Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 17 (Wednesday, February 7, 1996)

[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.

____________________