I will continue to fight for the workers at Domino and the rest of 
the refining industry. For this reason, I strongly support the Gregg 
amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 3 minutes and 47 
seconds, and the Senator from Indiana has 9 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from 
Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I initially say that I very much appreciate 
the leadership on this amendment offered by the Senator from New 
Hampshire, and I appreciate the Senator from New Hampshire's leadership 
in that I have seen him work on this issue when he was a Member of the 
House of Representatives. I know that his heart was there when he was 
Governor of the State of New Hampshire, and certainly for all of the 
time that he spent here in the Senate he has been trying to do away 
with this program that I think is one of the most absurd programs we 
have anyplace in Government.
  Mr. President, we talk a lot about reforming welfare. I think where 
we should start reforming welfare is right here. We should reform 
welfare as we know it, and that is the sugar program which is one of 
the biggest welfare programs in the history of the country, if not in 
the history of the world.
  Mr. President, this program is a program that does not benefit 
farmers. I repeat this is no help to the family farmer.
  Seventeen cane growers get 58 percent of the benefit available to all 
cane growers. One cane grower received more than $65 million in 1 year 
alone. Thirty-three growers received benefits of over $1 million a year 
each. In Florida, two growers account for 75 percent of the production 
in that State which produces huge amounts of sugar.
  The GAO concluded a study which said that the benefits going to 
growers are concentrated among a relatively few. And that is an 
understatement. Mr. President, 42 percent of grower benefits went to 1 
percent of all sugar farms. The sugar cane industry is especially 
concentrated with 17 of the estimated 1,705 cane farms--about 1 
percent--receiving almost 60 percent of all cane grower benefits in 
1991. This is corporate welfare at its worst.
  The Government-run sugar cartel artificially keeps sugar prices high. 
The General Accounting Office estimates that because of this program 
U.S. sugar prices are twice as high as world prices. Because of a 
Government heavy hand in setting sugar prices, American consumers are 
paying about $1.5 billion every year in higher food costs. This adds up 
to a hidden tax of over $10 billion over the last decade.

  The big sugar lobbies' contention that they are going to lose jobs is 
simply without any foundation.
  I repeat. This is a program that benefits the wealthy, and just a few 
wealthy farmers. It does not help the family farms.
  It really hurts the American consumer. Take for example, Bobs Candy 
of Albany, GA, the Nation's largest manufacturer of candy canes--the 
things with the little crook that we put on our trees at Christmas. 
They are not going to be able to compete much longer with the Canadian 
competitors because of their significantly lower cane sugar prices in 
Canada. If this sugar program is extended, Bobs of Albany, GA, and 
hundreds of other manufacturers will be forced to move their operations 
overseas where they can get cheap sugar. And it would eliminate 
thousands of jobs.
  While this program has been doing great, other farm programs have 
been on a downward path. The sugar program has stayed very stable. It 
is welfare I repeat at its worst. The sugar program has remained 
virtually untouched from the last two farm bills 

[[Page S1034]]
while other farm programs have faced reductions and many reforms.
  The environmental consequences of the sugar program is that cane 
farming is destroying the environment. Take, for example, what it is 
doing to the Everglades in Florida.
  The sugar program is big government at its worst. It sets prices, it 
controls imports, and it distributes benefits.
  We should support this amendment. It would be good government to do 
so.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Vermont 
have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes and 47 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there are many farm programs that have not 
worked very well. Most of us have understood that, and we have debated 
what might make them work better. However, the sugar program is one 
that works.
  I represent the Red River Valley area of North Dakota, and others 
represent the Red River Valley area of Minnesota. It is dotted with 
hundreds and hundreds of family farmers who raise sugar beets.
  The sugar program does work. Instead of trying to figure out how you 
take apart a program that works in the farm program, we ought to decide 
how to make the other programs work better. The sugar program ought to 
be a model.

  Now, I hear people talking about the world price for sugar. That is a 
dump price. Most sugar in this world is traded on long-term contracts 
country to country. The dump price, which people have been describing, 
is not related to this debate at all. The sugar program provides stable 
prices and has always provided stable prices for consumers and fair 
prices for producers. Every farm program ought to be as successful as 
this one is.
  This is a success story in dozens of ways, and we ought not take it 
apart. I know people are talking about big agribusinesses. I am talking 
about family farmers dotting the prairies out there in the Red River 
Valley of North Dakota who operate successfully as a family farm under 
this sugar program. I hope this Senate will turn down this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Comments were made that this program is good for consumers. I do not 
think higher prices are good for consumers. I can tell you one thing. 
It is not good for workers. We had two sugar refineries in Philadelphia 
that closed in the 1980's as a result of this sugar program and the 
high cost of sugar that they had to deal with--1,500 jobs in the city 
of Philadelphia gone as a result of this program.
  I hear so much about these small family farms. I am for small family 
farmers. What about families who work in these refineries that are 
going out of business, like the ones that are threatened in Georgia and 
in Maryland and in other places around this country because of this 
sugar program? Let us not just look to the farmers. Let us look to the 
workers who want to have jobs processing this sugar and confectioners 
who want to use this sugar instead of having to send those jobs to 
Canada or Mexico where they can buy cheap sugar and cheap peanuts and 
other things they use in making candy.
  Those are the kinds of issues we should be looking at, not just one 
segment of the matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 
1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator. I will make a couple points.
  There will be some people in the country who will never be satisfied 
until they can just about get free sugar to make all the products they 
make and thereby destroy the domestic industry.
  We have over 700 small family farms that produce sugar in Louisiana 
that are dependent on this program. This program that we bring to the 
floor today has a number of significant reforms. There is major change 
in the program. But this side, some of them want to kill the entire 
program. Under this bill, there are now going to be no limits on how 
much domestic production of sugar can occur in the United States. If 
you want to plant more, go ahead. That is what this new program says. 
There is going to be no guaranteed minimum price under the reforms that 
are being presented here today.
  We also have a program that is guaranteed to operate at no cost to 
the American taxpayer. What other program in this country can operate 
at no cost to the taxpayer? There is none, whether it is in health care 
or whether it is in other farm programs. This is the only one. You have 
heard these arguments about how much sugar costs and how expensive it 
is. I do not think any of us has ever had a housewife say anything 
about sugar costs in her budget. It is still the only product that they 
want to give away.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 48 seconds. The 
Senator from Vermont has 15 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator from Vermont have a closing statement? I 
would like to maintain the right to close.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, a GAO audit was done of this program 
several years ago. The Senator from New Hampshire has quoted from that 
as to impact on consumers. Let me put in the Record a letter from the 
Department of Agriculture, the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services, saying that the GAO used a totally faulty basis 
from which to calculate it. This letter refutes the very figures that 
are being used by the Senator, and it is important that be a part of 
the record.
  This is the Department of Agriculture that analyzes and monitors 
this, saying the wrong premise was used; therefore, the wrong figures, 
and in fact this might be a net savings to consumers instead of a cost 
because of the stability of the program itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time in opposition has expired.
  Does the Senator want that letter included in the Record?
  Mr. CRAIG. I do.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                 Washington, DC, October 24, 1995.
     Hon. Patsy T. Mink,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Mink: Thank you for your letter of July 
     26, 1995, concerning the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
     report that stated that the U.S. sugar program costs domestic 
     users and consumers an average of $1.4 billion annually and 
     GAO's July 1995 analysis that the sugar program cost the 
     Government an additional $90 million in 1994 for its food 
     purchase and food assistance programs.
       In my opinion, GAO's April 1993 report was flawed in its 
     estimates. Some data were used incorrectly and important data 
     and sugar market issues were not considered. Based on GAO's 
     methodology, but by selecting prices in different time 
     periods, the results are more ambiguous. Depending on the 
     timeframe, one may contend that the domestic sugar program 
     either costs or benefits U.S. users and consumers.
       GAO's estimate of $1.4 billion annually was based on an 
     assumption of a long-run equilibrium world price of 15.0 
     cents per pound of raw sugar if all countries liberalized 
     sugar trade. GAO added a transportation cost of 1.5 cents per 
     pound of raw sugar to derive a landed U.S. price (elsewhere 
     in the report GAO stated that the transportation cost 
     adjustment should be 2.0 cents per pound.) To derive a world 
     price of refined sugar of 20.5 cents per pound, GAO added a 
     refining spread of 4.0 cents per pound.
       GAO compared its constructed U.S. sweetener price with its 
     derived world price. However, GAO constructed the U.S. price 
     for the 1989-1991 period during which 1989 and 1990 were 
     unusually high price years for U.S. refined sugar. This 
     exaggerated the difference between the so-called world 
     derived price and the U.S. sweetener price. By selecting a 

[[Page S1035]]
     period of world price spikes, such as 1973-1975, GAO's analysis would 
     show an annual savings to domestic users and consumers of 
     $350 to $400 million.
       Clearly, the expected world price of raw sugar with global 
     liberalization is critical to any analyses of the effects of 
     the U.S. sugar program. In 1993, the Australian Bureau of 
     Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) estimated that 
     sugar trade liberalization in the United States, European 
     Union, and Japan alone would result in an average world price 
     of 17.6 cents per pound of raw sugar--2.6 cents per pound 
     higher than GAO's derived world price.
       Based on the ABARE analysis and using a transportation cost 
     of 1.75 cents per pound, which more accurately reflects 
     global transportation costs to the United States, plus a 
     refining spread of 4.27 cents per pound (Landell Mills 
     Commodities Studies, Incorporated), a world price of refined 
     sugar is estimated at 23.6 cents per pound. Based on this 
     world price estimate and an average U.S. sweetener price over 
     1992-1994, a more normal price period, it can be shown using 
     GAO's methodology, that there are no costs to domestic users 
     and consumers.
       The estimated effects of the U.S. sugar program are highly 
     sensitive to expected world prices if global sugar trade is 
     liberalized. GAO's analysis, in my judgment, does not 
     adequately consider the complexities and dynamics of the U.S. 
     and global sugar markets.
       With respect to the effects of the U.S. sugar program on 
     Government costs of its food purchase and assistance 
     programs, an independent analysis by the Economic Research 
     Service (ERS) estimates the cost at $84 million based on the 
     difference between U.S. and world refined sugar prices in 
     1994. However, just as for the GAO analysis, different 
     effects could be estimated by using other time periods when 
     the price gap between U.S. and world prices was smaller. 
     Moreover, with global liberalization, the price gap would 
     narrow because of the dynamics of adjustment which were not 
     considered in the ERS analysis.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Eugene Moos,

                                      Under Secretary for Farm and
                                    Foreign Agricultural Services.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, no amount of smoke and mirrors here is 
going to obfuscate the basic fact that you can go into the 
marketplace--in fact, it was quoted today on CNBC--and buy sugar at 10 
cents a pound on the international market, but if you go out and buy it 
in the United States it will cost you 20, 21, 22 cents a pound. That is 
because the difference goes to a few growers who have a hammerlock on 
the political system.
  And does it not cost the taxpayers money? That statement was made--it 
does not cost the American taxpayers money. Of course, it costs them 
money; $1.5 billion a year in subsidy is carried by the American 
consumers in order to benefit 17 cane growers who get 42 percent of the 
benefit, as the Senator from Nevada so aptly pointed out.
  The idea that we are presenting is not to eliminate the program. We 
are saying just do not extend it for 7 years. Do not put this outrage 
on the back of the American consumers for 7 years, which would cost 
approximately $20 billion in subsidies having to be paid by the 
American consumer.
  We are saying just hit them for 2 years, just hit them for 2 years. 
And then let us go back and look at the program again. We are not 
saying eliminate the program. We are saying just do not be greedy. Be 
reasonable. Give us a 2-year extension instead of a 7-year extension.
  But what would be wrong with eliminating the program? The idea was 
you would get free sugar; we are not going to be happy until we get 
free sugar. We do not want free sugar. What we want is prices set by 
the marketplace. This is called capitalism. It is the concept of Adam 
Smith, comparative advantage. Those are things Republicans used to 
stand for. They happen to be things this country was built on. They are 
things which should be returned at some point in the sugar program. We 
are not asking they be returned today. All we are asking is that the 
sugar program only be extended for 2 years instead of 7 years--not an 
unreasonable request.
  Mr. President, I certainly thank the Senator from Nevada for his 
support and the other Senators who cosponsored this amendment. And I 
hope that others will join us in putting a 2-year extension in place 
instead of a 7-year extension in place for a program which should not 
be extended at all.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
next Democratic amendment and the intervening Republican amendment, 
Senator Daschle be recognized to offer his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Who yields time? There are 17 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield back the rest of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we are coming now to the first vote, and 
the order is that each side have 1 minute of explanation. The proponent 
of the amendment perhaps will proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 3442

  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator. The first vote is on the Northeast 
area compact. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Carl Levin be added 
as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. This is a very, very bad amendment. The amendment should 
not go through. It is anticonstitutional. It only can be authorized by 
Congress. It should not be authorized by Congress.
  It would allow six States to set the price of milk in their States 
and nobody else would be allowed, no other State would be allowed to 
compete in that market unless they were prepared to meet that price. If 
you can imagine, this is not the way we conduct the American economy. 
No State would like to be the subject of that kind of a restriction. It 
would allow other States at other times to come to Congress and ask for 
permission to set prices. We do not set prices in this country. We 
allow commerce to proceed in a competitive way. The Northeast area 
compact is specifically an action to prevent that.
  The proponents will say that we voted 65 to 35 for this. We have not 
voted 65 to 35 for this before. The previous vote was on several 
different provisions on a much broader agricultural amendment. It was 
not an up-or-down vote on the Northeast area compact. It is bad policy 
for this Congress, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
motion to strike the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would strongly urge that the Senate vote 
as it already has. We have, indeed, voted 65 to 34 in favor of this 
compact. I would explain that was the vote on the compact before. This 
is something that involves only the Northeast. It affects dairy only in 
the Northeast.
  It is a compact carefully set up where consumers and farmers work 
together, where consumers actually have a veto over any price increase. 
I hope that we would allow the Northeast States to do what their 
legislatures have joined together to do.
  I yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 20 seconds.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, all we are asking is that Vermont be 
allowed to do what other States can do. Big States can do it. 
California does the same thing we want to do. We allow anybody to come 
in. If Minnesota or Wisconsin want to bring their milk in, they can. 
There are no barriers.
  All we are trying to do is make sure we protect the few farms that 
are left tucked way up at the border of the United States in the 
Northeast where we have a very, very difficult time being able to buy 
our grains and all that. So we urge you to vote as you did last time, 
and that is against the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired. All time has expired.
  Under the previous order, the question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 3442 offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. Kohl]. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. 
Hatfield] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?

[[Page S1036]]

  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Conrad
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Grams
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Pell
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Domenici
     Gramm
     Hatfield
  So the amendment (No. 3442) was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3443

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on amendment No. 3443 
offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown].
  Under the previous order, the time has been divided equally, 1 minute 
apiece.
  The Senator has the right to be heard. We cannot proceed if 
discussions continue.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I believe we have worked this amendment 
out. I am proposing to alter the amendment by dropping the section 
dealing with BLM, section (c), applying it only to the Secretary of 
Agriculture, and in section (e), dropping any reference to a grant or 
issuance of a permit.
  This dramatically scales back the amendment, and I believe this meets 
the concerns expressed about it. As it would be amended, it would 
simply mean that if an easement has existed for a long time, you could 
not revoke it or refuse to renew it if the easement is in no way being 
changed.


                    Amendment No. 3443, as Modified

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . CLARIFICATION OF EFFECT OF RESOURCE PLANNING ON 
                   ALLOCATION OR USE OF WATER.

       (a) National Forest System Resource Planning.--Section 6 of 
     the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 
     1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(n) Limitation on Authority.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to supersede, abrogate or otherwise impair 
     any right or authority of a State to allocate quantities of 
     water (including boundary waters). Nothing in this section 
     shall be implemented, enforced, or construed to allow any 
     officer or agency of the United States to utilize directly or 
     indirectly the authorities established under this section to 
     impose any requirement not imposed by the State which would 
     supersede, abrogate, or otherwise impair rights to the use of 
     water resources allocated under State law, interstate water 
     compact, or Supreme Court decree, or held by the United 
     States for use by a State, its political subdivisions, or its 
     citizens. No water rights arise in the United States or any 
     other person under the provisions of this Act.''.
       (c) Authorization to Grant Rights-of-Way.--Section 501 of 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1761) is amended as it applies to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture--.
       (1) in subsection (c)(1)--.
       (A) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``originally 
     constructed'';.
       (C) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``1996'' and inserting 
     ``1998''; and.
       (D) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (G) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (F), respectively:
       (2) in subsection (c)(3)(A), by striking the second and 
     third sentences; and.
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Effect on Valid Existing Rights.--Notwithstanding any 
     provision of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     not require, as a condition of, or in connection with, the 
     renewal of a right-of-way under this section, a restriction 
     or limitation on the operation, use, repair, or replacement 
     of an existing water supply facility which is located on or 
     above National Forest lands or the exercise and use of 
     existing water rights, if such condition would reduce the 
     quantity of water which would otherwise be made available for 
     use by the owner of such facility or water rights, or cause 
     an increase in the cost of the water supply provided from 
     such facility.''

