[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 45 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3039-S3091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Patrick 
Sweeney, an employee of the General Accounting Office who has been 
detailed to the Agriculture Committee, be granted privilege of the 
floor during the pendency of consideration of the farm bill conference 
report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Noting no other Senators prepared to debate the issue, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be equally charged 
against the time allocated to the three Senators controlling time in 
this bill.
  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the quorum call be rescinded.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.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask to take time that has been allotted 
to me under the unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we spent a lot of months of very, very hard 
work to craft this farm bill. Today, we are completing the final 
legislative step in the farm bill process. I am glad that Secretary 
Glickman has said that he will recommend that the bill be signed.
  The Secretary is one of the most knowledgeable Secretaries of 
Agriculture with which I have ever worked. He has been a Member of the 
Congress. He has worked on many farm bills. He knows, as I do, that 
nobody ever gets everything they want in a farm bill. You have to bring 
in a number of competing interests and ultimately make a judgment of 
whether the bill should be signed or not. I believe it should be 
signed. I concur with his judgment.
  I am also pleased that the President said he would sign the farm 
bill. In my discussions with the White House and with the Secretary, I 
have told them this is a good bipartisan bill that proves we can work 
together.
  We were in a situation, Mr. President, where we were not going to be 
able to pass a Democratic or a Republican farm bill. However, if we 
worked as we have in the past in a bipartisan fashion, we could pass a 
very good farm bill.
  There are many who had a hand in this legislation. First and foremost 
of those is the chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and 
Forestry Committee, the senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar.

[[Page S3040]]

  Had it not been for his energy, foresight and perseverance, we would 
not be on the floor today with a completed conference report. The 
Agriculture Committee is made up of members with very diverse and, I 
might say, occasionally conflicting interests. For those who know the 
Agriculture Committee as Senator Lugar and I do, that is probably 
considered an understatement. The Senate has some committees that 
divide along ideological lines and one can almost predict how a vote 
might go.
  That is not the case in the Senate Agriculture Committee. 
Conservatives join with liberals on various issues; conservatives break 
with conservatives; liberals break with liberals; moderates oftentimes 
have a balance of power; regions have interests that conflict with 
other regions. This is not a case of ideological balances. This is a 
case of trying to balance the different needs of different parts of our 
great and wonderful Nation.
  Throughout the year, Chairman Lugar worked closely with members to 
craft a bill that provides us with the basic road map for agriculture 
policy. I appreciate both his leadership and his friendship. The bill 
recognizes that farm policy has changed. It cannot be just about the 
production side of agriculture. It is about the consumption side of 
agriculture, too.
  The bill provides important protection to consumers in key 
environmental conservation issues. The focus is on providing incentives 
to get farmers to voluntarily do the right thing for the environment, 
their communities, and their neighbors.
  It is a major step away from the old focus of mandatory, detailed 
regulations. The conservation provisions break with the past. They will 
provide cash payments to farmers for improvements that make sense for 
their farms. The bill will help farmers do those things that farmers 
know should be done. The bill contains the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, EQUIP, to assist farmers in solving critical water 
quality problems, for those farmers who want to protect lakes, rivers, 
and the ground water important to both them and their neighbors. This 
means that farmers will get funds to protect the groundwater that their 
neighbor's children drink.
  There is $300 million in new spending to restore the Florida 
Everglades which is one of America's national treasures.
  All of us should agree, whether we are from Florida or not, that we 
need to restore the Florida Everglades to its full glory.
  There is a $35 million initiative to buy easements sold by willing 
sellers, on farmland threatened by development. This voluntary program, 
called Farms for the Future in Vermont, allows farm families to save 
their farmland for their children.
  The bill contains a conservation farm option that will encourage 
farmers to use good conservation methods. I am pleased that, despite 
efforts to phase out the Conservation Reserve Program, we were able to 
save it. It is the Nation's largest, and most successful, private land 
conservation program.
  I also want to mention dairy. Let me speak not as the ranking member 
of the committee, but as a Vermonter.
  I know the farmers in Vermont. They work very, very hard. They rise 
early every morning and work late into the night just to get their milk 
into the market. I have sat in the kitchens of farm houses throughout 
Vermont and talked with the farmers, the women and men, and their sons 
and daughters, who run these dairy farms. I have gotten up with them at 
4 o'clock in the morning and gone into the barns and helped them do 
their chores and milking. One farmer said I probably made a better 
Senator than I did a hired hand.
  I was helping Bob Howrigan bring a couple different herds in 
different fields. As I helped him bring one of the herds across to the 
milking shed, I said, ``Bob, I got that herd in for you, and I probably 
only lost a couple cows on the way over.''
  He said, ``Pat, I appreciate it. If I keep you around a few weeks I 
can get out of farming altogether.''
  That is the kind of humor that goes on. These are people who work 
harder than anybody else I know. These are small family farms. They dot 
the New England countryside. They are a beautiful part of our heritage. 
But they exist only if they work hard and efficiently.
  So I am pleased this bill includes an issue very important to my 
region, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. Farmers in my State are 
not looking for handouts.
  All they want is a farm bill that gives them a fair price for an 
honest day's work. They will work harder than anybody else, but they 
ought to be recompensed for that work. I am tired of the person in the 
middle getting all the profits and the typical Vermont farmer going 
almost 15 years without any kind of a price increase.
  This compact is the last best hope of preserving Vermont's heritage. 
Dairy farmers work harder than anyone I know. Cows have to be milked 7 
days a week. It does not make a difference whether it is 25 degrees 
below zero, as it is often in Vermont, or 5 o'clock in the morning. It 
makes no difference. The cows have to be milked.
  I commend Chairman Lugar for his help on the dairy compact. I commend 
the other members of the Vermont delegation. Interestingly enough, we 
are a State where one-third of our delegation is independent, one-third 
is Republican, and the remaining third is me. We came together, all 
three of us, to work for this. Chairman Lugar talked to farmers in 
Vermont. He knew how important it was. After years of debate in 
Congress, we finally have a farm bill that gives them the dairy 
compact.
  I want to remind everyone that while retail prices for dairy products 
have increased 30 percent, farm prices have actually decreased 5 
percent. I want to also point out that although the price of a half 
gallon of milk has gone from $1.19 to $1.59 over the past 15 years, the 
farmer's share has remained at just 59 cents.
  The dairy compact establishes a system which gives the States and 
local farmers control over their lives.
  It will ensure that New England consumers can find milk in their 
supermarkets at fair prices.
  It will also provide family farmers throughout the region with a 
decent living, so that they will be able to pass on their farms to 
their children and their children's children.
  Instead of a national standard imposed by the Federal Government, the 
dairy compact allows local citizens, farmers and officials to make 
local decisions on milk. That is good for dairy farmers, good for 
Vermont and good for America.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a resolution in support 
of the compact from the New England Governors, letters in support of 
the compact from various groups in Vermont, the vote totals in each of 
the State legislatures be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            New England Governors'


                                             Conference, Inc.,

                                    Boston, MA, February 13, 1995.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I understand the Northeast Interstate 
     Dairy Compact awaits action by the full Senate. On behalf of 
     the New England Governors' Conference, Inc., I write to ask 
     your help in moving the Compact bill forward as quickly as 
     possible.
       The attached Resolution of the New England Governors' 
     Conference, Inc. was adopted unanimously at our recent 
     meeting in Washington, D.C.
       The Dairy Compact has been enacted into law by the six New 
     England states. We hope you will support this unique 
     experiment in cooperative federalism. The Compact is a bi-
     partisan, state-sponsored, regional response to the chronic 
     problem of low dairy farm prices. If successfully 
     implemented, the Compact will stabilize our region's dairy 
     industry and reinvigorate this crucial segment of our rural 
     economy, without cost to the federal government or adverse 
     impact on the national industry.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
           Very truly yours,
                                                William A. Gildea,
                                               Executive Director.