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Burns as a cosponsor and to vitiate the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The yeas 
and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to engage in a 1-minute colloquy with the Senator from 
Colorado. I could not hear one word he said.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me ask two questions of the Senator 
from Colorado.
  First, as I understand it, the amendment has been modified so that it 
will only apply to Forest Service language.
  Mr. BROWN. That is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. And the amendment also has a provision in it that it 
will only apply to renewal of permits and not new permits?
  Mr. BROWN. That is correct. To that end, we have dropped the 
provisions that dealt with the issuing and the granting.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will not raise a point of order, but would the Senator 
from Colorado join in requesting the Senator from Idaho to hold a 
hearing on this subject? I think it is a fairly complicated thing that 
deserves a hearing.
  Mr. BROWN. I appreciate it. That is a valuable suggestion. I am happy 
to join the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3443), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 3445, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on amendment 3445.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent I be recognized to offer the next 
amendment following the series of votes. We will have the next 
Democratic amendment. I ask unanimous consent to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Is this the first amendment I 
offered which would strike the section of the bill that raises interest 
rates for Commodity Credit Corporation loans?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. For Senators who did not hear the debate earlier, for 
almost 60 years we have allowed the farmers to borrow from the 
Commodity Credit Corporation using grain and commodities as collateral 
at interest rates based on Treasury rates. This bill raises the 
interest rate 1 full percentage point. There is no good reason for 
that.
  There are those who argue farmers ought to be like other people out 
there, borrowing at commercial rates. Large grain companies, and the 
large producers can go get the prime rate. My family farmers in Iowa 
have to go to the local bank and pay prime plus 3. There is no reason 
to raise these CCC interest rates 1 percent. It is a $260 million tax 
on farmers. Mr. President, $260 million more that farmers will have to 
pay into the Treasury over the next 7 years that is not needed, and it 
will hurt our family farmers.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I encourage Senators to vote against the 
Harkin amendment. It is, in fact, a $260 million subsidy to farmers. 
Deliberately, farmers have been given a rate 1 percent less for a long 
time, at the 

[[Page S1037]]
Treasury rate as opposed to the commercial rate. If every other 
business in America had a similar advantage, that might be a different 
story but other business people do not.
  There was a time when we were interested in balancing the budget in 
this Chamber. This was $260 million of the savings involved in that 
situation. All we are asking for a vote ``no'' on this is that farmers 
have identically the same opportunity at commercial rates and that the 
$260 million of savings to the taxpayers be preserved.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask that the Chair announce the vote at the end of 10 
minutes from here on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is now on agreeing to the Harkin amendment numbered 
3445.
  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 New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. 
Hatfield] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--59

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Domenici
     Gramm
       
     Hatfield
       
  So the amendment (No. 3445), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3446

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the Harkin 
amendment, No. 3446. There are 2 minutes for debate evenly divided 
pursuant to the previous order.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. The Senator 
from Iowa is entitled to be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate will be in 
order.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment reinstates the farmer-owned 
reserve which is suspended for the 7 years of this bill. In the 1970's 
we heard a hue and cry across the country that the grain companies and 
processors had a hold over the grain markets because they could buy up 
grain from the farmers at low prices and the farmers could not market 
their grain when they wanted to market it. So we put in something 
called the farmer-owned reserve, which is, first, a marketing tool for 
farmers that allows them to be able to market their grain when they 
want to at higher prices. Second, it is also a tool for consumers, 
because in periods of drought, when we have short supplies----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend for a moment. The 
Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Then those supplies of grain are available, so we avoid 
severe shortages and extremely high prices. Mr. President, there is an 
estimate by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute that, 
in connection with the 1988 drought, that the substantial stocks of 
grain on hand, including in the farmer-owned reserve, prevented some 
$40 billion in extra food costs to consumers because we had that 
reserve owned by the farmers.
  So this amendment just basically continues that program of enabling 
farmers to store their own grain for a period as a reserve and allow 
them to market in a more orderly way.
  This is both a profarmer and a proconsumer amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the reason the Senate allowed the farmer-
owned reserve to lapse was that essentially it was a very expensive 
storage business with 26\1/2\ cents per bushel to a farmer who wanted 
to store grain. But eventually over half of the money was paid to 
elevators and to large grain merchandisers, not to the individual 
farmers we are talking about here. We finally got rid of it because 
farmers understood it was a hangover of wheat, corn, and beans over the 
market. It depressed prices.
  I am a farmer. I have storage. I do not need 26\1/2\ cents a bushel 
to store for my own purposes. I market it on the basis of price.
  That is the way the country proceeded, and we saved $100 million for 
taxpayers for another subsidy that is unnecessary and unneeded for 
farmers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Iowa. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. 
Hatfield] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--61

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Domenici
     Gramm
     Hatfield
  So the amendment (No. 3446) was rejected.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3225

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
Santorum amendment No. 3225.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will Members of the Senate who are having 
discussions please retire to the Cloakroom.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the amendment that I have is not an elimination of the 
peanut program. What is does is it phases 

[[Page S1038]]
down the support price for peanuts 30 percent over the next 5 years and 
then replaces the quota system with a nonrecourse loan system. So there 
will still be a peanut program, a safety net program. The only 
commodity in the last 10, 15 years that has not been reformed is 
peanuts. It is the only one that has gone up in price since 1985. For 
everything else the support prices have been cut but not peanuts. 
Peanuts is still run with a quota system. That means you have to have a 
license to grow peanuts, and, if you do not have that license, you 
cannot sell peanuts in this country.
  What we want to do is just reform it slightly over the next 7 years 
to really comport with the other programs that are going through 
reform, and I urge an affirmative vote to send a good message on this 
program.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just take about 30 seconds.
  I have had a lot of experience with the peanut program. There have 
been reforms made over the years. There are reforms in this bill. We 
are trying to get a farm bill passed, and I know that the Senator from 
Pennsylvania has worked very long and very hard and has done a great 
job, but I think in the spirit of trying to get the bill passed, we 
ought to take the reforms that have been made. Therefore, I move to 
table the amendment and 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 is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, on this vote, I have a pair with the 
Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici]. If he were present and voting, 
he would vote ``yea.'' If I were permitted to vote, I would vote 
``nay.'' Therefore, I withhold my vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. 
Hatfield] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--36

     Abraham
     Biden
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     DeWine
     Feingold
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Grams
     Gregg
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lugar
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                     PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR

                            D'Amato, against

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Domenici
     Gramm
     Hatfield
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 3225) was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Correction Of Vote

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 13, I was recorded 
as voting ``nay.'' In fact, I voted ``aye.'' I ask unanimous consent 
that the official record be corrected to accurately reflect my vote. 
Mr. President, this will in no way change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


                           Amendment No. 3447

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Bryan amendment 
No. 3447. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Bryan 
amendment be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment, the identical 
contents of which was before the Senate last fall and was approved 
overwhelmingly by a vote of 62 to 36. It seeks to cap the Market 
Promotion Program at $70 million. Under the current proposal, that 
funding level would rise to $100 million on an annual basis.
  It precludes the payment of market promotion moneys to foreign 
corporations. Under the current law, foreign corporations may receive 
money.
  It also precludes payments being made to large corporations that 
would exceed the small business size and scope, and it would make it 
possible for moneys to continue to be received by cooperative 
organizations who are advertising on behalf of nonbranded promotions.
  I urge its adoption. As I say, it has been before us previously and 
enjoys the support of the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
member.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in opposition to the amendment, let me 
simply state that there are controls and reforms not only reflected in 
this legislation before the Senate in the Market Promotion Program, but 
there are also restrictions imposed by the Department of Agriculture in 
the allocation of these funds.
  In the view of many of us, that should answer all of the charges that 
have been made by some of the sensationalized attacks on our effort to 
enlarge our share of the international market through helping our 
exporters of food and commodities do a better job competing with those 
countries that engage in unfair practices to keep our products out of 
markets and to make us lose market share.
  This provision in the bill that is sought to be amended creates 
American jobs. It is time for us to stand up for our farmers and our 
exporters. I urge the Senate to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Bryan 
amendment No. 3447.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. 
Hatfield] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wellstone
     
[[Page S1039]]


                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Daschle
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Inouye
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Lott
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Domenici
     Gramm
     Hatfield
  So the amendment (No. 3447) was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3448

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the Harkin amendment, 
No. 3448.
  Under the previous order, the time is evenly divided.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate will be in 
order.
  Mr. HARKIN. Last year, Senator Lugar and Senator Leahy introduced S. 
854 to provide for incentive payments, cost-sharing, technical 
assistance, et cetera, to livestock producers to meet certain 
environmental standards. In that bill, for example, there is a limit 
relating to the number of livestock above which you could not get cost 
share payments, you could not get Government money. For example, in the 
original bill eligibility was limited to 1,000 beef cattle and 2,500 
head of hogs.
  In the bill before us, the limits were raised to 10,000 beef cattle 
and 15,000 head of hogs. We have a limited pool of money, $700 million 
over 7 years for the livestock environmental assistance. This money 
ought to go to the family-size farmers who need this help. The bigger 
operations have a lot of capital. They can take care of their own 
environmental problems. It is the small family farmers with the smaller 
herds that need this type of help.
  My amendment takes this limited pot of money we have and sets limits 
basically back to where the initial bill was last year at 1,000 head of 
cattle and 2,500 head of swine, which corresponds with the regulations 
that have been promulgated under the Clean Water Act.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I argue against the Harkin amendment on the 
basis that the limits that were set in the Lugar-Leahy bill were based 
upon the herds in 1970. They correspond to the Clean Water Act 
considerations of that time, and they made sense at that time.
  Unhappily or happily, as the case may be, people in cattle, with hog 
farms, with chickens, and with turkeys, have a great number. We have 
made a limit of $10,000 per operation, but in meetings with producers 
all over the country, pragmatically the limits that we have come to 
seem to be a compromise between the large and the small.
  I visited the Iowa Corn Producers last week and they feel that is 
about the right level. We had the big and the small, and a great 
controversy was witnessed in that State. There is no magic in the 
figures. They seem to me to be a practical compromise.
  I advocate the committee text be retained and the Harkin amendment be 
defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The question is on agreeing to 
the amendment.
  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 New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. 
Hatfield] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Abraham
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Frist
     Gorton
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Robb
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Domenici
     Gramm
     Hatfield
  So the amendment (No. 3448) was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3450

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 3450. Who yields time? There is 1 minute reserved on each side.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Senators will 
take conversations to the Cloakroom.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will oppose the next 
amendment that will be up. Reform has been asked for in the sugar 
program, and we have brought major reform. This is of no cost to the 
taxpayers. We create stability in the market, which I think all of us 
want to see.
  I yield to my colleague from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. My colleagues, I would say the amendment of the Senator 
from New Hampshire knocks out all the reforms in the sugar program, 
which are substantial. He wants to make, I think, the program as bad as 
it possibly can be. Voting against that amendment preserves the reforms 
that are in the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this is not about reform. There is no 
reform in this package. The price of sugar will remain twice the market 
price under this bill or under the old law.
  This is an issue of whether or not the sugar program will be locked 
in for 7 years as a huge subsidy and expense for the American consumers 
to bear, or whether we are going to continue it for 2 years and come 
back and revisit the issue. We are just asking for a reasonable chance 
to revisit the issue over the next 2 years, continue the program for 2 
years, come back and take it up. So I hope the people will take a look 
at this and be willing to vote for a 2-year extension, rather than a 7-
year extension.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Members of the body that 
the yeas and nays have not been ordered on this vote.
  Mr. GREGG. 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 is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. 
Hatfield] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 61, as follows: 
  
[[Page S1040]]


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Ashcroft
     Biden
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     DeWine
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson

                                NAYS--61

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Domenici
     Gramm
     Hatfield
  So the amendment (No. 3450) was rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from North Dakota is 
next. Senators certainly on this side of the aisle have been very good 
in coming forward to talk about amendments, technical points they may 
want to have cleared. I appreciate that. I hope if anybody else does 
they would let us know as soon as possible because this is moving very 
quickly, and at some point it is going to be wrapped up.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
North Dakota is recognized.


                Amendment No. 3451 to Amendment No. 3184

    (Purpose: To require farmers to plant crops to receive Federal 
                               payments)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I 
would ask that the amendment be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Daschle, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
     Wellstone, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Exon, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
     Heflin, and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 3451 
     to amendment No. 3184.

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

       Section 103(f)(1) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) 
     and inserting the following:
       (A) the lesser of--
       (i) 85 percent of the contract acreage, or
       (ii) the contract acres planted to a contract commodity or 
     oilseeds;
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer the amendment on behalf of myself, 
Senators Daschle, Conrad, Kerrey, Harkin, Wellstone, Kohl, Exon, Pryor, 
Feingold, Heflin, and Bumpers.
  Mr. President, my understanding is there is 15 minutes on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The bill that we are now debating is called the freedom to farm bill. 
It is a bill that provides 7 years of fixed payments to farmers. Yet, 
there is no requirement in this legislation to plant a crop. All you 
need would to participate is to have some base acres and a bank 
account. You never need to plant a seed. You never need to harvest a 
crop. Yet, you would get payments under this proposal.
  You can have two farmers side by side under this proposal, one of 
whom plants a crop, harvests a crop, and works all year operating a 
family farm. That farmer gets a payment under the Freedom to Farm Act. 
The other farmer across the road does nothing, packs up, moves to 
Arizona, does not plant a crop, never plows a furrow, and never starts 
an engine. That farmer gets the same payment.
  Now, this is a farm bill. This bill is about helping farmers farm, 
not helping farmers not farm. It is a bill about helping farmers who 
want to farm. This should not be a bill about creating a payment system 
to pay people for not farming.
  My amendment amends the Freedom to Farm Act and says that payments 
under the Freedom To Farm Act will be made to farmers who plant a 
program crop, any program crop on their base acres. It provides for 
total flexibility. It simply says we will not make payments to people 
who plant nothing. You must plant a program crop on your base acres to 
be eligible for these payments.
  Some will say, well, it has been done before. We have an 0/92 program 
and an 0/85 program. The 0/92 program allows farmers to plant oilseeds 
on base acres. That is not the same at all. There is a requirement to 
plant.
  The 0/85 program is a conservation use program. Payments are made for 
putting the land into a conserving use. Not the same at all.
  The current provisions in this bill makes no sense to me at all, and 
the Senate ought to adopt this amendment. The amendment says let us 
make this a farm bill. Let us help the farmers who are planting crops 
and harvesting crops. Let us assist the work of family farmers in this 
country. But let us not pay people who do not plant and do not harvest.
  Mr. President, I have several Members who would like to speak for a 
minute. Let me yield 1 minute to Senator Harkin from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for 
this amendment. It is a commonsense amendment. This is just plain old 
common sense. Why should we be giving huge payments to people who may 
be sitting on Miami Beach.
  I have an example here, I tell my friend from North Dakota, of a 
fairly large wheat farmer in Kansas. He has 1,800 acres of wheat and 
600 acres of grain sorghum. Just take this year, wheat prices being 
what they are, sorghum prices being what they are, and let us see what 
happens to this individual this year under the present prices. What is 
he going to get this year? This farmer is going to net about $235,000. 
That is a profit. Part of his profit is a Government check for $39,768. 
That is on top of $195,000 in profit already.
  Now, unless we adopt the Dorgan amendment, he can get that payment if 
he did not plant anything at all. He could get that $39,000 if he did 
not even want to do anything.
  The Senator from North Dakota is right. If we are going to be sending 
out checks from the Government, at least we ought to expect people to 
work for it and not be able just to sit back and do nothing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. 
Kerrey.]
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chair.
  For years, the principal criticism of the farm program has been an 
inaccurate one, but it has been an effective one, that American farmers 
are being paid not to farm; converting acres is a payment not to farm; 
farmers are going to get paid for wetlands regulation, lots of other 
things.
  They are certainly not paid not to farm.
  In this program, the way it is written, the law basically says that 
the Government will calculate the number of acres that you are eligible 
for based on 4, 5 years of farming using Farm Service Office numbers.
  The Farm Service Office will then say, ``Here is what your yields 
are.'' Both of them, by the way, have built in inequities because that 
is another problem. The Government will say, ``Here is your number of 
acres, your yield, multiply your numbers and take 85 percent, then add 
all the acreage up and all those bushels up.'' It will take the total 
dollars available for that crop, divide it into the total bushels, and 
that is how many cents you will get. And you will get half your payment 
in June and half in September.
  The only three things you have to do to get the payment is the 
following: 

[[Page S1041]]
 First, comply with the conservation requirements; second, comply with 
the wetlands requirements; and, third, promise not to plant more than 
15 percent alfalfa and not to plant fruits and vegetables. Other than 
that, you do not have to promise to do anything. There will not be any 
question.
  Farmers may make a calculation, ``Maybe I would be smarter not to 
plant at all. I don't have to plant under this. I don't have to put a 
crop in and do anything other than take the Government money which they 
are offering.''
  It is a very reasonable amendment, and it seems to me it is very much 
consistent with the arguments and representations and presentations 
that advocates of freedom to farm have been making all this day.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from North Dakota, 
Senator Conrad.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, one of the most frequently heard 
criticisms of Federal farm programs is that farmers are paid not to 
farm, not to plant anything. Mr. President, that has not been the case 
under recent farm law. But if the Dorgan amendment does not pass, it 
will become the case. In fact, we will have circumstances in which 
farmers will be paid not to plant, not to farm, not to produce.
  Mr. President, I do not think there will be much support in the 
United States for a program that pays people not to do something, not 
to do anything. So I hope my colleagues will favor this amendment and 
vote for it.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let us take the situation of a farmer in 
America who has land. This is a basic asset for that farmer. Certainly, 
as common- sense rules, the farmer will plant a crop on the land or 
attempt to use the land to obtain income.
  Certainly it is conceivable that there are Americans who have 
productive assets and might decide that they simply do not want a 
return from those assets. But this is improbable. Most persons of sound 
mind and common sense who have opportunities to utilize economic 
assets, do so. And they do so continuously to make a living.
  For example, the Senator from Iowa has pointed to a potential Kansas 
farmer, maybe an actual farmer, but as I recall the instance, there 
were as many as 1,800 acres of wheat crop, and given prices, as the 
Senator pointed out, that farmer might have a return of almost $200,000 
from the markets that are very strong for wheat. The Senator also 
pointed out that a Government check for $39,000 might also come to that 
farmer under current programs.
  The suggestion was that that farmer might have the option to go to 
Hawaii and simply forget the wheat fields and collect the check for 
$39,000. That is possible as an option for that farmer, but most people 
would ask, what about the $200,000 that he normally takes off the farm?
  Mr. President, if the farmer himself is elderly, it is a very 
probable set of circumstances in America today that the farmer will 
rent the land to somebody else and share the return. In fact, that 
happens increasingly as farmers grow old. The payments follow the land. 
The probability that the land is simply going to sit there and that a 
Government check comes as an ample reward is, I think, in most cases a 
ridiculous assumption.
  There is the one case, Mr. President, we have to consider carefully, 
and that is that some farmers in America, in stretching to meet 
Government program histories for their crops, may have simply 
overreached and they may have planted on land that in fact was not very 
fertile and does not get very much return at all. There may be at the 
margin some cases where some farms, if farmed, lose money simply 
because the inputs into the farming and all the economic costs involved 
are more than the return that would come from the crop with or without 
the Government involved.
  As a matter of fact, in the Conservation Reserve Program, we have 
been attempting to work with farmers to set aside highly erodible land, 
to have that set aside as part of the program, or land that impacts 
upon riparian waterway safety. That, I thought, made good sense, Mr. 
President, in the conservation mode. Many acres probably should not 
have been planted if our heritage of the soil is to be retained.
  So farmers, in fact, have decided, as a matter once again of their 
own self-interest and given a government payment, to try to move away 
from the highly erodible lands or those that threaten waterways. But 
that is an economic decision that makes sense.