                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 diary 
     industry, including consumers, processors, bankers, equipment 
     dealers.

[[Page S3041]]

     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 
     air 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 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.
                                                                    ____

                                           Vermont Public Interest


                                               Research Group,

                                   Montpelier, VT, March 29, 1995.
     Re Support for the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.

     Hon. Patrick Leahy, 
     87 State Street,
     Montpelier, VT.
       Dear Senator Leahy: Thank you for your efforts last year to 
     move the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact through the 
     Senate. VPIRG appreciates that those efforts fell prey to 
     gridlock in Congress. Notwithstanding, we strongly support 
     the Compact--we see it as a means to sustain family farms and 
     agriculture in Vermont. We were thus heartened to see your 
     co-sponsorship of Senate Joint Resolution 28 on March 2nd, 
     and ask you to help accelerate its movement through Congress.
       We know that passage will not be easy. But the time is 
     right for a strong push. We need your help more than ever. 
     The mood of Congress is to return power to the states and, in 
     the case of the Compact, allow states greater power to manage 
     their own affairs collectively. Please take advantage of this 
     opportunity to promote passage of the Compact at the earliest 
     time possible.
       Time is of the essence--Vermont dairy farmers are in 
     trouble. We read that the Vermont Department of Agriculture 
     reported a loss of 50 more dairy farms in January and 
     February alone, bring the total to below 2,000 farms. If 
     anything, the rate of loss seems to be increasing, and this 
     is of great concern to our club members.
       In addition to their direct input into the economy. Vermont 
     dairy farms add to the aesthetic quality of the state. And 
     financially stable farms are better able to deal with 
     agricultural run-off problems and important regulations to 
     deal with non-point pollution. Family-owned dairy farms are 
     also a significant part of Vermont's heritage and it is 
     important that they continue to operate here.
       Again, thank you for your efforts in supporting the 
     Compact. We are behind you 100%!
           Sincerely,
                                                Katherine M. Vose,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                             Vermont Federation of


                                      Sportsmen's Clubs, Inc.,

                                                   April 13, 1995.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     87 State Street,
     Montpelier, VT.
       Dear Senator Leahy: Thank you for your efforts last year to 
     move the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact through the 
     Congress. We appreciate that those efforts fell prey to 
     gridlock. Notwithstanding, the Vermont Federation of 
     Sportsmen Clubs, Inc. continues to strongly support the 
     Compact--we see it as a reintroduction of Senator Joint 
     Resolution 28 on March 2nd, and ask you to help accelerate 
     its movement through Congress.
       We know that passage will not be easy. But the time is 
     right for a strong push. The mood of Congress is to return 
     power to the states and, in the case of the Compact, allow 
     states greater power to manage their own affairs 
     collectively. Please take advantage of this opportunity to 
     promote passage of the Compact at the earliest time possible.
       Time is of essence for an even more critical reason--
     Vermont dairy farmers are in trouble. We read that the 
     Vermont Department of Agriculture reported a loss of 50 more 
     dairy farms in January and February alone, bring the total to 
     below 2000 farms. If anything, the rate of loss seems to be 
     increasing, and this is of great concern to our club members.
       In addition to their direct input into the economy. Vermont 
     dairy farms add to the aesthetic quality of the state. 
     Tourism and recreational opportunities are enhanced by the 
     open space provided by farms, Family owned dairy farms are a 
     significant part of Vermont's heritage and it is important 
     that they continue to operate here.
       Again, thank you for your efforts in supporting the 
     Compact. We are behind you 100%!
           Yours in Sportsmanship,
                                                   Ralph Buchanan,
     Secretary, VFSC.
                                                                    ____



                                         Bourdeau Bros., Inc.,

                                                    Champlain, NY.
     Re Support for the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.

     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     87 State Street,
     Montpelier, VT.
       Dear Senator Leahy: Thank you for your efforts last year to 
     move the Northeast Interstate Dairy Company through the 
     Senate. We appreciate that those efforts fell prey to 
     gridlock in Congress. Notwithstanding, Bourdeau Brothers, 
     Inc. continues to strongly support the Compact--we see it as 
     a means to sustain family farms and agriculture in Vermont 
     and the Northeast. A substantial part of our feed and 
     fertilizer business is with Vermont farmers and they need 
     help! We were thus heartened to see the reintroduction of 
     Senate Joint Resolution 28 on March 2nd, and ask you to help 
     accelerate its movement through Congress.
       We know that passage will not be easy. But the time is 
     right for a strong push. The mood of Congress is to return 
     power to the states and, in the case of the Compact, allow 
     states greater power to manage their own affairs 
     collectively. Please take advantage of this opportunity to 
     promote passage of the Compact at the earliest time possible.
       The Compact is a unique piece of legislation and is clearly 
     a regional solution to a regional problem. In the long-run, 
     it benefits both consumers and producers. It complements the 
     existing federal program, and even has a provision to 
     discourage overproduction. It's a work of art.
       Again, thank you for your efforts in supporting the 
     Compact. We are behind you 100%!
           Sincerely,
                                                 Germain Bourdeau,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                               Vermont Housing and


                                       Conservation Coalition,

                                   Montpelier, VT, April 13, 1995.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     87 State Street,
     Montpelier, VT.
       Dear Pat: I am writing on behalf of the Vermont Housing and 
     Conservation Coalition to support passage of the Northeast 
     Interstate Dairy Compact legislation. The Coalition is a 
     group of land conservation and affordable housing 
     organizations, including the Vermont Land Trust, that have 
     been instrumental in the creation of the Vermont Housing & 
     Conservation Trust Fund and in the implementation of its 
     program. In less than eight years, that program has 
     permanently protected more than 125 operating farms in 
     Vermont through the acquisition of conservation easements, 
     and the momentum is growing. Over a third of the transactions 
     have involved the transfer of the farm from one generation of 
     owners to the next, which is a key element in maintaining the 
     long-term viability of the agricultural industry in this 
     state.
       But that is not the only key element, as you well know. 
     What is also critically important, especially with dairy 
     farming continuing to be the largest sector of Vermont 
     agriculture, is that farmers receive a fair price for their 
     product. If milk prices continue at their present 
     disastrously low levels, Vermont may see a drastic shrinkage 
     in its number of family farms. Even if much of that land is 
     absorbed into other stronger farm operations, Vermont will 
     have lost some of the fabric which makes this state so 
     special.
       Congress has been moving in the direction of returning more 
     control to the States. It is therefore highly significant 
     that the six New England States have all adopted the 
     legislation endorsing the compact. The only barrier to 
     returning some sense of fairness and control over milk prices 
     is Congress' authorization.
       I understand that the Joint Resolution has been 
     reintroduced in the House and Senate. I hope you will do all 
     you can to push for its passage by Congress at the earliest 
     possible time. Time is short. An officer at the Farm Credit 
     Association, who works with many farmers and is a strong 
     advocate of Vermont's program to purchase development rights 
     on farmland, recently told me that Vermont may lose as many 
     as 800 farms in the next five years. He felt that the next 
     12-18 months will be the most difficult. We cannot afford to 
     wait for the Compact legislation.
       Thank you for your support. With best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Darby Bradley,
     Co-Chair.
                                                                    ____



                                Vermont Ski Areas Association,

                                   Montpelier, VT, April 11, 1995.
     Re Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.