  Therefore, Mr. President, I understand the attempt of the argument to 
suggest that there are farmers who simply will escape their 
responsibilities. But my judgment as a farmer, Mr. President, is that I 
have known very few people in Indiana farming during my lifetime who, 
having a good farm there with fertile soil, did not have a crop. They 
may have planted it themselves, and they may have had children that 
worked with them. They may have had others to whom they rented the 
property, but the crop got planted because that was the living for the 
family. Those were assets that were available. And at the point when 
they did not really wish to use those productive assets anymore, they 
sold them or they gave them away to children or through an inheritance. 
That is the reality of agriculture in America.
  The freedom to farm idea comes down to the fact that we are saying to 
farmers they ought to have exactly that, freedom and flexibility to use 
their land in each and every way that would be productive and 
profitable for the farmer.
  If we once again insist that a program crop--wheat, corn, rice, 
cotton--be planted on that land for it to have value, to get a 
government payment, we are back once again into the same restrictive 
agriculture that so many of us have decried for a long time. I am one 
who rejoices that today we have a very good opportunity finally to 
break out of that mode of governmental restriction.
  Why in the world we would once again want to return to those 
principles I cannot understand. It seems to me somewhat disingenuous, 
as those who offer this amendment suggest on the one hand--and the 
Senator from North Dakota was the author of the amendment--others who 
have spoken have often pointed out very poignant cases of farmers in 
their States who have struggled against the weather and against great 
odds. But all the stories are ones of struggle. These are persons who 
understood how to farm the land. The question is, what sort of odds do 
they have to meet in order to get income?
  I have not heard very many stories from the Senator from North Dakota 
or from other Senators about their constituents who simply went to 
Hawaii on the beach and ridiculed the Federal Government and the rest 
of the taxpayers for paying them for doing nothing.
  As a matter of fact, farming is a struggle for a prohibitive majority 
of Americans who are engaged in it. It is a struggle they chose. Today 
we are about to give them greater flexibility to make certain that 
struggle is a more even one, that they really can plant whatever they 
want to. And they will plant.

  As a matter of fact, the great fear always of those who wanted 
controls and wanted to pin it down was that farmers would plant too 
much. The real secret of American agricultural debate for 60 years has 
been this latent fear that farmers, as a matter of fact, are so 
ingenious, so hard working, that if left to their own devices they 
would simply plant so much that the price of everything would decline 
precipitously.
  That was the basis of the New Deal philosophy, the burning of the 
little pigs, the plowing up of crops at the time. It was not the search 
for farmers going to Hawaii; it was a search for farmers who were too 
productive, to hold them in bounds, and to put on one restriction after 
another, which we have not lifted from them in 60 years.
  To hear the strange argument today that at the very moment of 
freedom, farmers are prepared to chuck all of this and say, ``We are 
headed to Hawaii. Send me the check,'' is not only a gratuitous insult 
to farmers, but it simply lacks any basis in fact and reality of 
anybody who is in the farming business.
  Mr. President, we are talking about the heart of the freedom-to-farm 
idea. 

[[Page S1042]]
 If you pin down what has to be planted, once again, with Government 
restrictions and say it has to be a program crop and, by golly, we have 
to see it in the ground before you receive a payment, you do, in fact, 
defeat the whole prospect of freedom to farm, and I do not want to see 
that occur.
  I think Members ought to be alert that this is that type of 
amendment. It is a killer amendment, and the instinct of going for the 
jugular with this idea of farmers on the Hawaii beaches is, I think, 
well crafted to try to give a picture of persons who are idle and who 
are trying to do in the taxpayers.
  What, in fact, we have here is a situation that came out of the 
Balanced Budget Act. It was clear that through the payments that will 
occur in a 7-year period of time and diminish in money, we know 
constantly now that the Federal Government and all the taxpayers are 
assured that farming is making a very sizable contribution to the 
deficit relief that we have all sought to a balanced budget.
  The last farm bill we passed, those of us involved in it, estimated 
it would have a cost of about $41 billion in terms of subsidies, the 
basic deficiency payment for the program crops. It turned out to be $57 
billion, and there have been many explanations as to how we could have 
been that far off.
  The freedom-to-farm bill we discuss today does not have surprises of 
that sort. The payments are known. The amounts that will be distributed 
are constant, as well as the freedom of farmers to plant abundantly to 
furnish to American consumers and to the world such abundance as we 
have never seen and such wealth as we have never observed in terms of 
our export markets and our competitive ability. That is what the 
freedom-to-farm act is about.

  I am hopeful Senators will oppose the Dorgan amendment, will retain 
the flexibility portions of this bill and the gist of freedom to farm, 
which I think is common sense and very clear to all of us.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Pryor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me and 
for my colleague from North Dakota yielding me this time.
  I have been listening to my good friend from Indiana, Senator Lugar, 
the distinguished chairman of our committee. I will just simply say to 
our distinguished friend from Indiana, Mr. President, that the Dorgan 
amendment is not a killer amendment by any stretch of the imagination. 
It is simply an effort to address what promises to become a totally 
outrageous section and provision of the freedom-to-farm act.
  We are saying in the Dorgan amendment--and I am a cosponsor--we are 
saying that farmers do not have to do anything in order to receive 
their payments. If the Senator from Indiana has a fear that farmers are 
not going to plant anything and go to Hawaii, if he says, ``Why, they 
are not going to do that,'' if he maintains that position, then he 
should accept this amendment, he should be for the Dorgan amendment, 
because the Dorgan amendment couples production with an ultimate 
payment under certain circumstances. It does not decouple as the 
freedom-to-farm act does.
  We want a defendable farm program. This is one, Mr. President, this 
particular program, this particular proposal, that I do not think we 
can ultimately defend. I have been through, I think, about four farm 
bills, and I have never seen one like this, because this is going to 
be, in my opinion, not an ordinary 5-year farm bill. It is not going to 
be a 7-year farm bill. It is going to be about a 90-day farm bill, 
because when people wake up and ``20/20'' and ``60 Minutes'' and 
everyone else becomes exposed to what we have done to agriculture and 
to the agriculture industry and the economy in this country, they are 
going to demand that the Congress go back and draft a new farm bill 
that will work.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from 
Indiana. The Senator from Arkansas apparently said, ``This isn't going 
to happen. We're not going to have people getting payments and not 
planting.'' If that is the case, why would anyone object to the 
amendment? If it is not going to happen, my amendment is something that 
ought to be accepted.
  The Senator from Indiana talked a lot about the flexibility, freedom 
to farm offers in planting. He seemed to suggest somehow I was going to 
offer something that had a different kind of standard for flexibility 
than he and others propose. That is not the case. They, of course, do 
not propose complete flexibility. You cannot plant fruits and 
vegetables on base acres. I understand that.
  I support the flexibility they are talking about. I provide the 
exact, same flexibility in this amendment. All I am saying is that you 
are not going to receive a payment for doing nothing. This is a farm 
program. Our interest is in helping family farmers farm.
  The interesting thing about farming is you have to figure out what 
your input costs might be in order to determine what your profit might 
be and estimate what the price might be, because that is a factor of 
profit.
  One can foresee circumstances in which some people will say, ``As far 
as I'm concerned, I would like to move someplace else and get the 
payments at this point because the input cost is too high, the price 
risk is too great. I think I will take the payment and let the land 
sit.''
  I come from a town of 300. That town exists because all around you 
can also see farmyard lights on at night. They are family farms 
operating and doing business in town. Every time one of these yard 
lights is turned off as we lose a farm, it kills a little bit of the 
economic vitality of that town.
  I am not interested in advancing farm bills to pay people not to 
farm. I am not interested in advancing any farm bills that move in the 
direction of more stringent requirements.
  I am interested in advancing farm bills that do provide for greater 
flexibility, but not a flexibility that says we want to make Government 
payments for people who do not start a tractor in the spring and do not 
drive a combine in the fall, do not plant and do not harvest and are 
not farming. What kind of sense is that? I wish the Senator would 
accept this.
  I notice he was able to suppress a grin when he said this was a 
killer amendment. I appreciate the fact he did not grin on that because 
this is not a killer amendment at all, nothing close to it. It is a 
simple proposition, and the proposition is this: Let us decide what we 
are going to accomplish in this freedom-to-farm act. Let us provide a 
series of payments to assist family farmers who are farming. Let us not 
advance into the future with a backward-looking approach that pays 
farmers who have not planted a single seed. That is not what farmers 
want. That is not the help they need. That will not advance the 
interests of rural America or family farmers.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. I prefer to close debate. If the Senator from Indiana has 
other speakers or wishes to add anything, I reserve my time at this 
point.
  Mr. LUGAR. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, without being tedious, I just simply reiterate the 
fact that a farm that is fertile is going to be planted. It is going to 
be planted by the farmer and by his children or family, by those 
associates he rents to. What the Dorgan amendment finally gets to, once 
again, is almost an insatiable desire on the part of those who want 
control over what is planted and, therefore, want a relationship 
between program crops and payments.
  We have been down that trail. We are trying very hard to get off that 
trail today. I will just simply say, in my judgment, the great fear of 
those who have been in supply controls throughout this time of the New 
Deal onward has been a fear of planting too much.
  It is a strange argument today to argue that somehow farmers would 
plant too little or nothing at all. They simply will not utilize rich 
resources. 

[[Page S1043]]
 But given even the hard case, Mr. President, there may be some 
instances in which there should not be a crop planted if the land is 
highly erodible, if conservation dictates that it simply should not 
occur. That maybe becomes an option that is both rational and good in 
terms of the public good. In other words, there is no particular virtue 
in proceeding with planting a program crop when it is not economical to 
do so and when it might be destructive in terms of the environment. In 
almost every other instance, a crop is going to be planted.
  The question we have today is: Will farmers be able to have maximum 
flexibility of choice as to what to do? Or, once again, will we be back 
into the toils of supply control, of Government control, tied with 
those decisions and checks from the Federal Government?
  This is a transition program, Mr. President, a transition to the 
market. The transition is known to farmers as they enter into those 
programs, and farmers are perfectly free not to enter into contracts. 
That is also an option that is greatly feared by those who want control 
because many farmers might simply decide that the time has really come 
to plant for the market, as opposed to the Federal Government, with 
transition payments or without.
  Those choices we shall see before us, Mr. President. But for the 
moment, it appears to me that this is a clear-cut issue in terms of 
freedom to farm. I hope that the Dorgan amendment will be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we have no other speakers on our side. I 
yield back that time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, whatever amendment the Senator from 
Indiana was opposing, I would like to oppose it as well. The fact is I 
would not support an amendment that goes back to supply control, or the 
old programs that go back to Government control over planting, et 
cetera. So whatever amendment that was he was describing, sign me up, I 
am against that as well. But, that is not the amendment at the desk.
  My amendment cannot, in any way, under any condition, by anybody in 
this Chamber, be described as an amendment going back to the old supply 
control days or to requiring planting restrictions. This amendment 
simply says that we are not going to pay people who do not plant a seed 
in the ground and do not plant a crop and do not farm. If, in fact, it 
is not going to happen that people will decide not to plant but accept 
the payment--if that is the case and it is not going to happen, and the 
distinguished Senator from Indiana has made that point twice--then 
there would be no reason not to accept this amendment. But, of course, 
it is going to happen.
  The Senator from Indiana says it is not going to happen, but then 
adds it may happen because of conservation reasons. Maybe some land 
would be put into a conservation use. For that we have a conservation 
program called CRP. Millions of acres are in the CRP.
  This bill was not alleged to be a conservation program on the Senate 
floor. It is a 7-year program of fixed payments to farmers. We are 
simply saying, ``Let us not include in any 7-year program of fixed 
payments a provision that farmers should be able to plant nothing and 
harvest nothing and still get farm program payments.'' That is not 
moving into the future. That is not part of a new idea. That is not 
part of new great freedoms. That does not eliminate planting 
restrictions.
  I have great respect for the Senator from Indiana. He is one of the 
most able people serving in this body. But I hope that he and others 
will really think through this process. They should ask themselves a 
question. Do we want--no matter what program passes in the Senate--a 
program that says to farmers across this land, ``If you choose to 
decide that you do not want to plant anything, you get a payment. If 
you want to move away from your small town and live elsewhere, you get 
a payment. When you put your farm numbers together and you determine 
you have risk with the marketplace and then you decide you are not 
going to farm, you are still going to get that payment.'' I think we 
make a big mistake if we do that. I hope people will think through this 
amendment and vote for this amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the Dorgan amendment be 
temporarily laid aside.
  Mr. DORGAN. Has that been cleared on both sides? What is the order 
with respect to votes?
  Mr. LUGAR. I respond that this is being discussed by the leadership. 
My impression is that there are other significant amendments, the 
Senator's amendment being one of these. Others are to be offered. The 
leadership is attempting to determine whether they should be voted upon 
at the end of the trail today, moving into final passage, or whether 
there will be a burst of rollcall votes at some point after we gauge 
how many amendments are still there.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding 
that after the first group of votes, we were going to then entertain 
whatever amendments were offered and have votes sequentially. I know 
that the minority leader intends to offer a rather comprehensive 
substitute, and we certainly would want to have a vote on that by 
itself following debate. I wondered whether the minority leader has 
been consulted on the unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. LUGAR. He has been consulted by the majority leader. My 
understanding is that they are trying to discuss a way of handling 
these votes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I might tell my colleague from North 
Dakota, we are trying to have the first group of votes--as the Senator 
from North Dakota may know, we were able to dispose of a number of 
items when we had so many Senators on the floor, unanimous consent 
items. I believe the leadership is trying to package some others 
together. Obviously, any Senator, by objecting to unanimous consent, 
could have a vote after the debate, which, of course, would protect the 
distinguished Democratic leader. If I might have the attention of the 
Senator.

  Mr. DORGAN. I withdraw my reservation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Obviously, the Democratic leader would be protected on the 
time for a vote on his amendment. I would ensure that he was protected 
because, absent unanimous consent, a vote would come when his time was 
completed. But I think the distinguished leaders on both sides have 
been trying to work on the schedule, knowing that every Senator is 
protected at the time of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request to lay the 
amendment aside?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3452 to Amendment No. 3184

   (Purpose: To amend the commodity payment provisions and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself, 
     Mr. Pryor, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dorgan, 
     Mr. Heflin, Mr. Exon, Mr. Breaux, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Baucus, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3452 to amendment No. 3184.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the amendment I offer this afternoon 
represents what I hope will be a consensus here about farm policy and 
the direction we take in agriculture for the next 7 years.
  We seek many of the same things, Republicans and Democrats.
  We want to ensure that we protect rural America to the extent we can. 


[[Page S1044]]
 Democrats believe protecting rural America means ensuring it will 
provide a safety net for farmers in the difficult times, when prices 
are low, when crops are poor. We want to provide the maximum degree of 
flexibility, giving farmers a chance to plant what they want, to 
recognize the market changes, and to ensure they can respond to those 
changes as quickly and efficiently and successfully as possible. We 
want to simplify the complex programs that exist today, making them 
easier to administer, reducing the administrative intensity and the 
frustration levels of farmers themselves. Finally, we want to guarantee 
that farm programs do not end when this legislation expires.
  That is the purpose of the amendment I offer this afternoon. I do so 
with the recognition that we have many very diverse elements within our 
caucus and within the Senate. In spite of that diversity, we have 
Senators from the South and the West, the East and the North who have 
cosponsored this legislation with me this afternoon. I am very 
disappointed, frankly, that it has come to this, that we have not been 
able to work, as we have on so many occasions in the past, to come up 
with farm policy that is much more bipartisan than this has been so 
far.
  Unfortunately, as a result, we do not have a comprehensive bill 
before us today. We have a very narrow budget bill that fails to 
address many of the very legitimate concerns of rural America. While 
the underlying legislation provides for the freedom to farm approach, 
this amendment will address what we view to be many of the 
shortcomings, many of those areas that in our view fall short of what 
we need to do to address in a comprehensive way farm legislation for 
the next 7 years.
  The amendment does a number of things, Mr. President, that I believe 
are supported by a vast majority of our caucus and hopefully by a 
majority of the Senate. We provide, as I said, the maximum degree of 
flexibility. The whole farm base is provided with restrictions only on 
fruits, vegetables and potatoes.
  There is no acreage reduction whatsoever.
  We retain permanent law, reinstating the Agricultural Act of 1949 at 
the expiration of the so-called freedom to farm act.
  We establish permanent law for rice at the 1995 levels.
  We set out a 3-year farm program instead of a 7-year program, only 
because we really do not know what the circumstances are going to be in 
3 years. We do not know what the market conditions are going to be. We 
do not know how far short this legislation will fall in a whole range 
of areas. Rather than simply commit to 7 years and hope for the best, 
this legislation says we should take a hard look at where we are in 3 
years, make whatever adaptations we have to make, and make sure we have 
covered all of our bases so we are not left high and dry in 3 years 
without the protection that permanent law provides.
  We remove the caps on loan rates contained in the freedom to farm 
act. We remove the Findley and stocks-to-use triggers, and set loan 
rates for wheat, feedgrains, oilseeds and rice at 90 percent of the 
Olympic average. We limit county adjustments to 3 percent.
  There is an advance deficiency payment with no repayment necessary. 
That advance payment is 20 cents per bushel for corn, 43 cents for 
wheat, 4.9 cents per pound for cotton and 1.54 per hundredweight for 
rice.
  The remaining payment is tied to production and market conditions, 
the market conditions dictating the degree to which we have an 
additional payment. This is not a locked-in, 100 percent guarantee to 
those who own land, whether they farm or not. This is not one of those 
commitments to corporate agriculture that, indeed, they are entitled to 
under freedom to farm without any requirement that they farm at all, 
which is obviously the subject of the Dorgan amendment.
  We restore the farmer-owned reserve.
  We restore the Emergency Livestock Feed Program.
  We eliminate the Commodity Credit Corporation interest rate increase 
as Senator Harkin attempted to do.
  We eliminate the prohibition of Commodity Credit Corporation funds.
  We reduce the EQIP herd size eligibility to EPA point source numbers.
  We allow enrollment in the Water Conservation Program and create a 
Farmland Protection Act to protect against urban sprawl.
  We create a conservation escrow account.
  We include a sense of the Senate provision on methyl bromide, 
encouraging Federal coordination on this issue, something we have to do 
ultimately in California if we are going to deal with this issue 
effectively.
  We reauthorize the Integrated Farm Management Program.
  We provide tenant protection regarding the freedom-to-farm contracts.
  We provide assistance to protect the Everglades.
  Mr. President, in essence, this amendment is a comprehensive farm 
bill. This is what we should have done. This is legislation addressing 
virtually every concern that farmers and others throughout the country 
have raised--many of which go unaddressed in the so-called freedom-to-
farm act.
  I have a large number of people who have asked to be heard on the 
bill and, to protect our time, I will reserve the balance of our time, 
yielding first 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, a few months ago a number of us went to 
the White House to meet with President Clinton. Senator Daschle was 
among them. We brought some farmers from North Dakota and South Dakota 
to talk to the President about the farm program and what they were 
experiencing day-to-day on their farms.
  One of them from North Dakota was Deb Lundgren. She and her husband 
and her children operate a family farm near Kulm, ND. They are third 
generation farmers, trying to run their family farm.
  When I called Deb and asked her to come to Washington for a meeting 
with the President she said, ``It is really a coincidence you called. 
Yesterday morning,'' she said, ``my husband and I were having kind of a 
tearful conversation over the breakfast table about whether we would be 
able to continue farming next year.''
  She came to the White House and told a compelling story to the 
President about the struggle that it takes to operate a family farm 
with uncertain prices, uncertainty about whether you get a crop. They 
had a wet year last year and did not have much of a crop. Prices are 
up, but it does not mean much if you didn't raise a crop.
  At the conclusion of the meeting, the President said to Deb, ``You 
hang in there. We will try to fight for a farm program that really 
works for family farmers.''
  That is the only reason I care about this. If this farm program is 
not about trying to help preserve a network of family farms in this 
country, in my judgment we do not need a farm program and we do not 
need a USDA. Go back to the Abe Lincoln days, when he started the USDA 
with nine employees.
  If we are not going to save family farms, if we are not going to give 
families a chance to farm in this country's future, we do not need any 
of this. If we need this, and I think we do, it is to try to help 
families make a living out on the farm with uncertain prices and 
uncertainty about whether you can even get a crop.
  What Senator Daschle had offered is a good compromise. Many of us 
have worked on it for some long time. It is not the freedom-to-farm 
act. It does not provide payments for people who do not plant. It is 
sensitive to the market. It says when prices collapse, and they will, 
there will be a safety net there and we will respond to the issues of 
the market. We are not going to yank the safety net out from under 
family-sized farms. It says there is a need for permanent farm law.
  Farm commodity prices go up and they go down. When they go down, the 
big agrifactories can survive because they have the financial 
capability of surviving. It is the mom and pop out there trying to run 
a family farm that can fail.

  Some people say that does not matter very much. I suppose to some it 
does not. The only reason we ought to fight for a farm program on the 
floor of this Senate is to save farm families like Deb Lundgren and her 
husband and so many others, who are out there every single day trying 
to make a living. We can do it if we do it the right way.
  This alternative is the right alternative. It provides complete 
planting 

[[Page S1045]]
flexibility. It provides up-front payments to help recapitalize family 
farms. It does all of the right things and is immensely better in terms 
of farm policy than the freedom-to-farm bill.
  I am pleased to support this, and I hope my colleagues will. I hope 
we can adopt this substitute.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, very generally, the amendment offered by 
the Senator from South Dakota is an amendment to improve upon the bill 
before us. Improvement is necessary in order to provide some kind of 
certainty so farmers know in the future--when prices are not as high as 
they are now--that there is some stability, some certainty. Improvement 
is necessary so farmers can continue to farm, continue to pay the bills 
and make payments on the equipment and fertilizer. In short, so they 
can stay in business.
  We know that today prices of wheat are higher than they have been in 
many years. It is the same for most other commodities. So this 
amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota accomplishes several 
objectives, all of which I strongly support. One of them, the main one, 
the main philosophy and rationale, is more stability, particularly in 
those years--we know it is going to come--when prices are going to be 
low.
  One provision which is also important is improving the marketing loan 
mechanism, to increase the loan rate from 85 percent of the 5-year 
average to a level of 90 percent. That is very important, particularly 
in years of low prices.
  The amendment also eliminates the mechanisms by which the Secretary 
can reduce the loan rate. The so-called Findley amendment and the 
stocks-to-use adjustment are both eliminated. The amendment also 
removes the arbitrary caps on loan rates which are contained in the 
bill. These caps serve to render loan rates lower at those times when 
the loans are most useful to producers--times when prices are low.
  Again, with this amendment there is a little bit more stability, a 
little more certainty at those times when we know prices are going to 
fall. That is one of the main reasons I support this pending amendment.
  Another is to change the crop insurance. Back in 1994, the crop 
insurance reform package imposed requirements that producers purchase 
catastrophic crop insurance coverage in order to participate in the 
farm program. Basically I think it had some benefits, though I would 
have preferred to fix certain problems. But the pending bill totally 
eliminates that requirement. What is the effect? The effect of 
eliminating mandatory coverage. And that basically seals the fate of 
the Federal Crop Insurance Program because we will have fewer farmers 
participating. For the crop insurance program to work, more farmers 
have to participate. That is basically the theory of insurance. The 
more everybody is involved, the more insurance works. The provisions in 
this bill are going to end that linkage between insurance purchase and 
farm program participation.
  I expect that fewer producers are going to participate in the crop 
insurance program. That means the crop insurance program will be at 
greater risk. It should be modified, but it should not be eliminated.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge Senators to think down the road a 
little bit. Think of the years when prices are going to be lower. Let 
us improve this bill by taking care of those situations when prices 
will be lower and we will have a little more stability and a little 
more certainty.
  Mr. President, I thank our Democratic leader for so aggressively and 
effectively working to help improve this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Montana for his 
eloquence and the tremendous effort he has demonstrated in putting this 
comprehensive package together. His effort and his leadership are 
deeply appreciated.
  Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I remind the Democratic leader he has 1 minute 
50 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will use my leader time as I may require. From that 
time I will yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, as a Member of the U.S. Senate, it is so 
remarkably easy from time to time to do something. This is one of those 
times. This is a time when it is going to be very easy to say to 
farmers across our country that you do not have to plant to have a 
check. You are going to get a check in advance. You can go on vacation, 
you can get your check from the taxpayers. This is one of those times 
when I think we are about to make the terrible mistake, a terrible 
compass error, trying to do something that is easy when actually we 
should be doing something that is responsible.
  Many of the farm organizations have come out now in support of the 
concept of the freedom-to-farm movement. The freedom-to-farm 
legislation has received the support, in the last several days and 
hours, of many of the groups that have opposed it. But, Mr. President, 
that does not mean this is a piece of legislation without flaw. It is 
seriously flawed. It was a seriously flawed piece of legislation when 
it was introduced. It is seriously flawed today as we go to a vote with 
a very short time to debate it.
  I applaud the Democratic leader for offering us an opportunity, 
offering us a chance to save ourselves from making an enormous mistake 
that could affect agriculture and affect our country for generations to 
come.
  This is a measure offered by the distinguished Democratic leader and 
others of his colleagues who say that we want to keep a basic safety 
net. We want to keep flexibility, but we do not want to decouple those 
payments from production. We need to couple those payments with 
production. We need to say to the farm sector in our country: Let us 
slow this down just a moment. We know there is no farm program. But is 
it better to have a bad farm program than no farm program at all for 
the moment?
  I think the Daschle alternative--very respectfully, I think his 
alternative gives us that opportunity and that chance to speak to the 
future of American agriculture. One, it does not tie us for 7 years. It 
only obligates us and this Congress and the American farmer for a 
period of 3 years. In that 3-year period, hopefully we will have sorted 
out where we are and we will have the opportunity to revisit this 
issue.
  The Senator from South Dakota has offered us a very good, 
constructive option. I hope we will heed his wisdom.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may 
require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the amendment by the distinguished 
Democratic leader is a comprehensive plan. Earlier in our debate, in 
fact yesterday, as we talked about agriculture, the distinguished 
majority leader, Senator Dole, offered, at least as one way of trying 
to resolve our agricultural legislation this year, the thought that as 
Republicans we would offer our plan. It is called freedom to farm. It 
is the plan I laid down and has been amended. We have been debating it 
throughout the day.
  The majority leader challenged Democrats to offer a plan, and the 
Democratic leader has done so. It is a very different plan, and Members 
will need to make choices as we finally come to votes on that plan. Let 
me just say Members ought to understand that the plan offered by the 
distinguished Democratic leader has expenses attached to it that are 
fairly substantial.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates for increased spending on 
the loan rates amount to $7.6 billion over the life of his bill. That 
is a very substantial sum. Earlier in the day, I criticized amendments 
by the distinguished Senator from Iowa because they had expenditure 
increases of $260 million and $100 million respectively. I commented, 
and I think most Senators agree, that we are still attempting to work 
toward a balanced budget in this country. The agriculture legislation 
is a part of that, and the freedom-to-farm 

[[Page S1046]]
bill that I am advocating today carefully calibrates those decisions in 
terms of sacrifice that agriculture must make.
  The distinguished Democratic leader's idea is to provide, I gather, 
higher income through rather startling change in the loan rate picture, 
and a very expensive one--$7.6 billion more. I think Senators and 
taxpayers need to understand that is a transfer payment once again to 
farmers who might qualify for those loans.
  Let me just suggest, Mr. President, that as we have heard recitation 
of stories about farmers struggling--and, indeed, the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota mentioned the story of a lady attending a 
White House conference, as I gather, indicating the struggle that she 
had--those struggles are well-known, and I have been pointing them out 
throughout the opportunities I have had today.
  The freedom-to-farm act provides stability. It provides, despite 
criticism of some Senators, a payment each year. That is almost as 
certain as you can make it, if a contract is signed. It provides 
freedom to farm, but it also provides certainty of income.
  Whatever might be said about current farm law and its extension, it 
does not provide a very great deal of certainty. I can testify to that 
from my own experience managing my own farm property from 1956 until 
the present. I have been involved at the ASCS office throughout that 
period of time. I am very familiar with the corn program and the wheat 
program, and I would simply say if I were a thoughtful person relying 
upon the type of security provided by those programs, I would have 
great fears all the time.
  Obviously, each farmer plants for the market, and does the best that 
he or she can to maximize income. But let me just say, Mr. President, 
in the freedom-to-farm act that we have taken seriously the thought 
that we are in transition in the world. We may have a broad swing, as 
Senators pointed out, at prices, but those certainly will be mitigated 
by the certainty of income. It would appear to me that all farmers who 
are looking for, as has been characterized today, some certainty and 
some stability would clearly find freedom-to-farm to be a superior 
alternative on those grounds alone.

  Freedom to farm is also superior, as I have pointed out, on the basis 
of budget, on the basis of taxpayer expense, and transfer payments of 
other citizens to the farm communities.
  Mr. President, freedom to farm also offers more certainty because it 
is a 7-year program, not a 3-year program as suggested by the 
distinguished Democratic leader. There is great stability in having a 
multiyear program. This is why, at least in the last two instances, we 
have tried for as long as a 5-year period of time, and most farmers 
have found that to be a very satisfactory idea.
  Mr. President, I will not attempt to go through each of the details 
of the Democratic leader's program. I am hearing it and seeing it on 
first impression today, as are most Senators, although many elements of 
the program are familiar from arguments we have had before. For 
example, earlier in the day the Senate rejected the farmer-owned 
reserve, as I heard--at least the recitation a short while ago that 
reappears. Likewise, we rejected the thought that farmers ought to be 
subsidized with lower CCC interest rates, although, as I recall, I 
think that reappears in the comprehensive package.
  In short, there are reappearances of many elements that have been 
found very unsatisfactory in terms of farm policy by farmers quite 
apart from the rest of the general public. Indeed, the Democratic 
leader's bill is a collection of many programs that have had a high 
degree of failure and lack of confidence, and even a combination of 
them and with more money injected will not remedy that situation.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that Senators will affirm the freedom to 
farm idea and the elements that have been discussed now during this 
debate, and reject the alternative proposal of the Democratic leader.
  There is a choice to be made today. I think the choice is a very 
clear one. And I am most hope hopeful that Senators will support 
freedom to farm.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes of my leader time to 
the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the leader, and I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this has been a difficult and contentious debate, one 
that has gone on now since 1995 to 1996. We stand on a precipice. The 
question is: What direction will we take? I very much fear that the so-
called freedom-to-farm formulation will take literally hundreds of 
thousands of farmers right over the cliff. I believe that to be the 
case because this is a radical change in farm policy. It says we are 
going to make fixed and declining payments to farmers over a 7-year 
period and no one knows what comes next.
  Mr. President, it does not provide the kind of price support in a 
low-price year that is critically important to preventing the loss of 
literally tens of thousands of family farmers. That is right at the 
heart of this question and this debate. Do we say to farmers, We make a 
payment to you even when prices are good, but there is no price 
protection when prices fall through the floor, no additional price 
protection? Mr. President, I think that is a profound mistake.
  I think we have an opportunity to take the best of the various 
proposals that are on the table and to have a plan that provides some 
fixed payments up front to help farmers with cash flow, to especially 
help them with the repayment of advanced deficiency payments from last 
year, but to also put into law another form of payment that takes note 
of reduction in prices and reduction in yield. That is what the 
alternative does that is before us.
  Mr. President, for decades we have sought to protect farmers, to 
buffer farmers from dramatic swings in commodity prices. Under the 
Republican plan, the farmers are left swinging. Farmers will no longer 
be protected in low price years. The safety net on which farmers have 
relied will be torn. I do not think that is good policy. I do not think 
it makes sense. I believe it will generate opposition to any future 
farm programs.

  Mr. President, our plan offers a combination of the guaranteed 
payment up front and price protection and protection against yields 
that are reduced as a result of natural disaster. Our plan is a 
compromise. Our plan is a compromise which I think many on both sides 
of the aisle could accept. It also is something that I think can stand 
the test of time.
  One of the great problems we have here is passing policies that can 
be sustained. The pure freedom-to-farm policy is not one, in my 
judgment, that will stand the test of time.
  According to North Dakota State University, net farm income in North 
Dakota under the pure freedom-to-farm will drop 50 percent from the 
year 1995 to 2001.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 4 minutes have expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds of additional time to 
the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will just conclude with an example. I 
have looked at a typical North Dakota farm with about 1,000 acres of 
wheat under normal production swings in the Congressional Budget 
Office's expected price projections for 1996 to 2002. This typical farm 
will receive 43 percent less under freedom-to-farm than under our plan; 
$22,000 under the Family Farm Protection Act, and $15,000 under freedom 
to farm.
  Our plan stands behind the farmers and beside the farmers. Their plan 
steps aside.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished chairman 
for his kindness. He has agreed to allow us the use of 2 of his 
minutes. As I understand it, I have 4 minutes of leader time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes and 10 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arkansas 
have 3 minutes and the Senator from Nebraska have 3 minutes to complete 
our side of the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 
  
[[Page S1047]]

  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the reason I strongly favor this 
substitute is because it salvages rice markets. Under the freedom-to-
farm bill, payments start out big, peak in the third year, and they go 
down after that. Right now, cotton, wheat, and corn, three of the big 
program crops in this country, are all bringing more than the target 
price, which means under existing law those programs would not cost us 
anything if those prices hold up through the rest of the year.
  That is not true of rice. And I am not optimistic that rice will 
achieve anything like, say, $9.50 to $10 a hundredweight any time in 
the foreseeable future. And so what is going to happen under the 
freedom-to-farm act? Rice farmers are going to be producing rice for 
about $3 a bushel, if current prices stay up, $3.50, and they cannot do 
it. They cannot stay in business. So everybody is being lured with this 
siren song about how much money we are going to pay you on the front 
end, and then it is over.
  Now, the Democratic alternative program at least is a 3-year program, 
provides for a 40-percent advance, and will at least give rice farmers 
a chance to produce and stay in business. Under the freedom-to-farm 
bill, they will stay in business the first 3 or 4 years--unless public 
clamour forces the entire program to a quick termination, but after 
that they are going to start dropping like flies.
  I am not absolutely rhapsodic about this substitute. I do not have 
any delusions about it passing. But I wanted to vote for something so 
they can put on my epitaph that I was violently opposed to the freedom-
to-farm bill because I think it is one of the worst disasters this 
country is going to face.
  We did not put in place the existing law just on a whim. We did it 
because we thought it was a good balance between the taxpayers and the 
farmers. It is a good balance, and it is working. It is working 
extremely well. You could not pick a worse time to do away with today's 
program. On the other hand, if you wanted to do away with farm 
programs, with today's high prices for most commodities, a time when 
farmers know that they don't need immediate assistance from Federal 
farm programs, you couldn't find a better time or a darker night in 
which to do it. This substitute retains the requirements of actually 
farming in order to participate in farm programs. This may seem like a 
trivial requirement, but it does not exist at all in the freedom-to-
farm bill. This substitute continues to provide a true safety net for 
farmers during periods of market collapse. This substitute will protect 
farmers when they need it and it does not offer them a golden parachute 
to the tropics.

  Farming is hard work, and this substitute works with farmers. Anyone 
who looks closely at our proposal will learn it has some good features. 
And most importantly, it is infinitely better than what we have before 
us in the form of freedom to farm.
  I thank the Democratic leader for yielding to me.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Democratic 
alternative introduced by the Democratic leader.
  The farm bill situation has become so convoluted it is difficult to 
know where to begin. We face an unprecedented situation. Not since the 
1950's has the Congress failed to enact a farm bill in a timely 
fashion. This predicament is a poor reflection on the 104th Congress.
  Is it any wonder that this year's farm bill debate has sunk so low? 
Not at all. The bill before us, the so-called freedom-to-farm bill, was 
never considered by the Senate Agriculture Committee. In the House of 
Representatives, Republican leadership bypassed the Agriculture 
Committee altogether after it failed there. Through a bit of 
parliamentary magic, the measure was routed through the House Rules 
Committee and then ramrodded into the budget bill with little 
opportunity for debate or amendment.
  Throughout history, farm programs have had two essential purposes: to 
smooth out devastating price fluctuations, and to provide a reasonable 
safety net for family farmers. These are still worthy goals and should 
be the subject of debate.
  Unfortunately, the freedom-to-farm bill on both counts fails and 
essentially turns farm programs into welfare programs. It destroys the 
essential and the traditional connection between the market price and 
farm payments.
  In short, freedom-to-farm promises fixed transition payments, based 
on historic production levels which decline over time. These payments 
will be made regardless of market prices, as the Senator from Arkansas 
has just indicated. In other words, they are entirely divorced. That 
approach is not market oriented. It is market ignorant.
  Some have been led to believe this might be a fair tradeoff; money up 
front in return for total elimination of farm programs as originally 
drafted. Now, in a clever but meaningless gesture, in my view, it has 
been agreed to delete the elimination of the 1949 act. That sounds 
great, but does anyone believe we would ever agree to $700 wheat and 
$500 corn?