     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     87 State Street,
     Montpelier, VT.
       Dear Senator Leahy: As you well know, tourism and 
     agriculture in Vermont are mutually dependent industries. 
     More and more,

[[Page S3042]]

     these two industries depend on the health and prosperity of 
     each other. For as long as I can remember, the Vermont ski 
     industry has taken a keen interest in the health and 
     stability of Vermont's dairy farms. We not only share a 
     working landscape, but we also share common markets as well 
     as common values.
       On behalf of Vermont ski areas, I want to thank you for 
     your continued support of the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
     Compact. Solving our financial problems within the dairy 
     industry will challenge us for a generation to come, but 
     there is little question that an essential first step is the 
     passage of legislation creating the Northeast Interstate 
     Dairy Compact.
       I urge you to give this matter special attention in a very 
     busy legislative session. We in Vermont's ski industry know, 
     perhaps better than ever, what hard economic times can mean 
     and want to lend our voice of support to the enactment of 
     this legislation at the earliest possible date.
           Sincerely,
                                              Joseph A. Parkinson,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                               Vermont Current Use


                                                Tax Coalition,

                                   Montpelier, VT, March 30, 1995.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     87 State Street,
     Montpelier, VT.
       Dear Senator Leahy: We appreciate your efforts of last year 
     to try to obtain passage of the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
     Compact legislation. Congress did not see fit to act on the 
     legislation. We still believe this legislation deserves your 
     strong support and so urge you to help accelerate Senate 
     Joint Resolution 28 through Congress.
       It is clear that passage will not be easy against western 
     and mid-western determination to hold onto control of milk 
     pricing structures over the entire country. But, we believe 
     that if agriculture is to be sustainable over the foreseeable 
     future in New England, we must be able to set prices for our 
     products based on production costs in New England, not in the 
     corn belt, or on vast federal range lands of the west. The 
     dairy industry should lead the way; the other agricultural 
     sectors will follow.
       It appears that now is not only an opportune time to press 
     this legislation because of the general mood on federal 
     deregulation and greater empowerment of the states to manage 
     their own affairs, but also because Vermont agriculture, and 
     dairy farms in particular, are undergoing increasingly 
     difficult financial times. Vermont lost 50 more dairy farms 
     in the first two months of this year. Where is it going to 
     end?
       The Compact was adopted with near-unanimous support by the 
     six New England state legislatures. The Current Use Tax 
     Coalition supported the process then, and we continue to 
     believe that if agriculture is to remain an active part of 
     our lives in Vermont this key piece of legislation must be 
     passed.
       Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Vermont 
     agriculture.
           Sincerely,
                                               David A. McDonough,
     Chair, Current Use Tax Coalition.
                                                                    ____

                                      National Bank of Middlebury,
                                    Middlebury, VT, April 3, 1995.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy, 
     U.S. Senator, State Street,
     Montpelier, VT.
       Dear Senator Leahy: Thank you for your efforts last year to 
     move the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact through the 
     legislature. National Bank of Middlebury continues to 
     strongly support the Compact, and we are pleased to see the 
     re-introduction of Senate Joint Resolution #28 on March 2, We 
     know that passage will not be easy. However, the Compact has 
     received near unanimous support from the six New England 
     state legislatures. There is a clear regional mandate to 
     solve this problem.
       Time is of the essence because Vermont dairy farmers are in 
     trouble. The Vermont Department of Agriculture reported a 
     loss of 50 more dairy farms in January and February alone 
     bringing the total farms in Vermont to below 2,000 in number. 
     We will see one of our customers added to the list of 
     casualties in June. The ``loss-of-farms'' rate is alarming 
     for the industry, but also for the state economy. It is 
     unclear how much farming contributes to the tourism economy 
     and the postal nature of Vermont. Our instincts tell us it is 
     immeasureable. So, we urge you to promote passage of the 
     Compact at the earliest time possible. Thank you for your 
     efforts in supporting the Compact.
           Sincerely,
                                                G. Kenneth Perine,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                              Northeast Interstate


                                      Dairy Compact Committee,

                                                   Montpelier, VT.


                 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 
     Agriuclture 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, the bill expands a great program in Vermont 
called the Farms for the Future.
  Vermont's dairy farms are part of what makes Vermont so special. That 
is why I want to help Vermont farm families keep their land in 
agriculture through the Farms for the Future Program.
  I included this program in the 1990 farm bill, and since then, 
Vermont has purchased the development rights for nearly 100 farms 
throughout the State.
  Let me put that another way--nearly 100 Vermont farmers received cash 
payments under this program. This kept their land in farming.
  I am pleased that this bill contains $35 million more for farmland 
protection programs throughout the Nation.
  While this bill has many accomplishments, I wish we could have done 
even more in environmental areas. For example, the Wetlands Reserve 
Program places a lower cap on enrollments than the bill passed by the 
Senate.
  Retaining the Senate's cap would have provided further environmental 
insurance to future generations.
  The committee I sit on is called the Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry Committee for a reason.
  We have a long bipartisan history of making sure every child in our 
Nation--whether they are rich or poor--has enough to eat.
  While agriculture programs now extend for 7 more years, one of our 
most important child nutrition programs, food stamps, will expire 2 
years from now.
  Fourteen million children benefit from the Food Stamp Program. I fear 
that our precious children--those least able to defend themselves in 
our society--will be at risk in 2 years. I intend to work with Senators 
Lugar, Daschle, Dole, and others to make certain that this does not 
happen.
  Mr. President, in closing, while this bill adopts important new 
provisions in farm policy, we must be careful about patting ourselves 
too much on the back. There are important areas in conservation, the 
environment and nutrition where we have failed to go the extra step.
  Although this bill is called the farm bill, it affects every American 
every day of their lives. What we pass today will impact families when 
they take a vacation to one of our national parks, spread a picnic 
lunch under a tree, bit into a sandwich or drink a glass of juice.
  The 2 million farmers are important and this bill will serve them 
well.
  But we cannot forget that farm policy affects the more than 250 
million Americans who are concerned about the environment, 
conservation, and important nutrition programs.
  In the last year partisan fights on the budget and other issues have 
tied up Congress and shut down the Government on two occasions. We all 
realize that is not the way to govern. That is why last month, when it 
appeared that the farm bill would be caught in the same trap, I decided 
to act.
  With Senator Lugar and Senator Dole, I offered a bipartisan farm bill 
with strong conservation, environmental and nutrition provisions. I am 
proud that a bipartisan step led to this final bill. I want to also 
thank Chairman Roberts for his efforts in working with me at 
conference. His freedom-to-farm idea has captured the hearts of many 
thousands of farmers through America.
  This is Congressman Kika de la Garza's last farm bill, as it is the 
last farm bill for Senator Pryor and Senator Heflin. I have greatly 
enjoyed working with all of them over the years.
  Let me focus on the conservation provisions for a moment. They are 
different from most--they will provide cash payments to farmers for 
improvements they would want to make anyway.
  One program is a voluntary program of payments to Vermont farmers who

[[Page S3043]]

want to protect Lake Champlain, or protect rivers or other lakes near 
their fields. It is also a voluntary program for farmers around the 
Nation.
  It can be expensive to manage your land. Some may need assistance in 
getting the job done right. That is why Senator Lugar and I designed a 
conservation program called EQUIP. It cuts redtape and guarantees 
funding for conservation assistance for the next 7 years.
  This is voluntary assistance that will be available if you need it. 
It can help Vermont farmers comply with the State's new accepted 
agricultural practices.
  We are in this together. We want to keep our streams full of trout. 
We want to make sure St. Albans Bay, Lake Memphremagog, and Missiquoi 
Bay are clean for everyone to enjoy. This bill also protects lakes and 
rivers in all States.
  Keeping our State and regional dairy industry strong is the driving 
force behind the Northeast Dairy Compact. Working together is how we 
have gotten so far. At a later date I will thank all those involved in 
getting the dairy compact approved.
  Today I want to thank the agriculture committee chairmen in Vermont, 
Senator Tom Bahre and Representative Bobby Starr, Governor Dean, 
Commissioner Graves, Congressman Sanders, and the hundreds of dairy 
farmers in Vermont who worked with me on getting the job done. And I 
want to say a special thanks to Jim Jeffords. He and I have worked side 
by side throughout this fight.
  I also need to highlight the role of Danny Smith. He came down to 
Washington and worked directly with me on getting the compact included 
in the final bill. His support was vital.
  The compact has come a long way, from the State legislatures of New 
England, to the Congress.
  Vermonters and all of New England know the importance of the dairy 
industry. But in New England people know that the dairy compact is more 
than helping farmers, and helping the dairy industry in the region.
  To New Englanders, a vital rural agricultural economy is part of both 
the heritage they treasure and the future in which they believe.
  This bill represents real reform of Federal dairy policy. This bill 
phases down dairy price supports saving more than $300 million, more 
than 20 percent compared to the baseline. This bill fully funds the 
Dairy Export Incentive Program and poises the U.S. dairy industry to 
capture expanding world markets.
  The Federal milk orders remain in place but mandates their reform and 
consolidated the current number of 33 by about two-thirds. I am 
concerned that the Secretary has been given only 3 years to complete 
this process. These provisions were hard fought compromises addressing 
the concerns of farmers, processors, consumers, and the various 
regions. No region or interest group is completely satisfied, but that 
is the sign of a good compromise.
  A major thrust of this bill is to reduce regulations that are imposed 
on farmers and ranchers. It reduces conservation regulations and farm 
program regulations.
  The conference report gives farmers a lot more flexibility to decide 
what crops to plant. That means farmers will be able to choose the crop 
rotations that are best for their farms, rather than planting to meet 
the requirements of the farm program.
  The bill eliminates existing penalties for producing hay and other 
resource-conserving crops, so the environment should benefit as well.
  The conference report also brings to an end the practice of requiring 
farmers to idle productive cropland. No longer will USDA decide each 
year how much land a farmer must set aside to get farm program 
payments. From now on, the Government will pay farmers to idle land 
only when that land is environmentally sensitive.
  A key section of this farm bill is the continuation of international 
food aid programs--Public Law 480, Food for Progress and the Emerging 
Democracy Program. These programs are critical in our global efforts to 
fight world hunger. Our responsibility to help others is a moral 
obligation and I am delighted that the importance these programs play 
in the fight against world hunger is understood by all conferees.
  I am pleased with the strong emphasis that this bill places on 
importance of maintaining strong U.S. agricultural export markets. 
Export of U.S. agricultural products, especially in the value-added 
market, is one of the most profitable and fastest growing sectors in 
our Nation's economy. My home State of Vermont understands its 
importance. Vermont export statistics indicate that Vermont exported 
more than $175 million in agricultural-derived products--many of these 
in the value-added category. That translates into a thriving economy 
and local job creation.
  This bill also streamlines USDA farm lending programs. The conferees 
worked hard with Secretary Glickman to produce a title both the 
administration, Congress and farm borrowers can support, and I believe 
we have crafted an effective policy to help farmers prepare for the 
next century without creating the dependency on USDA loan programs that 
have existed in past to the detriment of both USDA and the individual 
borrowers.
  I am disappointed that the conference report does not provide a 
better safety net for farmers. Farm program payments will not be tied 
to market conditions, so farmers may get large Government payments when 
they do not need them, and may not get sufficient aid when times are 
hard. I hope that we can work on new ways to help farmers deal with 
market risk.
  I am also concerned with some of the changes that have been made in 
the Crop Insurance Program. Farmers will no longer be required to 
purchase crop insurance to get farm program benefits. While I support 
giving farmers freedom of choice, I fear that too many farmers will 
fail to obtain insurance.
  If we have widespread crop disaster and many farmers do not have 
insurance coverage, there will again be political pressure to enact ad 
hoc disaster programs. I supported the effort to reform crop insurance 
in 1994 largely because I wanted to bring an end to ad hoc disaster 
programs. I want everyone to understand that my willingness to accept 
these changes in the Crop Insurance Program should not be 
misinterpreted as a willingness to return to wasteful disaster 
programs.
  I have two major concerns with the meat and poultry advisory panel. 
First, it will waste money that would be better spent on meat and 
poultry inspectors. Second, the scope of what the panel can investigate 
is too broad.
  However, on the positive side, the panel is advisory and does not 
have the constitutional or statutory power to delay food safety actions 
of the Secretary. Delays will only result if the Secretary voluntarily 
agrees that the delay is appropriate.
  I accepted the provision on studying the usefulness of permitting the 
interstate shipment of State-inspected meat. This idea was proposed by 
the President of the United States in his farm bill recommendations. I 
think it would be useful to have the Secretary's most recent views on 
this issue.
  I am especially happy that this legislation includes a proposal that 
was added at my request, the Flood Risk Reduction Program contained in 
section 385. I first became interested in this situation after the 
disastrous floods of 1993. I raised this issue in a hearing with then 
Secretary Espy.
  I asked the Secretary whether it would make more sense to stop 
fighting the Mississippi River and the natural elements of these lands 
and instead to enroll them in the Wetland Reserve Program.
  In addition, I spoke to the President personally about this proposal. 
I also wrote a letter to the President detailing my emergency wetlands 
reserve initiative that would improve the proposed disaster relief 
program for the Mississippi Valley floods. In this letter I continued 
to attack the inefficiency and high cost of the disaster relief 
program.
  In addition, I pointed out that there is a very good possibility that 
many of the cropland areas that were once wetlands would be better off 
returned to wetland status rather than repaired and kept in crops.
  The success of voluntary programs to help farmers move off flood 
prone bottom land can be seen in the example of Levee District 8 in 
Iowa. This area had a history of flood damage. It would have cost the 
taxpayer about $1,500 per acre to return this land to farmable 
condition. And then a few years later,

[[Page S3044]]

it would have flooded again. Instead this levee district was 
voluntarily abolished. A decision that works for the farmers and the 
taxpayer. I ask unanimous consent that a description of that success 
story be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        The 1993 Floods--From Levee District to Wildlife Refuge

                          (By Bruce Mountain)

       The farmers were grim as they stood at the road below Bob 
     Hawk's house that leads into the upper end of Levee District 
     8 and Louisa County, Iowa. It was 7 a.m. on July 8, 1993, and 
     it appeared they were going to lose again. There had been 
     record rains in the Iowa River Basin; and Levee District 8, 
     only six miles from the Mississippi, was feeling the brunt of 
     the massive run-off as it funneled 12 million acres down the 
     river.
       The levee was built in 1927 to protect 2,000 acres of crop 
     ground. The area also contained 600 acres of old oxbows and 
     sloughs (Spitznogle Lake, Sunfish Lake, Rush Lake, Parsons 
     Lake, Wilson Lake, Hall Lake, and Diggins Slough) and 
     riverine forests. It had been estimated the levee was a 25-
     year levee (able to withstand floods that occur once every 25 
     years), but in the last 60 years it had been breached 14 
     times.
       This looked like it would be number 15. Ed Yotter and the 
     other farmers stood at 551 feet above sea level, and the 
     lower end of the district, at 541 feet, was already under 
     several feet of water due to seepage up through the saturated 
     ground and through the levee. By 8 a.m. water started to lap 
     over the top of the levee at several locations, so the 25 
     farmers and neighbors moved off the main levee and worked to 
     reinforce the cross levee between Levee District 8 and the 
     adjacent up-stream levee district, number 11.
       At 9 a.m. word came that the main levee of District 11 had 
     broken and water was gushing in. By 11 a.m. water was coming 
     over the main levee in District 8 like a waterfall. 
     Officially, the main levee was breached in six locations and 
     the cross levee was breached in five, but actually these were 
     the accumulation of many smaller breaches all along the 
     levees. At its height, the flood water was more than two feet 
     over the top of the levee, drowning the hopes of another 
     year's crop.
       When the flood water finally receded in September, the 
     farmers looked over the damage. They were stunned by the 
     numerous scour holes (some 25 to 100 feet long and 17 feet 
     deep), sand deposits (some 6 inches to 6 feet deep), and 
     flotsam. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now known as 
     the Natural Resources Conservation Service, moved in to 
     assess the damage to the crop ground in Levee District 8 (it 
     was later set at up to $3,000 per acre) and to estimate the 
     costs to fix the roads and drainage system. The Army Corps of 
     Engineers obtained estimates to fix the levees.
       But the landowners were tired of fighting the river. And 
     conservationists and public officials knew this oft-flooded 
     land shouldn't be farmed. For a brief time after the waters 
     receded and before the repairs would need to begin, the 
     situation was ripe for change, and a variety of agencies and 
     nonprofits seized the opportunity. They put together a buy-
     out of the properties in Levee District Number 8 and 
     created--a year and a half later--Horseshoe Bend, a division 
     of the Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge and a good case 
     study of how a coalition can move quickly when conditions--
     and the will for change--are right.