  The National Center for Agricultural Law Research and Information has 
studied the fine print of the freedom to farm act and concludes that 
the payments ``* * * are not guaranteed for the life of the Freedom to 
Farm legislation.'' Other legal experts agree. Simply put, this so-
called 7-year contract would be just as vulnerable as any other Federal 
program.
  Where would that leave farmers? They will get the short end of the 
stick. Future budget negotiators will be hard pressed to defend 
excessive freedom-to-farm transition payments when dramatic cuts are 
being made elsewhere.
  What we need is a farm bill that provides greater flexibility, one 
that preserves a basic safety net, one that protects family farmers, 
and one that taxpayers can support.
  I strongly urge acceptance of the alternative offered by the Senator 
from South Dakota.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes and 20 seconds.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I see no other speakers on our side. 
Therefore, I will summarize the case for freedom to farm which, as a 
matter of fact, is going to mean much greater flexibility and freedom 
to farmers and provide really the greatest degree of safety over a 7-
year period of time.
  Senators on the other side of the aisle supporting the distinguished 
Democratic leader's bill have talked about certainty and stability, 
about the fact that farmers could go out of business in large numbers 
in the rice business or in other commodities that have been mentioned. 
There always is that danger, and this is one reason why the legislation 
has occurred.
  I simply say, Mr. President, if the desire is for security, freedom 
to farm is by far the preferable option simply because it does have a 
certain payment for 7 years. The Democratic leader's program is based 
upon current farm policy and lasts for 3 years, and, as I have pointed 
out, from my own experience even if there is a loan rate there or even 
if there are target prices and deficiency payments that come when 
market prices are lower, these are uncertain in volume. They are no 
more likely to provide stability or certainty that a farmer will stay 
in business.
  Mr. President, we are on the threshold, in my judgment, of an 
unprecedented period in American farm history dictated largely by our 
success in export markets. In this particular year, the Chinese turn of 
events, that is, their move to import as opposed to export, has turned 
around prices, as Senators have pointed out on both sides of the aisle, 
remarkably high prices for wheat and corn and soybeans. Other factors 
have led to very high prices for cotton during this market year.
  Senators have pointed out, given the fact that market prices are well 
above the target prices, there is a case to be made that there is no 
Government payment at all under those circumstances. This leads to some 
question as to where the 40-percent payment would come from, for 
example, in a year such as this. 

[[Page S1048]]

  Would USDA ignore all the market signals, ignore the facts, even if 
we were looking toward the year we are about to plant, in which a 
farmer could sell a contract, a futures contract for corn at least 25 
cents above the target price? You can do that now. Where is the advance 
deficiency payment in that situation? Any honest observer of the scene 
would say there is no deficiency payment. It is 40 percent of zero. 
Where the new stability and certainty comes for farmers from that 
calculation, I fail to see.
  We are so mired in our thoughts about the past that we are unable to 
take a look at what is presently ahead of us. In fact, the crop year we 
have just had, the one we are about to have, and about to have after 
that--to stretch my argument a little farther--you can take a look at 
the futures market and sell your crop for the year after this one and 
still get a certain price above the target price for corn.
  It has been some time since that was possible. But those are the 
realities now. Where is the advance deficiency payment in years 1 or 2, 
if you take an honest look really at markets at this point?
  What we are saying, those of us advocating this legislation today, 
freedom to farm, is that obviously what goes up can come down. In the 
3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th year there might be great uncertainty. And if 
there is, there is a certain payment, and you still keep your eyes on 
the market. That is the best course for agricultural producers, those 
commodities that there is demand for, and to decouple this from the 
necessity to plant a certain thing to produce a history or to produce a 
payment.
  So, Mr. President, I oppose the distinguished Democratic leader's 
idea. He has risen to the challenge of offering an alternative, but it 
is not a superior one. The freedom-to-farm bill we have before us, in 
my judgment, is our best bet. I hope it will have a standing success in 
final passage and, meanwhile, that we defeat the Daschle amendment.
  Mr. President, I see no further debaters on our side. Therefore, I 
yield back all time on our side on this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent, in the presence of the distinguished 
Democratic leader, that the amendment be temporarily laid aside, as we 
have pending negotiations on when votes will come.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I just say that if we are going to 
complete our work by 4:45, we will have to begin voting, by my 
calculation, at 3:35. So if there are additional amendments to be 
offered, we have less than a half-hour to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I second the advice of the distinguished 
Democratic leader and hope that those who still have something to say 
will come promptly. I will try to expedite the process.


                Amendment No. 3453 to Amendment No. 3184

(Purpose: Require the Department of Agriculture to allow private sector 
                   to develop farm management plans)

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Kempthorne and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Kempthorne, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3453 to amendment No. 3184.

  Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At page 3-25 after line 8 and before line 9 insert the 
     following paragraph so that beginning at line 9 the bill 
     reads:
       ``(8) Notwithstanding any provision of law, the Secretary 
     shall ensure that the process of writing, developing, and 
     assisting in the implementation of plans required in the 
     programs established under this title be open to individuals 
     in agribusiness including but not limited to agricultural 
     producers, representatives from agricultural cooperatives, 
     agricultural input retail dealers, and certified crop 
     advisers. This process shall be included in but not limited 
     to programs and plans established under this title and any 
     other Department program using incentive, technical 
     assistance, cost-share or pilot project programs that require 
     plans.''

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to comment on my 
amendment to the bill now before us. S. 1541 proposes significant 
change to our national farm policy, with the goal of bringing our 
Nation's farmers into a healthy market environment. This amendment will 
facilitate that transition.
  Farmers in my State and across the country participate in numerous 
conservation efforts. These include federally directed programs 
including conservation compliance requirements of farm program, and 
voluntary programs like the Conservation Reserve Program and the 
Wetlands Reserve Program.
  The success of these programs is due in large part to a strong 
relationship with the private sector and agribusiness farm management 
planners and advisors. These advisors are members of the community, 
they live and work on a day to day basis with farmers. These advisors 
are qualified with the latest agronomic, conservation technological and 
farm planning techniques.
  Mr. President, it would be a shame if we did not ensure that farmers 
could tap into this resource as they strive to develop the best 
conservation plan possible for their farmland. This amendment ensures 
that farmers have the not only the freedom to farm, but to farm wisely 
by allowing them the broadest possible source of technical information 
and support.
  This is particularly important because this bill proposing expanding 
the criteria for conservation plans from soil erosion control to 
include such goals as wildlife management and water quality control.
  The idea behind the amendment is to cement the private-public 
partnership which already exists. We cannot kid ourselves--Federal 
resources to provide technical assistance to farmers are going to 
continue to be limited. This amendment would assure that farmers have a 
strong local resource to supplement the efforts of the Extension 
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the amendment I offer on behalf of the 
distinguished Senator from Idaho would ensure that farmers have not 
only the freedom to farm, but the freedom to farm wisely. The amendment 
makes sure that farmers can go to the sources they need, including 
agribusiness experts, to develop management plans for their farms to 
meet Federal conservation requirements.
  My understanding is that this amendment has been agreed to on both 
sides.
  Mr. LEAHY. We have no objection, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Idaho.
  The amendment (No. 3453) was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just for a few moments while we are 
waiting, I thought I might think out loud with a few reflections about 
this farm bill.
  I said to my colleague from Vermont and my colleague from Indiana, 
they have been very cooperative. With the managers' amendment, there 
will be technical corrections to reflect a decision we made earlier 
this morning that I am very pleased about as a Senator from Minnesota, 
as a Senator from the Upper Midwest. That is to say we will not have a 
Northeast dairy compact. I will not go over that debate, but I was very 
pleased with the vote this morning.
  It is with some concern that I speak about the direction we are going 
because, Mr. President, I think what we are going to see with this 
freedom-to-

[[Page S1049]]
farm approach is a kind of combination of carrot and stick. The carrot 
will be that farmers will get higher support payments that go with good 
price that farmers are getting right now. I am pleased to see that good 
price.
  But the question becomes in the medium run, in the long run, what 
happens when farmers no longer get that good price, whether it be 
because of the weather, whether it be because of a flood, or whether it 
be because of the position that farmers are in all too often, not so 
much as pricemakers but pricetakers.
  My concern about the stick is that I think where this takes us 
eventually is that farmers are going to find themselves on their own 
when it comes to dealing with Cargill, or on their own when it comes to 
dealing with the Chicago Board of Trade. Quite frankly, I wish we had 
Adam Smith's invisible hand. I wish we had real free enterprise in 
agriculture, but I see an industry where, I think, the conglomerates 
have muscled their way to the dinner table with tremendous 
concentration of power.
  So I worry about the cap on the loan rate and farmers not having a 
strong bargaining position as they look to an oligopolistic and, for 
that matter, monopolistic market.
  So I am proud of the vote this morning, 50 to 46. It was extremely 
important to my State. I felt like the compact was a poison pill for 
dairy farmers in Minnesota. We still are going to continue--I have been 
at it for 5 years--trying to reform this milk marketing order system. 
As I look at the overall bill, that was a victory for dairy farmers. I 
hope we will have a milk marketing order system that will be good for 
dairy farmers everywhere in the country. I have to say, I think this 
bill we are about to vote on is, as I said, a great carrot in the short 
run, good prices and contract payments, but in the long run, I think 
what it says to farmers is you are on your own with Cargill, with the 
Board of Trade. I do not think the farmers in Minnesota or across the 
country will fare well with that approach.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I am advised the distinguished Senator from Utah has an 
amendment. I hope he will offer it presently. We are coming down close 
to the time that the distinguished leader mentioned we will commence 
the rollcall votes.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah.


                Amendment No. 3277 to Amendment No. 3184

 (Purpose: To amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to permit participating 
     households to use food stamp benefits to purchase nutritional 
      supplements of vitamins, minerals, or vitamins and minerals)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3277 and ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself, Mr. 
     McConnell, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3277 to amendment No. 3184.

  Mr. HATCH. 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 end of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC. 406. NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the dietary patterns of Americans do not result in 
     nutrient intakes that fully meet Recommended Dietary 
     Allowances (RDAs) of vitamins and minerals;
       (2) children in low-income families and the elderly often 
     fail to achieve adequate nutrient intakes from diet alone;
       (3) pregnant women have particularly high nutrient needs, 
     which they often fail to meet through dietary means alone;
       (4)(A) many scientific studies have shown that nutritional 
     supplements that contain folic acid (a B vitamin) can prevent 
     as many as 60 to 80 percent of neural tube birth defects;
       (B) the Public Health Service, in September 1992, 
     recommended that all women of childbearing age in the United 
     States who are capable of becoming pregnant should consume 
     0.4 mg of folic acid per day for the purpose of reducing 
     their risk of having a pregnancy affected with spina bifida 
     or other neural tube birth defects; and
       (C) the Food and Drug Administration has also approved a 
     health claim for folic acid to reduce the risk of neural tube 
     birth defects;
       (5) infants who fail to receive adequate intakes of iron 
     may be somewhat impaired in their mental and behavioral 
     development; and
       (6) a massive volume of credible scientific evidence 
     strongly suggests that increasing intake of specific 
     nutrients over an extended period of time may be helpful in 
     protecting against diseases or conditions such as 
     osteoporosis, cataracts, cancer, and heart disease.
       (b) Amendment of the Food Stamp Act of 1977.--Section 
     3(g)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2012(g)(1)) 
     is amended by striking ``or food product'' and inserting ``, 
     food product, or nutritional supplement of a vitamin, 
     mineral, or a vitamin and a mineral''.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is the text of a bill, S. 1133, 
authored by Senators McConnell, Harkin, and myself. Senators McConnell 
and Harkin are chair and ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, 
and we consider this a very important amendment.
  This is a small amendment, but makes a good deal of sense. It allows 
food stamps to be used to purchase vitamins and minerals, a practice 
which I believe is permissible under current law, but which is not 
allowed due to Agriculture Department policy, a ridiculous policy, I 
might add. It is time to change it.
  There is ample evidence to show the nutritional benefits of vitamins 
and minerals. This incontrovertible fact was recognized not once, but 
twice, by the U.S. Senate in 1993 when it passed the Dietary Supplement 
Health and Education Act, Public Law 103-417.
  I need not remind my colleagues that the dietary supplement bill 
passed without a single dissenting vote in either body, abundant proof, 
I believe, as to the safety and public health benefits of both vitamins 
and minerals.
  For any of my colleagues who remain unconvinced, I direct their 
attention to Senate Report 103-410 which provides numerous references 
to scientific studies supporting the nutritional benefits of dietary 
supplements.
  In fact, studies have shown that more than 100 million Americans 
regularly use vitamins and minerals to ensure that their basic 
nutritional requirements are met, to support their health during 
periods of special risk, and to help protect against chronic disease.
  Let me point out that there is an ample body of evidence to show that 
many Americans simply do not have healthy diets, and this is true for 
children as well as for men and women.
  For example, in one Government study of the eating habits of more 
than 21,000 people, not a single person got the full recommended daily 
allowance of 10 key vitamins and minerals--and that was just one study.
  Many other studies have shown that the poor and elderly in our 
country are especially likely to have low nutrient intakes, often with 
significant health consequences. For example, a 1992 study by a world-
renowned authority on immune function reported that giving a modest 
multivitamin with minerals to a group of men and women over the age of 
65 for a period of 1 year cut the number of sick days in this group to 
half compared to a similar unsupplemented group.
  Perhaps the best example is folic acid, which the Food and Drug 
Administration steadfastly resisted revealing to America's women as a 
significant protector against birth defects.
  So while we all recognize it would be desirable for Americans to eat 
healthy foods and maintain an adequate diet, that simply is not 
happening.
  The purpose of the Food Stamp Program, and let me quote from the 
Department's own regulation, is to ``promote the general welfare and to 
safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's population by 
raising the levels of nutrition among low-income households.''
  I think that just about makes my case. Vitamins and minerals do just 
that; they raise levels of nutrition.
  Vitamins and minerals can prevent half of all neural tube defects in 
America.
  They can protect against heart disease and stroke.
  They can improve appetite growth in poor children.
  They can protect against some cancers.
  They can build bone mass in children. 
  
[[Page S1050]]

  They can improve mental development in infants.
  Those are very compelling reasons why the other Senators and I think 
this is a good amendment.
  Frankly, I do not know why anyone would have an objection to this 
amendment.
  Indeed, I do not know why the Agriculture Department has chosen to 
exclude vitamins and minerals from food stamp coverage.
  As I read the applicable regulations, they only state that eligible 
foods are ``any food or food product intended for human consumption 
except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and hot foods and hot food 
products prepared for immediate consumption.''
  That would certainly seem to include vitamins and minerals which are 
by Federal law considered to be foods. The law to which I refer is the 
Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, a bill which 
passed this body twice with literally no objection at all.
  I understand that it is the Food and Nutrition Service Handbook 318 
which prohibits food stamp purchases of vitamins and minerals under the 
theory that they are deficiency correctors or therapeutic agents. That 
definition flies in the face of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which, 
as modified by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 
confirms that dietary supplements are--by law--foods. I think many of 
my colleagues would be astounded to learn that under the Agriculture 
Department's interpretation, a food stamp recipient can buy sunflower 
seeds or wheat germ, but not vitamin C or calcium tablets.
  So we are forced to come to the floor today and correct this agency 
misinterpretation.
  To me, the reasons for our amendment are obvious. We want to help 
improve nutrition, and vitamins and minerals can do just that.
  As one expert pointed out during House hearings on this issue, food 
stamp recipients have free choice of virtually every food sold in the 
supermarket--except vitamins and minerals. Let us think about the 
wisdom in that policy.
  To be fair, some expressed concerns about the wisdom of adopting this 
change in the law, but I believe there are compelling counter arguments 
which this body should consider.
  For example, I recognize that Ms. Yvette Jackson, Deputy 
Administrator of the Food Stamp Program, has testified against the 
House version of this amendment.
  Frankly, I am disappointed with the administration's testimony and 
dismayed with its rationale. In the House testimony, Ms. Jackson was 
quoted as saying: ``It is unclear what effect a policy permitting the 
use of food stamp benefits to purchase vitamin and mineral supplements 
would have on the ability of recipients to purchase a varied and 
nutritious diet.''
  I do not see what could be more clear than the fact that dietary 
supplements can improve the health of the American people.
  When we passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act last 
year, and it passed the Senate twice by unanimous consent, it is no 
secret that the administration, in general, and the Food and Drug 
Administration, in particular, resisted our efforts.
  To me, the USDA testimony is but further evidence that this 
administration cannot, or will not, accept the fact that dietary 
supplements can benefit the American people.
  As I mentioned, this was made abundantly clear with the Food and Drug 
Administration's foot-dragging on approving a health claim for folic 
acid. Even after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made a 
formal recommendation, endorsed by the Public Health Service, the FDA 
held back. It has been estimated by public health experts that 50 
percent of neural tube defect cases could be eliminated by consuming 
0.4 milligrams per day of folic acid a day. I fail to see how a food 
stamp policy that allows women to purchase folic acid in pill form can 
do anything but to further the public health. We are talking about 
healthy babies. That's what this amendment does.
  Another argument that the administration and other critics of the 
policy make is that--and I quote from the administration's own 
testimony--``Adding more stores and more products would certainly make 
our efforts to fight fraud and abuse more difficult.''
  First off, I do not see how the argument about adding more products 
passes the laugh test when you consider that each year literally 
thousands of food products and food producers enter the marketplace, 
and virtually all of these products are food stamp eligible, no 
questions asked.
  I also don't see how opening up the Food Stamp Program to new 
outlets, presumably health food stores, not already selling some 
conventional products would appreciably increase the incidence of fraud 
or abuse. Query how many retail outlets that sell vitamins and minerals 
don't also already sell food stamp-eligible products?
  It seems to me that many grocery store, pharmacy, and health food 
store already sell food stamp-eligible products. Even if some new 
retail outlets come on line with this change, I think that is a good 
thing.
  I challenge anyone in this body to present any factual information 
that supports the proposition that a modest expansion of new stores 
would necessarily lead to more fraud and abuse.
  I certainly never have seen this type of argument used to curtail new 
vendors from becoming eligible to participate in a Federal entitlement 
program.
  Let us be honest about it. If one extended this argument to its 
logical conclusion, we should cut back the 216,000 stores that utilize 
food stamps.
  And while we are at it, we should cut back the number of doctors and 
hospitals that provide Medicare and Medicaid services. How many of us 
would support that approach? That is how ridiculous this is.
  Let me spend a few moments to review what I hope is a now-undisputed 
fact that dietary supplements are beneficial to health.
  I mentioned a few of the health benefits of supplements that were on 
the chart, including protection against heart disease and stroke. This 
is the number one cause of death in this country.
  We also know that supplements can help promote growth in children. 
According to testimony presented by the Council for Responsible 
Nutrition, low-income children can particularly benefit from consuming 
the recommended daily allowances of vitamins and minerals.
  As the National Nutritional Foods Association has pointed out, we 
know that supplements can help protect against cancer, help build bone 
mass in children and the elderly, and help improve mental developments 
in infants.
  Last year, as my colleagues may recall, when we passed the dietary 
supplement legislation, our findings included these two statements:

       Congress finds that the importance of nutrition and the 
     benefits of dietary supplements to health promotion and 
     disease prevention have been documented increasingly in 
     scientific studies; there is a link between the ingestion of 
     certain nutrients or dietary supplements and the prevention 
     of chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and 
     osteoporosis.

  It seems to me that changing the food stamp laws to encourage low-
income people to use these product is good public policy.