                   gathering funds and willing buyers

       If the flooding of Louisa County's levee had been a 
     localized incident the levees would have been rebuilt 
     ($800,000), the drainage ditches cleared ($400,000), the sand 
     bars removed, the scour holes filled, and the debris removed 
     ($1.7 million) for an estimated $2.9 million. This excludes 
     the additional costs and federal dollars for disaster 
     payments ($200,000) as well as crop insurance payments and 
     the non-recoverable costs of the landowners. (Today, it is 
     believed that these estimates were low because in the 
     adjacent levee district, number 11, where the levee was 
     actually repaired, the initial estimate proved to be 80 
     percent below the actual costs.)
       This was not, however, a localized incident. The flooding 
     of the entire Upper Mississippi River Basin in 1993 was the 
     worst in years. At many of the U.S. Geological Survey gauging 
     stations along the Mississippi, the flow levels exceeded the 
     hundred year mark. In response, Congress passed the Emergency 
     Wet and Reserve Program (EWRP) in October 1993 as a part of 
     flood relief support. Without the funds provided by this 
     program, the Louisa Levee District buy-out could not have 
     occurred.
       The federal government's disaster aid program was developed 
     to provide compensation for severely damaged crop ground and 
     also to break the cycle of paying for similar damage caused 
     by future floods. Under the program, the Department of 
     Agriculture would purchase a permanent easement on crop acres 
     where the damage caused by the flood exceeded the value of 
     the easement. The easement would prohibit all but very 
     limited agricultural practices, and in Louisa County, it was 
     set at $683 per acre.
       In early October, the Iowa office of the SCS proposed the 
     idea of buying out the entire levee district, but only from 
     willing sellers and only if the district were dissolved so as 
     to ensure that future levee reconstruction costs would not be 
     incurred. The SCS did not have the funds or the statutory 
     authority to purchase the district, so, in late October, it 
     organized meeting with its own representatives, the Fish and 
     Wildlife Service (FWS), the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency (FEMA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 
     Corps, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the Iowa 
     Natural Heritage Foundation, Pheasants Forever, and other 
     interested parties to seek a solution.
       The group immediately realized that for the project to be 
     successful, quick action would be needed. With winter 
     approaching, the dredge barges the Corps needed to repair the 
     levees would soon be frozen out. The group thought that a 
     buy-out of the fee title to the parcels in the levee district 
     could be accomplished through joining the Emergency Wetland 
     Reserve payment with additional cash to be raised to equal 
     the fair market value of the property.
       The area also qualified for FEMA assistance. Applications 
     were made to the Iowa Disaster Management Office, which 
     helped handle FEMA payments, to have the buy-out declared as 
     an alternative floodplain project. That declaration would 
     make up to 90 percent of the disaster payments eligible to be 
     applied for the buy-out. However, an estimated additional 
     $500,000 to $600,000 would still be needed to accomplish 
     the project. Representatives for the FWS indicated they 
     would have the money but not until 1994. The National Fish 
     and Wildlife Foundation then agreed to provide a $250,000 
     grant to be matched by $250,000 from The Conservation 
     Fund; these monies would be used as a loan or stop-gap 
     funding until the FWS funds became available. Other non-
     profits, such as the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation and 
     Pheasants Forever, also provided funding.
       The Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, a 15-year-old private 
     group, was asked to be the project facilitator. The 
     Foundation would coordinate the offers to purchase land from 
     the individual landowners, coordinate the Emergency Wetland 
     Reserve Program funding with the National Fish and Wildlife 
     Foundation and Conservation Fund monies, and oversee the 
     eventual transfer of the properties. Before the buy-out could 
     proceed, the ultimate owner and manager of the area had to be 
     determined. The choice was between the Iowa Department of 
     Natural Resources and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Due in 
     part to state budgetary constraints and federal management 
     personnel available at the nearby Mark Twain Wildlife Refuge, 
     the FWS was the logical choice to hold title and manage the 
     project.
       Another condition for the project to proceed was the 
     closing of the levee district and drainage district. 
     Therefore, the statutory requirements for closing the 
     districts, including legal notice and voting procedures, had 
     to be researched. The final closing took place on March 31, 
     1994.
       Once the landowners agreed to the concept, offers to 
     purchase had to be negotiated with each landowner. The 
     district is owned by 13 different landowners with parcels 
     ranging in size from 13 acres to more than 1,500 acres. One 
     farm is owned by an investor/operator, and another was deeded 
     by President James Polk under federal patent to the owners, 
     Jack and Merrit Parsons's great-great-grandfather, in 1846. 
     Two sisters, Mary Boysen and Martha Hawk, each owned Century 
     Farms, a designation given to farms that have been in the 
     same family for 100 years. Another farm was acquired by duck 
     hunters in 1929, and it is still operated as a private duck 
     hunting club by the heirs of the six original partners.
       We concluded that all of the offers to landowners had to be 
     based on a consistently applied formula. Several of the 
     landowners said that they were dissatisfied with the offers, 
     but eventually agreed to them, based on the knowledge that 
     other landowners were getting the same offers and that there 
     were no ``special deals.'' By sticking to this strategy, 
     individual negotiations and appraisals were avoided.
       The first offer was signed December 13, 1993, and the last 
     one was executed May 6, 1994. Seven of the ten landowners had 
     closed by November 30, 1994. The rest closed by the end of 
     1994 as the farmers finished their field work.


                             many partners

       Completing a project with so many partners and landowners 
     in such a short time required creativity, cooperation, and 
     attention to detail. One of the more important aspects of 
     this partnership was the Cooperative Agreement signed by the 
     Soil Conservation Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
     the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation. This agreement 
     delineates the responsibilities of each party. One useful 
     provision of the agreement is one that specifies that access 
     will be available to top-level officials when efforts were 
     stymied on the local level.
       The public/private mix in the project was important. The 
     public and private partners can be divided into five 
     categories, each of which served different roles and 
     functions: implementing non-profit organizations, 
     jurisdictional agencies, funding agencies, funding non-
     profits, and project managing agencies.
       In this project, the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation was 
     an implementing or facilitating non-profit organization. An 
     implementing non-profit was necessary because flexibility and 
     speed were needed to consummate the project. The Iowa Natural 
     Heritage Foundation's Wetlands for Iowa Program was chosen 
     for the project, in part, because

[[Page S3045]]

     it has expertise in land acquisition projects and in forming 
     partnerships with state and federal agencies and other non-
     profits to fund the purchase of such projects. In this case, 
     the Wetlands for Iowa Program had the responsibility to 
     educate landowners on the concept of merging the Emergency 
     Wetland Reserve Program easement with a buy-out.
       The Foundation also had many other tasks. It did a 
     preliminary appraisal of the land in November of 1993 and 
     devised the uniform buy-out plan. It paid for a quick 
     appraisal of cropland and non-cropland based on comparable 
     sales and pre-flood land values. From this, a portion of the 
     value due to the flood damage, as determined by SCS, was 
     deducted to arrive at the current value. In dealing with non-
     motivated sellers, the Foundation packaged the idea as an 
     attractive alternative to farming in the floodplain and as 
     being fair among all neighbors.
       The Foundation also negotiated offers to purchase land with 
     each landowner and provided the flexibility to customize each 
     transaction. Tax deferments were provided through three-way 
     land exchanges. For example, the Foundation purchased land 
     from a third party (pursuant to the instructions of the owner 
     of levee district land) and then traded the land for land in 
     the levee district. The Foundation then would receive the 
     EWRP payment. Non-levee district acres were purchased to 
     round out tracts that were not eligible for the EWRP. For 
     example, the Spitznogle brothers owned 12 acres inside the 
     levee district, but wanted to sell 20 acres to have square 
     boundaries. The additional eight acres was purchased with 
     some of the funds provided by other nonprofits.
       Finally, the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation developed a 
     timetable for all public and private participants to ensure 
     each was fulfilling its responsibilities. These included 
     appraisals, surveys, title problems, financing, preparing 
     grant applications, closing on each parcel, and transferring 
     each to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
       The many jurisdictional agencies involved in the project--
     the Soil Conservation Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Corps--had 
     responsibilities that varied in breadth and longevity. The 
     SCS was responsible for evaluating flood damage to each land 
     parcel and for implementing the Emergency Wetland Reserve 
     Program. The wetland restoration requirements of the EWRP for 
     the participating landowners were the responsibility of the 
     FWS. The FWS also conducted the environmental assessment and 
     environmental impact studies and engaged an independent 
     appraiser to assess the properties and develop comparable 
     figures from in-house appraisers. These figures were very 
     close to the ``quickie'' appraisal obtained by the Iowa 
     Natural Heritage Foundation.
       FEMA's involvement included assessing damage compensation 
     under its statutory authority and developing the project as 
     an alternative plan. FEMA also had a role as a funding agency 
     for the project as did the SCS and the FWS. Funding non-
     profits included the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, the 
     National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, The Conservation Fund, 
     Pheasants Forever, and the Izaak Walton League. The fifth 
     category of partners were project managing agencies, which 
     included the SCS, the FWS, and the Corps.
       Typically, this type of project does not work in normal 
     regulatory frameworks. Entrenched bureaucrats, enamored with 
     their own regulations, can be a death knell to a project. The 
     time it takes to babysit hesitant landowners and coordinate 
     state and federal agencies does not permit one agency to be 
     inflexible in interpreting its regulations when the intent of 
     the regulations can be met through cooperative and 
     imaginative initiatives. All partners need access to top 
     agency personnel because someone outside the organization can 
     sometimes get results, whereas agency personnel may not have 
     the authority or the influence to buck their way up the 
     system.
       The Louisa County levee buy-out required close interagency 
     cooperation. As an example, SCS defined the value of damages 
     to the land for purposes of qualification for EWRP. FWS then 
     directed its appraisers to use the same data and valuation 
     premises in determining the fair market value of the land. We 
     would have had difficulty closing the project if the agencies 
     had used two different methods of appraisal and the land 
     qualified for EWRP but would not qualify for the buy-out.
       Another example: Regulations for the SCS for EWRP 
     easements, and the FWS for land acquisitions, required their 
     respective legal counsel to determine that landowners had 
     marketable title to the land, subject to the guidelines of 
     the project. Through negotiations, SCS agreed to accept FWS 
     opinions of title. This avoided a separate time-consuming 
     step by keeping the project out of the hands of at least one 
     set of government lawyers.
       The last ingredient for success was agency flexibility. For 
     example, EWRP regulations require all easements to be 
     surveyed and this would have caused an immense delay in the 
     project. To its credit, SCS waived these regulations, since 
     most of the acquisitions involved the entire tract. Surveys 
     were then conducted only on five parcels split on irregular 
     boundary lines.


                             severe lessons

       This unique project is giving farmers an opportunity to 
     find alternative agricultural land to continue farming 
     without fighting the floods. Additionally, it provides short- 
     and long-term savings to taxpayers because a one-time, fair-
     market purchase of flood-prone land is much cheaper than 
     continued, expensive federal programs to rebuild levees, 
     clean drainage districts, repair land, and pay disaster 
     payments. All of these costs are interspersed with crop-
     deficiency payments and insurance claims. In addition, our 
     latest calculation shows the Fish and Wildlife Service saved 
     $235,000 by having the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation 
     facilitate the transactions. The federal government still has 
     the responsibility to provide existing protection in certain 
     floodplains; but it also must develop alternatives to 
     controlling nature, such as relocating willing landowners and 
     returning parts of the floodplain to the river.
       The great flood of 1993 taught us some severe lessons. We 
     have to expand our mission from just controlling the water 
     that affects our individual properties to effectively dealing 
     with the effects of the water all the way down the river 
     ecosystem. We also have to learn to live with the river 
     system by holding more of the rain water where it falls and 
     by slowing its movement through the system, thereby allowing 
     the river to reestablish some of its checks and balances.
       Lastly, we have to stop ``just greasing the squeaky wheel'' 
     and find ways to spread the available federal funds for 
     floodplain management among the various alternatives that 
     benefit the general public. This includes developing a 
     management plan for the entire river system, coordinating 
     pertinent programs and agencies and--where there are willing 
     landowners--giving some of our natural resources back to 
     nature.

  Mr. LEAHY. The experience with the Emergency Wetland Reserve Program 
led me to include the flood risk reduction initiative into this 
legislation. The purpose of this program is to help farmers who farm in 
a areas that flood frequently to move their farming activities off 
lands that are flooded frequently. It helps farmers by giving them the 
capital that they need to move their farming operations to fewer risky 
areas. To the taxpayer, it is a commonsense program that will reduce 
the long-term taxpayers' exposure for agriculturally related flooding 
costs. It should help reduce the severity and frequency of floods to 
the farmers' neighbors.
  Crop damages in recent years have been the source of more than half 
of the property damages in many floods, including the great Midwest 
flood of 1993. Our farm programs have unfortunately provided incentives 
that increase flood damages because they have directly supported the 
growing of easily damaged commodities even in areas that are flood 
prone. The crop insurance, disaster assistance, and related programs 
also make the public assume much of the risk of growing commodities in 
flood prone areas. We have a strong interest in eliminating the 
authority to help farmers to switch to more flood resistant uses of 
flood prone land.
  It gives farmers the financial capability to move their operations to 
less risky land. The incentives for farmers to switch to less risky 
land come from the funds that have in the past been paid to farmers who 
farm the flood prone land. In this way, we will give farmers in flood 
prone areas the flexibility to shift to alternative agricultural or 
conservation uses of land that are less subject to flood damages.
  Under section 385 of this act, the Secretary may enter into a 
contract with a producer under which the producer will agree to forego 
virtually all of the forms of Federal financial assistance received in 
flood prone areas. In return, this section provides that the Secretary 
will provide the farmer a one-time payment equal to 95 percent of the 
future market transition payments on the land affected. It further 
provides these funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation regardless 
of whether it has received advanced appropriations.
  Subsection (e) of this section further authorizes the Secretary to 
provide additional payments to encourage this switch to less flood-
sensitive land. It gives the Secretary the authority to add to the farm 
bills' lump sum payments, funds appropriated for programs that would 
otherwise be used to support agriculture in flood plans. For example, 
at a minimum this would include funds appropriated for crop insurance, 
disaster assistance or conservation programs.
  The Secretary is, of course, free to condition payment for these 
funds on appropriate conditions.
  The conferees, by including a separate subsection (e), were merely 
recognizing that funds are available to the Secretary from different 
sources--CCC