  As my colleagues can see from my second chart, it has been estimated 
that in 1994 about $216 billion was spent by Americans on food products 
in supermarkets.
  A little over three quarters of this, 77.7 percent, was spent on so-
called core foods; these are foods that, in lay terms, your mother and 
your health teachers taught you are good to eat.
  These core foods include produce, dairy products, meat, poultry, 
seafood, baby food, juices, nuts, pasta, rice, bread, and other good 
food.
  As the diagram also shows, what some have termed frivolous foods, 
make up 21.7 percent of food sales in supermarkets. These foods are 
exactly what you think they are: snack foods that are so good to eat 
but may not be the most healthy choice. If you think about what you ate 
during the Super Bowl--chips, cookies, candy, soft drinks, and the 
like, you know what we mean when we use the term frivolous foods. They 
have a place in our diets, but so do vitamins and minerals.
  About 22 cents out of every $1 goes to these types of products, which 
amounted to some $47 billion in 1994.
  Compare that substantial amount of purchasing power with the less 
than 1 percent--about $587 million in 1994--

[[Page S1051]]
that was estimated to be spent on vitamins in food stores during the 
same period.
  In relative terms, much, much more is spent on what some 
nutritionists would call junk foods than on vitamins.
  The reason I point this out is not to castigate any particular type 
of food. Rather, since some of my colleagues criticize this amendment 
because they say it dilutes the spending power of the food stamp, I 
would like to point out how very, very small spending on vitamins and 
minerals is compared to all other foods sold in the supermarket 
setting.
  And so I think we must question the public health benefit of 
continuing a policy that allows for Federal subsidization of frivolous 
foods but prevents food stamp coverage of valuable dietary supplements? 
Indeed, I think both should be covered, and that is my point.
  Let me drive this home. As my last chart shows, it is OK under 
current food stamp policy to buy all the soda pop you want--and this 
may be very refreshing but it probably is not the most healthful 
product in the world.
  At the same time, it is not OK to use food stamps to buy vitamins and 
minerals that generally are agreed upon by health experts to have 
unquestioned health benefits for the people who use them.
  In other words, a food stamp recipient can use a coupon to purchase a 
50-cent can of soda, but not a 2-cent multivitamin. That is the most 
compelling argument I know against those who feel that this amendment 
would dilute the purchasing power of the food stamp.
  I think our amendment would help recipients to make more wise 
purchases.
  It seems to me that something is wrong with this picture and what is 
wrong is that vitamins and minerals should be covered by the food stamp 
program as well as all other foods.
  I think it is entirely appropriate, indeed warranted, that any 
participant in the food stamp program who wants to improve his or her 
own health be allowed to purchase vitamins and minerals.
  Why allow parents on food stamps the opportunity to give their 
children Cheez Whiz instead of vitamin C? Why not do both?
  Why allow pregnant women to buy Fritos but not folic acid, which 
prevents neural tube defects?
  Does this body really stand for the proposition that a Twinkie a day 
is more nutritious than a multivitamin?
  Mr. President, if there is room in the food stamp program for vanilla 
wafers and Milky Ways, surely, there is room for vitamins and minerals 
as well.
  I hope our colleagues will support this amendment. We think it is a 
worthwhile amendment. We hope that we can have the support of our 
friends.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Does the Senator have some time to yield?
  Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield whatever time I can.
  Mr. HARKIN. Are we operating on a time limit?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield a couple minutes?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time is there in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes ten seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the side in opposition has not spoken a 
word yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 4 minutes for the proponents, 15 minutes 
for the opponents.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the amendment 
offered by Senator Hatch. It is a commonsense amendment that is based 
on legislation we introduced last year along with our distinguished 
chairman of the Nutrition Subcommittee, Senator McConnell.
  Today food stamps can be used to buy Twinkies, but not vitamin C. 
That does not make sense. Poor children and women and elderly often 
have significant vitamin and mineral deficiencies. For examples, 
studies have shown that 40 percent of poor children have iron 
deficiencies and 33 percent have vitamin E deficiencies.
  Our amendment is supported by a broad coalition of groups and 
nutrition experts. For example, it is backed by the Alliance for Aging 
Research, the Spina Bifida Association of America, the National 
Osteoporosis Foundation and the National Nutritional Foods Association. 
It is also supported by nutrition experts and various scientists and 
heads of departments, including Dr. Paul Lachance, chairman of the 
Department of Food Science at Rutgers University; Dr. Jeffrey Blumberg 
of Tufts University; Dr. Charles Butterworth, Director of Human 
Nutrition at the University of Alabama Birmingham; and Dr. Dennis 
Heldman, chairman of the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition 
at the University of Missouri.
  Mr. President, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that people 
will forego important food purchases to buy vitamins. In fact, you can 
buy a month's worth of multivitamins for about the price of one can of 
soda.
  So I do not think we have to worry that somehow food stamp recipients 
will be wasting money. Quite the contrary, if the amendment goes 
through--they can buy vitamins and minerals. This simply allows the 
food stamp recipients the right to improve their intake of key vitamins 
and minerals.
  I make a plea on behalf of pregnant women, especially poor pregnant 
women who are on food stamps. We know the evidence is clear that many 
lower income women are more likely to have inadequate intake of key 
nutrients. Women with incomes 130 percent or less of the poverty level 
have higher rates of deficiencies in vitamins A, D, C, B-6 and B-12, as 
well as iron and niacin. They need these nutrients to have a healthy 
baby. And we know the great benefits of this.
  Mr. President, the amendment that I've joined the Senator from Utah, 
Senator Hatch in offering is a commonsense amendment allowing low-
income people greater access to nutritional supplements. It is bottom-
line common sense. Why should we not allow them to buy vitamin A or 
vitamin C, iron and mineral supplements, but allow them to buy Twinkies 
or Cheese Whiz?.
  I say it is time to say to the people on food stamps, they can have 
access to vitamin and mineral supplements to improve their health.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is much in this amendment that sounds 
appealing until you look at it.
  I have to say I strongly, strongly oppose the idea of the amendment. 
It would be a major, significant change in our food stamp legislation. 
It would be done without any debate, really--15 minutes on the floor, 
no hearings, without going through the committee of jurisdiction, 
without looking at the complexities of it. At a time when 1 out of 
every 10 Americans are on food stamps, when the budget is being 
stretched, this makes no sense at all.
  In fact, many of the families who are on food stamps today find they 
run out of food by the end of the month. Adding other things they could 
purchase is not going to help. In the 1991 publication of the National 
Academy of Sciences, they said food, rather than vitamin and mineral 
substances, should serve as the sole source of nutrients to meet the 
dietary needs. This is not asking food stamp purchasers to go on a 
yuppie diet fad of the moment that somehow they can just have vitamin 
pills, whether they work or not--expensive, they should work--whether 
they work or not and substitute it for food.
  We are facing potential food stamp cuts as it is. To cut even more of 
the amount of money available to food makes very little sense to me. It 
is a significant change in the food stamp legislation that was 
carefully put together over the years by people on both sides of the 
aisle, by the distinguished Republican leader, the senior Senator from 
Kansas, by the distinguished senior Senator Lugar, by myself, and 
others. To willy-nilly change it does not make sense. I would not 
support it.
  I wish that the proponents would withdraw the amendment. If they do 
not, I will join with others in opposition to it in an effort to defeat 
the amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. How much time remains on both sides of the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 12 minutes and 18 seconds; and on 
the proponents' side, there is no time remaining. 

[[Page S1052]]

  Mr. LUGAR. I take this moment to ask unanimous consent that 
immediately following debate on the Hatch amendment regarding vitamins, 
the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Dorgan amendment 
No. 3451, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Daschle 
substitute amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the 
Hatch amendment.
  Further, that Senator Lugar be recognized to offer a final amendment 
to include an additional manager's amendment; and following the 
adoption of that, the Senate proceed to vote on the modified Craig-
Leahy substitute, to be immediately followed by a vote on passage, as 
modified. And further, there be 1 minute of debate equally divided in 
the usual form between each of the stacked votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that all votes following the first 
rollcall vote in this sequence be limited to 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I say, with relation to the current amendment, that no one 
disputes the need for good nutrition, but the amendment obviously opens 
the door for food stamp recipients to spend scarce food dollars on 
items other than food. There is no dispute that it is best to get 
vitamins and minerals from food.
  Therefore, I oppose the amendment. I will not speak further.
  Mr. DOLE. I hope the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Idaho 
might let us have hearings on it. It might have a lot of merit. I think 
rather than press it to a vote and lose, it might be preferable to have 
a hearing in the Agriculture Committee and the Nutrition Subcommittee. 
I am happy to be there if that would help.
  Mr. HATCH. I wonder if I could ask the two leaders, is it possible to 
agree to have hearings on this matter?
  I cannot see for the life of me why this adds anything to the cost of 
food stamps. It just says that instead of buying pop, you might buy 
vitamins and minerals.
  Mr. DOLE. It may be a good idea.
  Mr. HATCH. If you will hold hearings and if we can make a case that 
this is beneficial--I have no doubt in my mind we will make that case--
if you will hold a hearing on this specific issue on a bill that we 
will file, and if we make the case you will help us move the bill, I am 
willing to withdraw the amendment for now. But if not, we should just 
vote on it.
  Mr. LUGAR. I pledge to the distinguished Senator, after consultation 
with my distinguished colleague----
  Mr. HARKIN. If I might have the attention of the distinguished 
majority leader, I think having hearings would be a good thing to have 
to look at this proposal. It is something that both Senator Hatch and 
I--and Senator McConnell has a bill in that we are cosponsoring to do 
just this.
  Hearings are fine. We welcome the hearings. Again, could we have some 
vehicle on which we might be able to move this at some point later, 
either for up or down after the hearings? If we could have some type of 
an agreement to move the bill, the McConnell-Hatch-Harkin bill.
  Mr. HATCH. If the leaders will help us move the bill, and the leaders 
will help call it up, I think we could do it in 10 minutes, because I 
think we can make more than an adequate case.
  It is a smart thing to do for the American people. It is hard to 
understand how anybody could understand that this is not a good 
amendment.
  We will be happy to do it your way if the leader prefers.
  Mr. DOLE. If we make a case, that is fine.
  Mr. LEAHY. My understanding is we would have hearings first.
  Mr. LUGAR. I have indicated we will have hearings.
  Mr. HATCH. In a relatively short period of time.
  Mr. LUGAR. As promptly as we can.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of my cosponsors, we withdraw 
this amendment and hope it accommodates our colleagues and our leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3277) is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 3451

  Mr. LUGAR. We now proceed to the vote on 3451, the Dorgan amendment, 
with 30 seconds on each side.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question now is the Dorgan 
amendment No. 3451. Who yields time on the amendment?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the defeat of the Dorgan 
amendment. Clearly, the idea that farmers will not utilize the land to 
plant and try to obtain income is not a sound one. The attempt of the 
Dorgan amendment, once again, is to couple together payments with 
controls. We are opposed to that with freedom to farm.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President this is the simplest possible amendment. If 
you believe payments ought to go to farmers for the purpose of not 
farming, then you want to defeat this amendment. If you believe this is 
a farm bill to help farmers who are farming, then you should support 
it. If you do not want to be making payments to people who simply have 
some land and a bank account, and do not start a tractor, do not use a 
combine, and do not plant anything, then you should be for my 
amendment. This is not about controls or flexibility. It is a question 
whether you want a farm program that is going to pay farmers for not 
farming.
  I want a farm program that is a good program and that helps farmers 
who are actually farming the land. If you believe in that, then support 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the Dorgan amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. 
Hatfield] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Domenici
     Gramm
     Hatfield
  So the amendment (No. 3451) was rejected.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3452

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment 
No. 3452 offered by the Democratic leader, Mr. Daschle.
  Mr. DASCHLE. 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.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield back the remainder of my time. 
  
[[Page S1053]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, this vote will be a 
10-minute rollcall vote.
  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 New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. 
Hatfield] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 18 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--63

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Domenici
     Gramm
     Hatfield
  So the amendment (No. 3452) was rejected.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have a series of amendments that I will 
send to the desk. They have been cleared on both sides and they will 
require voice votes.


                Amendment No. 3454 to Amendment No. 3184

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment proposed by 
Mr. Graham, for himself, and Mr. Mack dealing with crop insurance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Graham, for 
     himself, and Mr. Mack, proposes an amendment numbered 3454 to 
     amendment No. 3184.

  Mr. LUGAR. 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 end of section 502, insert the following:
       (c)(1) Crop Insurance Pilot Project.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall develop and administer a pilot project for 
     crop insurance coverage that indemnifies crop losses due to a 
     natural disaster such as insect infestation or disease.
       (2) Actuarial Soundness.--A pilot project under this 
     paragraph shall be actuarially sound, as determined by the 
     Secretary, and administered at no net cost to the U.S. 
     Treasury.
       (3) Duration.--A pilot project under this program shall be 
     of two years' duration.
       (d) Crop Insurance for Speciality Crops.--Section 508(a)(6) 
     of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(a)(6)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Addition of specialty crops.--(i) Not later than 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this subparagraph (i) 
     the Corporation shall issue regulations to expand crop 
     insurance coverage under this title to include Aquaculture; 
     and
       (ii) The Corporation shall conduct a study and limited 
     pilot program on the feasibility of insuring nursery crops.
       (e) Marketing Windows.--Section 508(j) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(j)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(4) Marketing windows.--The Corporation shall consider 
     marketing windows in determining whether it is feasible to 
     require planting during a crop year.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3454) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3455 to Amendment No. 3184

         (Purpose: To establish a farmland protection program)

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment proposed by 
Mr. Santorum, to establish a farmland protection program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Santorum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3455 to amendment No. 3184.

  Mr. LUGAR. 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:

       On page 3-3, strike lines 3 through 6 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(B) the wetlands reserve program established under 
     subchapter C;
       ``(C) the environmental quality incentives program 
     established under chapter 4; and
       ``(D) a farmland protection program under which the 
     Secretary shall use funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     for the purchase of conservation easements or other interests 
     in not less than 170,000, nor more than 340,000, acres of 
     land with prime, unique, or other productive soil that is 
     subject to a pending offer from a State or local government 
     for the purpose of protecting topsoil by limiting non-
     agricultural uses of the land, except that any highly 
     erodible cropland shall be subject to the requirements of a 
     conservation plan, including, if required by the Secretary, 
     the conversion of the land to less intensive uses. In no case 
     shall total expenditures of funding from the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation exceed a total of $35,000,000 over the first 3 
     and subsequent fiscal years.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be considered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have an explanation of the amendment?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Santorum amendment calls for a land 
preservation--I sent the Santorum amendment to the desk. Mr. President, 
let me ask the distinguished Senator, does he want an explanation of 
the Santorum amendment, the amendment that is now pending?
  Mr. BYRD. I do not know what we are voting on.
  Mr. LUGAR. Senator Santorum has proposed a farmland protection 
program, for which $35 million would be devoted. It would authorize the 
Commodity Credit Purchase Corporation conservation easements of not 
less than 170,000, not more than 340,000 acres of land, subject to a 
pending offer from State or local governments. It is cosponsored by 
Senator Leahy and has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand this is open for debate at 
this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was 1-minute debate equally divided.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand each amendment is supposed to have half an 
hour, 15 minutes on a side. I have not heard of this amendment. Like 
Senator Byrd, I do not know what this is. I heard an expenditure of $35 
million. Earlier today, amendments were offered and we were told 
because they cost additional money, they could not be accepted. All of 
a sudden we have an amendment which no one is going to debate or know 
what it is and it is going to cost.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will be glad to yield for a response. I want to know 
what it costs.
  Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator will yield, this was in the Democratic 
alternative, and also the other side thinks it is an excellent idea 
because it is going to help us save farmland. It is a conservation 
amendment. I hope the Senator will support it. He supported the 
Democratic alternative.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would not mind supporting conservation. I have been a 
strong proponent of conservation. We do not know what it is. There has 
been no explanation. How many millions of dollars is it going to cost?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is a $35 million item to help preserve 
farmland so that if there is encroachment on the farmland, the farmers 
are not 

[[Page S1054]]
going to lose money. They have a chance to sell and stay in the farming 
business. I think the Senator supported it. It is supported by all the 
environmental groups and farm groups, and it was in the Democratic 
alternative.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, have we made any disposition whatsoever of 
the amendment that has just been talked about that no one seems to know 
anything about?
  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. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I advise the Chair I have checked out the 
amendment that I knew nothing about, but I have no objection to the 
amendment. I hope that the Senate could proceed in its usual fashion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3455) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I also have a package of amendments that 
have been worked out with the other side. One on behalf of Mr. 
Johnston, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Bumpers; another which adds 
the term ``education'' to the EQUIP program. A third is a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution on methyl bromide and a colloquy between Senator 
Lugar and myself.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, Senator Conrad had a 
couple of amendments. Are they on that list?
  Mr. LEAHY. I understood he had what he wanted. I asked a question of 
him and I have not heard back.
  Mr. DASCHLE. We need to add those to the list.
  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 3456 through 3461 en bloc

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a series of amendments on behalf of 
a number of people. I ask that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes amendments 
     Nos. 3456 through 3461, en bloc.

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


                           amendment no. 3456

       Section 101 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 is amended by 
     adding a subsection (e) that reads as follows:
       ``(e) Rice.--The Secretary shall make available to 
     producers of each crop of rice on a farm price support at a 
     level that is not less than 50 percent, or more than 90 
     percent of the parity price for rice as the Secretary 
     determines will not result in increasing stocks of rice to 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation.''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 3457

       On page 3-16 of amendment No. 3184, at line 1 after 
     ``payments'' include the word ``education''.
       On page 3-16, line 9, after ``payments,'' include the word 
     ``education''.
       On page 3-16, line 13, after ``payments,'' and 
     ``education''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 3458

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following 
     language:
       It is the sense of the Senate that the Department of 
     Agriculture shall continue to make methyl bromide alternative 
     research and extension activities a high priority in the 
     Department.
       Provided further, That it is the sense of the Senate that 
     the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, producer and processor organizations, environmental 
     organizations, and State agencies continue their dialogue on 
     the risks and benefits of extending the 2001 phaseout 
     deadline.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 3459

   (Purpose: To reduce uncertainty among farmers as to the status of 
   agricultural lands with respect to environmental and conservation 
                               programs)

       At the appropriate place in the title relating to 
     conservation, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. ABANDONMENT OF CONVERTED WETLANDS.

       Section 1222 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3822) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Abandonment of Converted Wetlands.--The Secretary 
     shall not determine that a prior converted or cropped wetland 
     is abandoned, and therefore that the wetland is subject to 
     this subtitle, on the basis that a producer has not planted 
     an agricultural crop on the prior converted or cropped 
     wetland after the date of enactment of this subsection, so 
     long as any use of the wetland thereafter is limited to 
     agricultural purposes.''.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 3460

  (Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to rural business and 
                cooperative development and flexibility)

       Beginning on page 7-86, strike line 11 and all that follows 
     through page 7-87, line 11, and insert the following:
       ``(3) Rural business and cooperative development.--The 
     rural business and cooperative development category shall 
     include funds made available for--
       ``(A) rural business opportunity grants provided under 
     section 306(a)(11)(A);
       ``(B) business and industry guaranteed loans provided under 
     section 310B(a)(1); and
       ``(C) rural business enterprise grants and rural 
     educational network grants provided under section 310B(c).
       ``(d) Other Programs.--Subject to subsection (e), in 
     addition to any other appropriated amounts, the Secretary may 
     transfer amounts allocated for a State for any of the 3 
     function categories for a fiscal year under subsection (c) 
     to--
       ``(1) mutual and self-help housing grants provided under 
     section 523 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490(c);
       ``(2) rural rental housing loans for existing housing 
     provided under section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 
     U.S.C. 1485);
       ``(3) rural cooperative development grants provided under 
     section 310B(e); and
       ``(4) grants to broadcasting systems provided under section 
     310B(f).
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 3461

   (Purpose: To change the land ownership requirement applicable to 
   qualified beginning farmers and ranchers for the purposes of the 
              Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act)

       At the appropriate place in title VI, insert:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, section 343(a) 
     of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1991(a)) is amended in subparagraph (F)--
       (i) by striking ``exceed 15 percent'' and all that follows 
     through ``Code'' and inserting the following: ``exceed--
       ``(i) 25 percent of the median acreage of the farms or 
     ranches, as the case may be, in the county in which the farm 
     or ranch operations of the applicant are located, as reported 
     in the most recent census of agriculture taken under section 
     142 of title 13, United States Code.

  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to, 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendments (Nos. 3456 through 3461) were agreed to, en bloc.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished chairman so that we may provide assurance to the many 
producers in the United States that are actively engaged on farms owned 
or operated by persons participating in the Market Transition Program, 
so that they will continue to be eligible for payments and will be 
treated fairly and equitably under the bill. Specifically, the 
substitute provides that the Secretary shall provide adequate 
safeguards to protect the interest of operators who are tenants and 
sharecroppers who farm land that is enrolled in the Market Transition 
Program. It also provides that the Secretary shall provide for the 
sharing of contract payments among the owners and operators subject to 
the contract on a fair and equitable basis. Mr. President, I would 
appreciate the chairman's assurance that it is the intent of the 
substitute that all tenants and sharecroppers who are actively engaged 
in farming regardless of whether the tenant or sharecropper is an 
operator of the farm will be eligible for payments, assuming that they 
are producers on a farm with contract acreage that qualifies for 
participation in the program. 

[[Page S1055]]

  Mr. LUGAR. I agree with the distinguished Senator that it is the 
intent of the substitute that all tenants and sharecroppers who are 
actively engaged in farming will be eligible for payments, assuming 
that they are producers on a farm with contract acreage that qualifies 
for participation in the program and that they meet the payment 
limitation provisions.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished chairman. In addition, would the 
distinguished chairman give assurance as well that it is the intent of 
the substitute that contract payments must be shared with these tenants 
and sharecroppers on a fair and equitable basis.
  Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct, it is the intent of the substitute 
that all tenants and sharecroppers must be treated fairly and equitably 
in the division of payments under the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3462

    (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish 
  standards for the labeling of sheep carcasses, parts of carcasses, 
         meat, or meat food products as ``lamb'' or ``mutton'')

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senators Craig and Baucus and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Craig for 
     himself and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 3462.

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

       After section 857, insert the following:

     SEC. 858. LABELING OF DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED LAMB AND MUTTON

       Section 7 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 
     607) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Lamb and Mutton.--
       ``(1) Standards.--The Secretary, consistent with U.S. 
     international obligations, shall establish standards for the 
     labeling of sheep carcasses, parts of carcasses, meat, and 
     meat food products as `lamb' or `mutton'.
       ``(2) Method.--the standards under paragraph (1) shall be 
     based on the use of the break or spool joint method to 
     differentiate lamb from mutton by the degree of calcification 
     of bone to reflect maturity.''.

  Mr. LUGAR. The amendment would simply require a national age standard 
be set for labeling of lamb in the United States and that this standard 
would be also enforced on imported product. This is a relatively simple 
measure that would ensure that lamb coming into the United States is 
actually lamb and not mutton. This amendment would be GATT legal since 
the requirements are the same on both domestic and imported product.
  If we are to have a viable lamb and wool industry in the United 
States something must be done to enhance stability and future growth 
while halting the hemorrhaging of our industry's infrastructure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 3462) was agreed to.


             commodity supplemental food program amendment

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am today offering an amendment that 
will provide the necessary flexibility to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture to carry out the Commodity Supplemental Food Program 
[CSFP].
  The amendment is very simple. It allows the Food and Nutrition 
Service of USDA to use a portion of available carryover funding for 
administrative expenses. The administration will then have sufficient 
funds to provide this important nutrition assistance to as many people 
as possible.
  This is not a new issue to the Senate. This same language was enacted 
as part of the 1995 Second Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions 
Act at my request.
  The amendment was needed to correct an inadvertent effect of 
congressional action on the CSFP program in the 1994 Agriculture and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  When Congress was considering the Agriculture appropriations bill, 
the Appropriations Committee learned that the program had $25 million 
in funding that could be carried over into 1995. The committee decided 
to reduce the overall CSFP program by $10 million due to the carryover 
funding.
  However, while the carryover funds were available to purchase food 
commodities for distribution, the reduction in overall program funding 
limited administrative expenses by law to an amount insufficient to 
allow them to be used. This was a particular blow for programs in my 
State that serve a significant rural population; they were short of the 
administrative funds needed to distribute the commodities that could be 
purchased.
  This language simply allows 20 percent of the funds carried over from 
1995 into 1996 to be used for administrative expenses. This is the same 
percentage allowed for administrative expenses for new appropriations. 
The estimated amount of carryover funding is $12.6 million.
  Mr. President, I have consulted with officials of the Food and 
Nutrition Service as to the need for this language. They concur that it 
is needed to carry out an effective Commodity Supplemental Food Program 
this year.
  The Senate passed this same language in the fiscal year 1996 
Agriculture appropriations bill, but it was inadvertently dropped in 
conference. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and provide 
the resources necessary to carry out an effective CSFP program.


                              Dairy Reform

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee in a discussion on Federal dairy 
reform. It is my understanding that considerable time has been spent in 
an effort to achieve a balanced series of reforms in milk marketing 
orders.
  Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct. Unfortunately, the Senate was 
unable to agree on those reforms due to intense regional differences 
over reform proposals.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, could the chairman describe the reforms 
that were initially negotiated for the information of the Senate?
  Mr. LUGAR. I will be happy to do so. The negotiations have yielded 
reform in milk marketing orders in three fundamental ways. First, the 
reforms would have mandated a reduction in the number of orders, with a 
consolidation plan to be decided by the end of 1998 and implemented by 
the end of 2000. Second, they would have mandated the use of a 
multiple-basing point pricing system in Federal orders. Third, they 
would have provided that no Federal funds could be used to administer 
more than 14 marketing orders after December 31, 2000, if the Secretary 
of Agriculture failed to implement the order consolidation plan, which 
would have required no fewer than 10 nor more than 14 orders.
  Mr. GRAMS. While I am pleased with the overall agriculture reforms in 
the underlying bill, I am disappointed that our efforts regarding real 
dairy reform have not succeeded at this point. I do understand the 
intense, and oftentimes, rigid regional conflicts these proposed dairy 
reforms typically generate in the Senate. Although I would have 
preferred comprehensive reform of the class I differential as well, I 
believe the milk marketing order reforms the chairman has just outlined 
would have provided a major step toward assuring a more market-oriented 
system. Will the chairman give his assurance that, in conference with 
the House, he will work toward adoption of milk marketing order 
reforms?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will. I want to commend the Senator from 
Minnesota for his strong and active interest in reforming the Federal 
order system. His efforts have been positive for Midwestern agriculture 
and the Nation as a whole.


                          agriculture research

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like to bring a matter to the 
attention of the chairman regarding agriculture research. While it does 
not require a legislative provision, I believe it deserves some 
attention by the Department of Agriculture, and it seems appropriate to 
discuss while we are talking about the farm bill.
  Is it the chairman's understanding that the Department of Agriculture 
has an interest in eradicating livestock diseases, and also has funded 
research and other programs for the purposes of researching, 
controlling, and eradicating disease over the years?
  Mr. LUGAR. That is my understanding.
  
[[Page S1056]]

  Mr. BENNETT. Is it the chairman's understanding that scrapie, a 
contagious and fatal livestock disease, has had a detrimental impact on 
the sheep industry?
  Mr. LUGAR. That is my understanding.
  Mr. BENNETT. Would the chairman agree that given the scarcity of 
resources, a way to maximize a tight research budget may be to share 
the cost with other countries?
  Mr. LUGAR. That seems to be a commonsense approach given our limited 
resources.
  Mr. BENNETT. I understand that there is a collaborative research 
project being developed by two well-respected research groups, one in 
the United States and the other in Scotland, that has the hope of 
eventual eradication of this disease by understanding how and when 
scrapie is transmitted. At least two countries, the United Kingdom and 
New Zealand, have committed to share the cost of funding the research 
project with the United States. Part of the study will be conducted at 
a land-grant university. While the research project does not appear to 
fit squarely into current funding mechanisms at ARS, APHIS, or CSREES 
within the Department of Agriculture, would the chairman agree that it 
would be in the interest of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
seriously consider the feasibility of funding such a study?
  Mr. LUGAR. It seems reasonable for the United States to consider 
providing funding for a credible study, in light of commitments from 
the United Kingdom and New Zealand, and I would urge the USDA to look 
seriously at doing so.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Lugar-
Leahy amendment to S. 1541 contains a provision I authored that will 
provide a competitive loan rate for soybeans and other oilseeds.
  Soybeans represent the third largest crop in the United States, with 
the second largest value of over $14 billion annually. Worldwide, the 
demand for protein meal and vegetable oil grows about 3 percent each 
year.
  Meanwhile, U.S. oilseed acreage has declined by 17 percent since 
1979, from 77 million acres to 63.8 million acres expected in 1996. 
Approximately 3.5 million soybean acres are enrolled in the 
Conservation Reserve Program, and an estimated 9.7 million soybean and 
sunflower acres have shifted to corn and wheat production.
  The point is, that, while worldwide demand for soybeans and oilseed 
products increase, acreage dedicated to oilseeds in the United States 
has decreased. And that means American farmers are losing important 
economic opportunities when it comes to oilseed exports.
  One notable cause for the decrease in U.S. oilseed acres has been 
Federal farm policy, which has made wheat and corn planting more 
attractive. Another factor in the loss of oilseed acreage is the lack 
of Government promotion for export and domestic use of vegetable oil. 
Export opportunities for soybeans and sunflower oil under the EEP and 
SOAP will be reduced 79 percent under the Uruguay round. And unlike tax 
incentives for ethanol production, which target corn production, there 
is no Federal program for soy-based biodiesel.
  This provision, by setting marketing loan rates for oilseeds at 85 
percent of the Olympic 5-year average price, will help to put soybeans 
and other oilseeds at the same percentage level as other crops. For 
soybeans, the marketing loan rate would be set at 85 percent of the 
Olympic 5-year average, but no less than $4.92 or no more than $5.26 
per bushel. For sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, mustard 
seed, and flaxseed, loan rates would also be set accordingly, but at 
rates no less than $0.087 or more than $0.093 per pound.
  This provision, which I filed as an amendment to the Lugar-Leahy 
substitute amendment to S. 1541, allows the soybean loan rate to rise 
by 5 percent if prices increase, providing some protection for small 
producers against increased volatility in production and prices that 
could result from full planting flexibility. It would remove 
disincentives for planting soybeans, encourage increased soybean 
acreage, and provide an opportunity for reasonable prices and adequate 
supplies of high-protein meal for pork and poultry producers.

  Mr. President, Illinois leads the Nation not just in the production 
of farm commodities, but also in farm commodity exports. And in my 
conversations with Illinois farmers, one theme resonates time again and 
again: the future of American agriculture lies in exports, and in 
enhancing the export competitiveness of U.S. agriculture.
  I agree, and I believe my amendment will help U.S. oilseed producers 
seek out greater export sales, and ensure that market demand, rather 
than Federal policies, determine how many acres of soybeans are 
planted.
  I would like to thank the distinguished majority leader, Senator 
Dole, and Senators Lugar, Leahy, Grassley, and Cochran for their 
assistance and support for this amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I first want to compliment the managers 
of the farm bill for their hard work in crafting legislation which 
reforms our Nation's agriculture policies. No longer will the 
Government tell farmers which crops to plant and no longer will the 
Government tell farmers to leave productive land idle in exchange for a 
Federal handout. I believe giving more flexibility to farmers is a step 
in the right direction and urge my colleagues to support the freedom-
to-farm legislation.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member for clarifying the sponsors' 
intent with respect to the haying and grazing provision of the 
substitute amendment. This technical change allows farmers to continue 
the haying and grazing flexibility they have under current law and I am 
pleased the bill's sponsors agree this traditional freedom should 
continue under the reform proposal.
  Once again, I thank the managers for making this technical change and 
appreciate their leadership on farm policy.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished minority 
leader for his hard work in crafting a bill that meets the needs of 
production agriculture, national wide. It's close to an impossible 
task.
  I support this compromise farm bill. While I do not agree with 
everything in the bill, I think it has a chance of passing the House 
and being signed into law.
  In many ways, it is a good bill for Illinois. It offers farmers 
limited certainty in the area of income protection, provides a safety 
net for farmers in future years, and protects our conservation 
programs, as well as important nutrition programs.
  Illinois is second to Iowa in soybean production, with 9.7 million 
acres planted to soybeans. Exports for soybeans and soybean products 
totaled $7.9 billion in 1995 making soybeans the largest exporter, in 
terms of value, in U.S. agriculture.
  With the good work of my colleague Senator Moseley-Braun, this bill 
raises the marketing loan rate for soybeans to 85 percent of an Olympic 
five-year average, with a cap of $5.26 per bushel. Despite a 3 percent 
annual growth in world demand for vegetable oil and protein meal, U.S. 
oilseed acreage has declined by 17 percent since 1979. This slight 
increase in the marketing loan rate creates some incentive for soybean 
production in the U.S., which helps our trade balance and is very good 
for Illinois farmers.
  The bill also retains permanent law for farm programs. Good 
agriculture policy protects family farms as well as consumers. The 
original freedom-to-farm proposal eliminated permanent law for farm 
programs, allowing no safety net past the year 2002. With the 
leadership of Senator Daschle, the Democrats were able to push for a 
compromise that guaranteed a safety net for farmers in year 7.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is time to get the farm bill done. So I 
rise in support of this bill. But I do so with some misgivings.
  Now, I know that the first rule of medicine is ``Do no harm.'' And I 
am well aware that a lot of Americans have adjusted their expectations 
of this new Congress. A year or so back, they had high hopes. Today, 
they consider it a good month when the Congress simply decides not to 
do anything harmful or destructive. They're relieved that we haven't 
shut the Government down in nearly a month, and that the plan to 

[[Page S1057]]
let Medicare wither on the vine seems to have stalled.


                        Our Number One Industry

  So sometimes doing nothing is better than doing harm. But, Mr. 
President, with the farm bill, it is just not good enough to wait any 
longer.
  Agriculture is the largest industry in my State. Our State statistics 
service reports that Montana has about 22,000 farms, averaging about 
two residents per farm. Those farms support almost 50,000 additional 
Montana jobs in agribusiness and the food industry. So our failure to 
provide some policy direction puts almost 100,000 people directly at 
risk, not to mention the tens of thousands of others in small banks, 
gas stations, auto dealerships, and other small businesses who depend 
on a strong rural economy.
  That is true across the country.
  In rural States, the entire economy depends on successful production 
agriculture.
  In urban areas, stable, fair and predictable food prices are the key 
to consumer well-being.
  In international trade, agriculture is one of our bright spots.
  Our agricultural exports will reach $58 billion in 1996--an all-time 
record for any country, and twice our projected $29 billion in imports.
  And we all know that nobody and no country can be safe or secure 
without a reliable supply of food.
  All this depends on a sound approach to farm policy. And the first 
element of a sound farm policy is to avoid giving farmers new troubles 
and headaches. Yet, if Congress delays the farm bill any longer, that 
is just what will happen.
  Farmers all over America are preparing to put their 1996 crop into 
the ground. In Montana, and across the Great Plains, many already have 
their winter wheat planted. If the bitter cold has not destroyed their 
crop, they will begin harvesting in a few months.
  These producers need to know what rules they will operate under when 
that harvest comes in. Because of the dereliction of the Congress, they 
have no idea what those rules will be. So the time has come to take up 
this admittedly imperfect bill, get it past the Senate, and ask the 
House to follow suit. We need to act now.


                    Successes of the 1996 Farm Bill

  Now let me talk for a few moments about the bill. And let us begin 
with the good news. I would like to mention six points in particular.
  The most important good news, of course, is that when the 1996 farm 
bill passes, producers will have a few years of certainty and stability 
ahead. They will be able to run their businesses without fear that the 
Government will make them change horses in midstream.
  Two, we restore the safety net which the original more radical ideas 
proposed to abolish. That is, it continues the 1949 Agricultural Policy 
Act in case Congress threatens to let farm policy lapse altogether as 
it did last year. Thus, producers have the confidence that a single 
year of drought, flood, or collapsing prices will not financially ruin 
them.
  Three, we include several provisions to assist an industry which has 
suffered from Government mistakes. That is the sheep industry. In this 
bill we authorize a sheep industry improvement center, which will be a 
clearinghouse to improve research and infrastructure for the industry. 
We also introduce some fairness into the lamb market by making 
Australian and other foreign lamb to meet the same freshness 
requirements as American lamb.
  Four, we reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program, one of our 
environmental success stories. It also authorizes two other critical 
environmental programs--the Livestock Environmental Assistance Program 
and the Environmental Quality Incentive Program--which help producers 
improve the management of the natural resources on their farms and 
ranches, and with it the quality of life in rural America.
  Five, we reauthorize the nutrition program, meaning a continuing 
guarantee of assistance for children and poorer Americans.
  And six, in the 1996 farm bill we increase planting flexibility, so 
producers can base their planting decisions according to the market and 
their potential profits, rather than on rules established by the 
bureaucracy.