[[Page S3046]]

and advanced appropriations. The conference included language requiring 
advanced appropriations because the conference wished the Secretary to 
offset any funds provided through the Flood Risk Reduction Program from 
funds for other appropriated programs that are saved by the flood risk 
reduction contract.
  As you can see, I have fought hard for this Flood Risk Reduction 
Program. That is why, I am very pleased it is part of this farm bill.
  Mr. President, I will speak further at a later time. I notice other 
Senators on the floor. I see the distinguished senior Senator from 
North Dakota here, and I know he wishes to speak. I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  I ask the distinguished Senator, under whose time is he speaking?
  Mr. CONRAD. Who has time?
  Mr. LEAHY. I think everybody does, for and against.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would be speaking in opposition.
  Mr. LEAHY. Then, Mr. President, that time is reserved by the 
distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. On his behalf, I 
yield time to the Senator from North Dakota under the control of the 
time of the Senator from South Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized. 
How much time does he seek?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will just proceed and end at an appropriate time. That 
is the agreement that I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and the ranking member for his 
courtesy. I thank the chairman of the committee, as well, for his 
graciousness throughout the debate. We have disagreed, but we have 
disagreed in a way that I think you would expect of Senators who have 
mutual respect. I certainly respect the chairman and the ranking 
member. I wish all committees were conducted in the way the Agriculture 
Committee is conducted. People are given a complete and fair chance to 
present their views. We disagree, but we do it without personal rancor. 
I think that is a tribute to the chairman and ranking member.
  Mr. President, we are in 1996, and we are working on the 1995 farm 
bill. Something is wrong. What is wrong is that there has been a 
failure to act. This is the first time since 1947 that a farm bill has 
lapsed before a new farm bill has been put in place. So we are late.
  Mr. President, it is critical that we act quickly so that farmers 
know the rules of the road as they proceed in this new crop year.
  This new farm bill has many positive elements. Let me talk about 
three.
  First, this farm bill retains permanent law. That is critically 
important because, at the end of this 7-year period, if we had followed 
the lead of the House, there would be nothing. There would be no 
permanent farm law. Farmers would have no assurance that there was 
provision for them in the future. Mr. President, we have had tough 
fights on this question, but permanent law has been preserved.
  The second positive element of this bill is that it provides a 
dramatic increase in flexibility for farmers. They can plant for the 
market and not for the farm program. That is certainly a significant 
improvement.
  Third, this farm bill provides a guaranteed payment that will help 
farmers with the repayment of advanced deficiencies from last year. 
Now, some say that farmers ought to be repaying, without assistance, 
their advanced deficiencies from last year because prices have been 
high. It is true that prices are very good right now. But it is also 
true that you do not benefit from high prices if you do not have a 
crop.
  Mr. President, in my State, many farmers have had 3 years of very 
poor crops. They have had it because of very serious weather 
conditions. We have gone from the extraordinary circumstance of the 
worst drought since the 1930's--in 1988 and 1989--to having the wettest 
conditions, we have seen in decades, for 3 years in a row.
  Mr. President, it is very hard for some people to understand why 
farmers are complaining about weather conditions, when conditions turn 
wet. Mr. President, they just did not turn wet; we got the deluge of 
the century. In one day, one little town in North Dakota received 10 
inches of rain. This is an area that gets maybe 25 inches a year. They 
received 10 inches in one day. We have, in the Devil's Lake basin, what 
I have described to my colleagues in the past as a remarkable 
circumstance of a closed basin with a large lake that is rising as a 
result of these wet conditions. It has gone up 13 feet in the last 2 
years. The National Weather Service has just informed us it is going to 
go up another 2\1/2\ feet this year. The surface area of the lake has 
doubled. We had Federal officials come out to look at the disaster that 
is occurring there.
  They asked the city officials of the little town of Minnewaukan why 
they built their water treatment facility so close to this lake because 
now this water treatment facility is surrounded on three sides by this 
lake. The city officials laughed, and told the Federal officials, 
``When we built this treatment facility it was 7 miles from the lake. 
Now it is surrounded by the lake.''
  Mr. President, those very wet conditions have meant that many farmers 
have gotten only a partial crop, and even though prices are high they 
have not had the benefit because they have not had a crop to sell. So 
these guaranteed payments--especially this year--are important in 
allowing them to repay and stay in business.
  But just as I have talked about what are I think the positive 
features of this bill, I would be remiss if I did not say that I 
believe the underlying farm policy contained in this legislation is 
fatally flawed. First of all, it decouples payments from prices and 
production. Mr. President, that is wrong. This legislation contains 
payments that are fixed but sharply declining. That is wrong. This 
legislation provides no adjustments if prices plunge, or yields are 
low. That is wrong.
  I remember very well in 1986--that was the year I was elected to the 
U.S. Senate--wheat that is now selling for over $5 a bushel was selling 
for $2 a bushel. But we had a safety net. We had a deficiency payment 
system that allowed some offsets from the Federal Government. That 
saved literally thousands of family farmers in my State. Under this 
legislation there will be no safety net. Thousands of farmers will be 
forced off the land if prices plunge, or if yields are abnormally low 
because of disasters.
  I remember very well what it was like in the 1980's going town to 
town and meeting to meeting. People came up to me broken financially 
and in spirit because prices collapsed.
  Mr. President, we should not fashion a farm policy that turns its 
back on people in times of disaster, whether it is a price collapse, or 
a weather disaster. We ought to maintain a safety net in this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, in my State there are now 30,000 farmers. I believe 
that under this legislation if prices decline--and they will; we know 
that it is inevitable in agriculture that prices will decline--when 
they do, literally thousands of family farmers in my State will be at 
risk. I believe we will lose perhaps as many as 10,000 family farmers. 
That will be felt in every city and town in my State. Every school, 
every rural electric cooperative, every farm co-op, and every grocery 
store will be hard hit, if more farmers leave the land. And what will 
happen to those people? They will go to the cities of the country--the 
cities where there are already too many people. I look around us here 
in the Nation's Capital, Metropolitan D.C. and I see too many people 
here already. It makes no sense to have more people come to the cities 
and leave the countryside bare.
  Mr. President, in Europe they have a policy to keep people on the 
land. Europe has that policy because they have recognized that it makes 
sense. They understand the jobs that are created by having agricultural 
production in their countries. Mr. President, Europe has been hungry 
twice. They never intend to be hungry again. As a result, they support 
their farmers at a level three to four times what we do for ourselves. 
On exports they support their producers at a level eight times ours. 
They understand that there are not just the jobs on the farm--that 
there are the jobs in every element of agriculture that are attached to 
having that production in their countries.
  In this country there are 20 million jobs involved in agribusiness, 
from trucking to running the elevator, to all the ancillary activities 
of agricultural