                             The Major Flaw

  Now let us look at what may be the real flaw in the bill.
  My greatest concern is the so-called decoupling of farm payments from 
prices and volume of production. In essence, a farmer will now get a 
straight payment regardless of how much he or she produces and 
regardless of the price.
  Since the forecasts call for a good harvest in 1996, this will be 
very good for farmers for at least the next year. However, if we get a 
bad year in 1997 or 1998, the payments may be inadequate.
  Equally serious, but more of a long-term problem, is that by 
decoupling payments from the market, we may decouple farm policy from 
the broad public support it has enjoyed since the creation of the farm 
program during the Depression.
  Most Americans can see that agriculture is a volatile business, and 
understand the need for some stability from year to year. It may be 
that the public at large will be less enthusiastic about a straight 
payment that remains high in good years.
  Only time will give us the answer to that question. But we know that 
delaying action any longer this year will mean a year of questions, 
uncertainty and difficulty for farmers. So the time has come to pass 
the 1996 farm bill.
  I will vote for this bill, and I hope the Senate will pass it. And I 
would ask the House to act as quickly as possible--to stop toying with 
revolutionary experiments--to cut their vacation short--and to get the 
job done.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague, the 
senior Senator from Indiana, for the enormous amount of effort he has 
put into this bill. He and his colleague on the other side have done 
good work. The legislation that is before the Senate represents a 
critical change in our farm policy that will do much to move us toward 
a market-oriented system. And that is a welcome change indeed.
  I must say, however, that as enthusiastic as I am about the important 
structural changes wrought by this bill, I am sorely disappointed that 
one provision of particular importance to my State and the New England 
region was deleted earlier today. It was my understanding that this 
provision would be included in the final version of the Senate bill. 
The provision that I am referring to is the New England Dairy Compact--
which has earned broad support from our region's Governors, 
legislators, and industry. Without congressional authorization, the 
compact cannot move forward. And today's action to eliminate the 
necessary congressional consent means moving forward will be extremely 
difficult.
  I also regret that the Senate failed to adopt much-needed reforms to 
the sugar and peanut programs. While the legislation crafted by the 
managers revises both of these programs to some extent, those revisions 
do not go nearly far enough.
  Therefore, with regret, I will be casting my vote against the 
underlying bill.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
change my vote from ``yea'' to ``nay'' on rollcall vote 14, which 
passed earlier today by a vote of 59 to 37. It will not change the 
outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted against the farm bill today for 
a number of reasons.
  First, while I and other Senators from the Upper Midwest were 
successful in striking from the Leahy substitute the northeast 
interstate dairy compact, this bill contains no fundamental reform of 
Federal milk marketing orders so badly needed by Wisconsin dairy 
farmers. Attempts to reach a bipartisan agreement on a moderate order 
reform amendment were ended when regionalism overwhelmed reason. I 
found that very disappointing.
  I remain hopeful, however, that there will be an opportunity in the 
conference with the House farm bill to revisit these issues and get 
some changes that will help create a more level playing field for our 
dairy producers.
  Second, Mr. President, I was very disappointed at the process under 
which the debate over the farm bill took place in the Senate. This is 
an important bill that is considered every 5 

[[Page S1058]]
years, and normally consumes several weeks of floor debate following 
extensive and open committee action. This year the bill was rammed 
through the Senate in 1 day under tight time controls that allowed 
little opportunity for Senators to scrutinize neither the underlying 
bill nor the amendments offered. Furthermore, with only one-half hour 
to debate each amendment, it was difficult for Members to fully analyze 
the impacts and implications of their votes. One amendment passed by 
the Senate was over 500 pages long and was the subject of absolutely no 
debate. Conducting business under those kinds of constraints is 
ultimately not good for farmers, consumers, or the taxpayers. We should 
take the time to debate publicly and examine thoroughly existing farm 
programs as well as the proposals to change them.
  At the same time, I recognize the urgency that many in this Chamber 
felt that some type of farm bill had to move forward quickly so that 
farmers who are putting seed in the ground right now would have some 
idea of what Federal policies would be in play for this growing season. 
But Congress should have begun this process a year ago to give farmers 
the assurances they need. The need for just any bill is no 
justification for voting for a bad bill.
  Ultimately, I voted against this bill because it failed to reform 
programs in a way which targets benefits to those family farmers most 
in need, it did little to limit Government payments to the Nation's 
largest and wealthiest farmers, it provides excessive guaranteed 
giveaway payments to landowners who never have to plant a crop, and did 
absolutely nothing to reform Federal milk marketing order to rectify 
the harms current law imposes on Wisconsin dairy farmers.
  This farm bill process was fiscally irresponsible policy making. From 
a deficit reduction perspective, this bill could have achieved far 
greater budget savings while still protecting family farms. It is my 
hope that the Senate never again engage in this process for major 
legislation that affects every farmer, consumer, and taxpayer in this 
country.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on final 
passage of S. 1541, the farm bill. This vote should have taken place 
last year, after a full and thorough debate. The House has recently 
recessed without completing action on the matter, and the Senate's 
action is very late. As a result, farmers are not getting the timely 
information they need to make important decisions for the 1996 crop 
year.
  Without the Dorgan amendment, which I supported, freedom-to-farm 
payments will be made even to farmers who might choose not to plant a 
single seed. This doesn't make any sense and certainly seems like a 
potential waste of taxpayers' money. I am very concerned about the lack 
of market sensitivity in these freedom-to-farm payments.
  Fortunately, the bill is not all bad. We were successful in removing 
the northeast dairy compact, which would have established unfair 
barriers to interstate trade and potentially hurt Michigan milk 
producers and processors. And, we reformed, without destroying, the 
sugar program. The bill does contain several good provisions that will 
encourage farmland preservation, establish a livestock environmental 
assistance program, and addresses other important trade, research, 
credit, and conservation matters.
  On balance, however, I cannot support this bill. I hope the conferees 
can improve it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe the Senate will make a 
mistake today if we pass this farm bill. I think I can understand why 
some believe this is the best way forward for American agriculture. But 
I profoundly disagree with that judgment.
  I have been saying for weeks, even months, that I have been prepared 
to debate the farm bill. Today's debate is overdue, and it has not 
exactly been what I had in mind. It has been limited due to time 
constraints. Our opportunity for amendments has been constricted.
  I am afraid that the best that can be said about this week's action 
on the farm bill is that farmers across the country now can see what 
this Congress might be delivering for a farm bill. Perhaps the House 
will act soon, and I expect that their bill will be close in principle 
to this one.
  I voted in favor of cloture last week. I did so not because I support 
freedom-to-farm. I do not. I favor long-term policy that would promote 
family agriculture and revitalize our rural economy. This is not that. 
I voted for cloture because I believe that American farmers need to 
know what programs they will be operating under this year. With no farm 
policy in place, I did not want to block consideration of new farm 
legislation even though I was quite certain I could not support the 
bill's final passage.
  Of course, yesterday's vote against cloture was due to the sudden 
inclusion into the bill of the Northeast Dairy Compact, which I have 
called a poison pill for Minnesota dairy farmers. I am extremely 
pleased, as I have already said here on the floor, that we were able to 
strike the compact from the bill, and I was proud to lay that amendment 
down on behalf of myself and other midwesterners late last evening.
  Let me address the freedom-to-farm proposal. There are some good 
things in this bill, particularly some of the conservation provisions 
which some of us have ensured are in the bill. I am glad that we 
finally have authorized the enrollment of new acres into the successful 
and popular Conservation Reserve Program [CRP], which I have been 
advocating for some time. And we Democrats ensured that permanent farm 
law is retained, and that oilseeds will be allowed some equity in 
marketing-loan rates.
  But freedom-to-farm, which is the core of this farm bill, is 
fundamentally bad policy.
  I believe freedom-to-farm is a dubious carrot followed by a very real 
stick. If it becomes law, it will likely lead to the elimination of 
farm programs, ultimately leaving farmers to the tender mercies of the 
grain companies and the railroads and the Chicago Board of Trade during 
years when prices are low. In the long term I believe it may have 
disastrous effects on family farmers and our rural economy.
  Some farmers believe that freedom-to-farm is the best deal they will 
get from this Congress. I understand that. Many in this Congress oppose 
farm programs, and those people have made a credible threat to the 
future existence of farm programs. This plan offers farmers payments 
this year even though prices are projected to be strong. And it 
promises to lock in at least some payments for 7 years. For some 
farmers, even those who know that it is bad policy, that is attractive.
  I have supported what I consider to be genuine reform of farm 
programs. I cosponsored a 7-year proposal last year which called for a 
targeted marketing-loan approach. That plan would provide farmers the 
planting flexibility they need. But it also would provide needed long-
term protection from some of the uncertainties that farmers face--
uncertainties of weather, and of markets that are dominated by large 
multinational companies. It also would raise loan rates and target 
farm-program benefits to family-size farmers.
  The freedom-to-farm concept entails a transition to what is called 
market orientation. I support market oriented farm policy. That is why 
I advocate support for family-size farmers when prices are low--not so-
called contract payments regardless of market conditions and regardless 
of what, or whether anything, is planted. In fact, what I really 
support is helping farmers getting a fairer price in the marketplace so 
that they do not need government payments at all. Fair prices are key 
to improving farm income.
  It must be remembered that the rationale for the transition payments 
in freedom-to-farm is that farm programs will end. There is no reason 
for decoupled payments called transition-payments unless farm programs 
will be ending. So we should not fool ourselves about the gesture of 
leaving permanent farm law in place underneath this bill. We Democrats 
rightly insisted upon that provision, but we have to admit it was a 
maneuver to help achieve a time agreement and should not be considered 
genuinely permanent. It may or may not survive conference.
  This bill will end payments to farmers within a few years. Meanwhile, 
its approach will discredit farm programs forever. High payments to 
farmers during good-price years will not wash in 

[[Page S1059]]
the public when we are cutting government spending on other much-needed 
programs. I am concerned that when prices drop back down, which is 
inevitable--I would say it is encouraged by the capping of loan rates 
in this bill--there may be no farm program there to help. I voted today 
to lift the loan-rate caps. I also note that I voted for amendments to 
retain the Farmer Owned Reserve and raise loan rates. And I voted to 
require that a farmer actually plant a crop in order to qualify for a 
so-called contract payment.
  Mr. President, I do not believe we are finished debating agriculture 
or rural policy. I will continue to speak here on the topic. I intend 
to continue to fight for rural Minnesota.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I voted against final passage of S. 1541 
because, while it was better than some proposals put forth during this 
debate, ultimately, it was not the package that I believe it should 
have been.
  Yesterday, I supported cloture on the Leahy-Dole substitute because I 
felt strongly that it was essential that Congress act to develop new 
farm policy reforms as soon as possible. The existing authorization for 
the numerous nutrition, conservation, and commodity programs that 
comprise the heart of the farm bill expired during 1995. With the 
expiration of these programs, the outdated 1949 Agricultural Act became 
the permanent law governing Federal commodity programs. According to 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the 1949 statute, if enacted today, 
would cost taxpayers $10 billion for 1996 alone, substantially more 
than the recently expired provisions. I believed then, and remain 
convinced, that we need a new approach to farm policy. Therefore, I 
supported cloture to advance the debate on the Leahy-Dole reform 
package which would have replaced the 1949 statute with a new reform 
program to phase out price supports after 7 years and would have 
reauthorized critical nutrition and conservation programs through 2002.
  However, the package that was before us on final passage, while it 
included many important provisions on nutrition and conservation, fell 
short of true reform because a provision was added to retain the 1949 
act as the permanent law. By retaining the 1949 statute, the 7-year 
farm support phaseout provisions of the Leahy-Dole bill become just 
another price support program. There is no longer a phaseout, only an 
interim payment plan for the intervening 7 years.
  Until this package returns from conference, there is always hope that 
there will be important improvements to the reform provisions while 
retaining critical conservation and nutrition programs upon which 
millions of Americans depend.


                           Amendment No. 3184

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Leahy 
amendment No. 3184, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 3184), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered 
and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. 
Hatfield] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Bingaman
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Domenici
     Gramm
     Hatfield
  So the bill (S. 1541), as amended, was passed.
  (The text of the bill will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank all Senators for prompt 
consideration of the farm bill. I think we have an excellent bill. I 
had wanted to go to the conference with the House and hopefully 
expedite decisionmaking for farmers throughout the country.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Leahy, who has worked so well, once 
again, in a bipartisan way, on an important bill. I thank the majority 
leader, Senator Dole, for his very, very strong leadership throughout 
the cloture battles, as well as all we have experienced today, and the 
distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, who worked to make 
certain we had both a pathway to success today, and expedited the 
timing of that.
  I want to thank, especially, staff members who have done so much, and 
I want to mention them by name.
  I have Andy Morton, Randy Green, Dave Johnson, Marcia Asquith, Beth 
Johnson, Terri Snow, Michael Knipe, Dave Stawick, Terri Nintemann, 
Katherine McGuire, Darrel Choat, Danny Spellacy, Doug Leslie, Barbara 
Ward, Debbie Schwertner, Jill Clawson, Cathy Harrington, Mary Kinzer, 
David Dayhoff, Pat Sweeney, Bob Sturm, Bill Sims, Jim Hedrick, and, of 
course, Chuck Conner, our chief of staff, who has done a splendid job, 
as always.
  I thank all of them and all Senators for their support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I also want to thank the distinguished 
majority leader and the distinguished Democratic leader for all they 
have done. The distinguished senior Senator from Indiana said he thanks 
the distinguished Democratic leader for helping us get the pathway to 
be here. That is true, we would not be here without that help.
  I know, at least in my 21 years here, I have never known a farm bill 
to go through without some strife. This is probably no exception. But 
the fact is that we have now brought a farm bill through that we can go 
to the other body with in a conference. I hope we can go to them and 
point out that on the final vote it was passed on a bipartisan basis. 
If we did not have one, had it not been passed on a bipartisan basis, I 
would not hold out much hope for the conference. Instead, we have one 
that speaks for those who produce our food and fiber but also includes 
protection for the environment, conservation, nutrition programs, all 
of which are important to get a bill that can eventually be signed.
  I thank my friend with whom I have worked so many years, Senator 
Lugar, on such legislation. I thank him for his help and his staff's 
help, and his honesty and openness to it.
  I also want to thank Pat Westhoff for his outstanding economic 
analyses of complicated proposals; on our staff, David Grahn, who 
stayed up many nights drafting legal language; Craig Cox, for an 
outstanding job developing one of the most progressive conservation 
titles; Tom Cosgrove, for handling a very politically sensitive issue, 
dairy, and doing it very, very well; Kate Howard, who has done such a 
great job on 

[[Page S1060]]
trade; Kate DeRemer for her outstanding work on the research title; 
Brooks Preston for all that he has done for the environment and for 
forestry; Nick Johnson for his very hard work on rural development. 
Diane Coates, Kevin Flynn, and Rob Headberg, for all that they have 
done. Gary Endicott and Tom Cole at the legislative counsel. I would 
especially like to thank Ed Barron, the Democratic chief of staff, and 
Jim Cubie, our chief counsel, who I think have not been to bed in 
several days.
  I would say, if any members of their family are watching, I know 
exactly where they were. They were here all the time, chained to their 
desks but helping us go through. And also I give my personal thanks to 
my chief of staff, Luke Albee, who worked so hard with them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
his outstanding job, Chairman Lugar, and the ranking member's equally 
outstanding job, Senator Leahy. They have worked a long time. This is a 
bipartisan bill. There were 20 Democrats, 44 Republicans who voted 
``aye'' on final passage.
  I believe there is enough flexibility. The President would certainly 
be inclined to sign this bill. I hope he might announce that this 
weekend when he is in Iowa. I think it will be very well received 
there.
  This has been a long process. There were a lot of frustrating moments 
for all of us. But, just as farming requires patience and perseverance, 
so does passing farm legislation. It is always very difficult. There 
are so many issues involved, so many different commodities and so many 
different regional interests and State interests, it is hard to put a 
package together that satisfies everyone.
  But I believe this is really a historic change, some would say the 
biggest change we have had in agriculture since the 1930's when Henry 
Wallace was Secretary of Agriculture. It seems to me we have made that 
because we have had this bipartisan cooperation.
  I thank the Democratic leader, too, Senator Daschle, for working out, 
last night, an agreement which permitted us to vote at precisely 4:45. 
That is when we promised our colleagues we would vote and that is when 
the vote started.
  Farmers will finally plant for the market and not the Government. The 
Government is going to get out of the supply control business.
  We can take pride this bill is also good for the environment. The 
Conservation Reserve Program is reauthorized. A new program, the 
Environmental Quality Incentive Program, is included to provide farmers 
and ranchers a cost-share program as they work to develop ways to 
manage their farming operations. No doubt about it, another big winner 
in this legislation is the American taxpayer.
  There is some concern about the transition payments. That has been 
expressed time after time. I believe we need now to make certain this 
is going to work so we do not have these stories appearing that 
somebody had a big crop and got a big payment. I think that is a very 
sensitive matter. But I believe, by capping entitlements, it is a 
sensible spending program.
  It is not an end but a beginning, because there is much more we need 
to do to ensure survival of rural America. One is estate tax relief. I 
think capital gains tax relief is one. We need to take a look at 
regulation, regulatory reform.
  I would just conclude by sharing a quote I read last week on the 
floor, the words of George Washington, over two centuries ago. He said, 
``I know of no pursuit in which more real and important services can be 
rendered to any country than by improving its agriculture.'' I think 
that is as true today as it was then. I thank all my colleagues for 
their patience and their support.
  Again, I thank the chairman, Senator Lugar, and Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know there are many who want to speak 
so I will be brief. Let me congratulate the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee for the typical manner with which he has addressed this bill 
and this responsibility. In true fashion he has been cooperative and 
accommodating. I again want to publicly thank him for his effort.
  Let me also thank our ranking member, Senator Leahy, for his efforts. 
I appreciate very much the work of our two managers in this regard.
  Working with the majority leader, we were able to accomplish what all 
of us said we wanted to be able to do, finish a farm bill, by a time 
certain, that would allow some opportunity for farmers to better 
understand what may be in store, what they have to decide with regard 
to their own management. This bill, as flawed as I believe it is, will 
accommodate that.
  I must say, in all my time in the Senate, there has never been a time 
when I felt more discouraged, and frankly more concerned about the 
future of agriculture, the future of farm policy, than I feel this 
afternoon. I think the Senate has made a very tragic mistake. I think 
it is a mistake that will come back to haunt us. I believe we will be 
here again in the not too distant future addressing many of the 
deficiencies that this legislation represents.
  Obviously, many of us feel very strongly about this. This fight is 
not over. We will come back. We will revisit many of these issues. We 
will offer amendments. We will offer additional legislation. We firmly 
believe we must continue to make farm policy work better than it will 
work if this farm legislation becomes law.
  Finally, let me thank especially Tom Buis, on my staff, for the 
remarkable job he has done. I do not know of anyone who has been more 
dedicated, or given his time and effort more generously, than has Tom 
over the last many days. So, I again thank him, and thank our 
colleagues for the work that we have done today in spite of the fact 
that I am so disappointed with the outcome.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________