[[Page S3047]]

production--20 million jobs. Agriculture is one of the two shining 
lights in the export picture of the United States. Airplanes and 
agriculture are two places where we enjoy a substantial trade surplus.
  But under this legislation, Mr. President, we are raising the white 
flag of surrender. We are engaged in what I call ``unilateral 
disarmament'' because we are saying to our competitors, ``You go ahead 
and aggressively seek these markets. We are going to back off. We are 
going to back down. We are going to let you take them.''
  Mr. President, this is a profound mistake. And, if we allow it to go 
forward, we will see happen to us in agriculture what has happened to 
us in automobiles and electronics, and every other place where the 
United States did not fight for its market share.
  Mr. President, that is a mistake. We would never do it in a military 
confrontation. It makes no sense to do it in a trade battle.
  Mr. President, for those reasons I will reluctantly vote against this 
farm bill in the hopes that it will send a signal that there are things 
we must do for the future.
  (The remarks of Mr. Conrad pertaining to the introduction of 
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, can you tell me the circumstances of the 
time available on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader has 122 minutes, the 
Republican leader has 65 minutes. Senator Leahy has 50 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Democratic leader has how much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has 120 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me yield such time as I may consume from the 
allocation allotted to the Democratic leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the conference report on the farm bill is 
now before the Senate. I listened to the presentation by my colleague, 
Senator Conrad, who intends to vote against it. I, too, will vote 
against it. This is not a decent farm bill. It is not a good farm bill. 
It is attractive to some in the short term. It is sugar coating bad 
policy.
  Those who walk around here with bags of sugar putting out bad policy 
and want to brag that they have done something good for people I guess 
might actually, in their minds, feel they have done something good for 
somebody. However, I cannot conceive that this piece of legislation, 
being addressed in a serious way, says that we want to help family-
sized farms in this country.
  This is not a good piece of legislation. This started out as 
something called Freedom to Farm, which is a handy title, but it really 
is nothing more than a title. The whole proposition here was to create 
what is called transition payments. We would create these transition 
payments in order to get out of a farm program and pull the safety net 
out from under family farmers.
  I guess it is appropriate for those who do not want a minimum wage 
increase for the folks working at the bottom of the economic ladder to 
say we do not want a minimum wage for farmers either. Let us pull the 
rug out from under family farmers. Let us do it this way. Let us 
provide transition payments to farmers up front as a payment for our 
getting out of the business of helping farmers when prices collapse.
  And so they make the transition payments attractive enough so someone 
looks at them the first year and says, ``well, this is going to a be 
pretty good circumstance the first year; if I get a good crop and 
prices are high, I will make good money, plus the Government will give 
me a good payment.'' And they say, ``well, that is pretty attractive, 
isn't it?''
  Yes, it is attractive. It is wrong. If you have a good crop and 
prices are high, you do not need the Government to give you a payment 
for anything. But the whole premise of doing this is so that at the end 
of the 7 years you can pull the rug out from under them and say, ``By 
the way, we gave you transition payments; we bought you off up front so 
you have no farm program anymore; you have no safety net any longer.''
  This bill passed the Congress, both the House and the Senate, and 
then went to conference, and I wish to show my colleagues a chart that 
just pulls off the first sentence of a rather lengthy Associated Press 
piece describing this piece of legislation. It says it better than I 
could, but let me just read it. Lest anyone who comes here bragging 
about how wonderful this bill is for family farmers wants to continue 
to brag about that, here is what this bill is. Robert Green had it 
right in the Associated Press:

       With a mix of luck, work, and unusual organization, the 
     lobby for big grain companies, railroads, meat companies, 
     millers and shippers scored a big win in the Senate-passed 
     overhaul of farm programs.

  This is the overhaul of those farm programs. This is what they won, 
not farmers. This is what the big grain trade firms won. They scored a 
big victory. Guess what. When the big grain trade firms win, who loses? 
Family farmers.
  Is it unusual that the winner coming out of a debate about farm 
policy in this Congress would be the biggest grain trade firms in the 
world? I guess not. They have been winning right along. Why would they 
not win this debate?
  What bothers me a little bit is that the bill which is going to help 
family farmers is mislabeled. It is a bill designed to tell farmers 
this is going to be in your best interests. The bill tries to sound 
attractive to farmers as a set of agricultural policies, but it is 
really a big grain trade farm bill. They scored the big victory. They 
are the winners.
  Now, what do we have when we deal with farmers? What we have in most 
cases is a group of family operations out there around the country. 
They get up in the morning. They work hard. They go to bed at night. 
They have tried to make their own way. They have a yard light out there 
in the yard that shines every night.
  If you get on an airplane and fly across this country, fly across 
Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, what you see are those 
thousands of yard lights on at night. They all represent the economic 
blood vessels that feed into those small towns that make rural life 
worthwhile and possible. Every time one of those yard lights turns out, 
it means a little less economic life, a little less opportunity in 
rural America. And we have seen year after year after year fewer yard 
lights in our country.
  There are some people who say it does not matter whether there are 
any lights out there in the prairie. They do not care whether the 
lights dot the prairie at night; that land will be farmed. We do not 
have to have people living out there to have people farming. We can 
have corporate agrifactories farm this country from California to 
Maine. We do not have to worry about the little guy. We do not have to 
worry about the family. It will get farmed. We have bigger tractors and 
bigger combines. We have bigger corporations. They will farm it. They 
are big enough.
  So if you do not care who lives there, whether there are families out 
there, then this is probably a great policy. Of course, food prices 
will go up once corporations are farming the country, but that is in 
the longer term. That may be what is behind all this. I do not know.
  I do know this. I have a friend who lives 5 miles south of Regent, 
ND, in Indian Creek. He is down there trying to operate a small farm, 
planting in the spring, not knowing whether what he is going to spend 
on planting--buying the seed, fertilizer, having a tractor--it is an 
older tractor but having a tractor--and all the apparatus to plant that 
seed, he does not know whether that seed is going to grow.
  All that money might be wasted because that seed may not grow. We may 
have a drought. It may not come up. So you invest all that money at the 
front end of the year and you may have no crop. Or it may come up and 
you may have the most beautiful looking crop you have ever seen, and 
then in July or June a hailstorm comes along and in 15 minutes the crop 
is gone. Your money is gone. Your dreams are gone. Your hope is gone.
  Or let us assume that he plants that crop, it comes up, and it is a 
gorgeous

[[Page S3048]]

crop, a bumper crop, and then he fixes up the combine and gases up and 
goes to harvest that crop and discovers the price has collapsed. This 
crop cost him $4.70 a bushel to produce, and then he takes the truck to 
the elevator and drops off his grain or her grain and discovers that 
the elevator says it is worth $3 a bushel. They have lost a $1.70 a 
bushel with all that work.
  First you may not get a crop. If you get a crop, you may not get a 
price. Those are the twin risks that almost no one else in our country 
faces. For that reason, because we want families to have an opportunity 
to stay on the farm, we have had a safety net. The new mantra here in 
Washington is ``no more safety net.'' Let's do transition payments, buy 
them off and say, by the way, we think you ought to operate in the free 
market.
  Now, who is in the free market? What are the sharks out there in the 
free market going to do when we set all of this free? First of all, you 
have the big grain trading firms. What do they want? Do they want 
higher prices? Absolutely not. They would like lower prices. You have 
the big milling firms. Are they begging for higher grain prices? No. 
They want lower prices. You have the grocery manufacturers. Do they 
want higher grain prices? No. They want lower grain prices.
  You have all these influences in the marketplace that in every way, 
every day are trying to knock down grain prices. When they win, farmers 
lose. Lower grain prices mean farmers simply do not have the 
opportunity to make a profit on their product.
  I have shown you the story that I think is probably the only accurate 
one I have seen about what really happened with the farm bill passed by 
the Senate and now is back before us:

       With a mix of luck, work, and unusual organization, the 
     lobby for the big grain companies, railroads, meat companies, 
     millers and shippers scored a big win in the Senate-passed 
     overhaul of farm programs.

  When big grain companies, the big shippers, the meat companies, and 
the grocery manufacturers are having a party, when they are having a 
day of fiesta because of what this Senate did, does anybody here 
soberly believe that is in the interest of family farmers? Those 
interests do not run parallel, and everybody in this Chamber knows it. 
When these big grain companies win, farmers lose. It is very simple.

  Let me talk just for a moment about grain prices. Some people say 
grain prices are high right now, and they are record high compared to 
the last 10 years. Take a look at what has happened to the price of 
wheat in 10 years. It goes all over the board. I must say, in every 
case the price of wheat is still below what the USDA says it costs to 
produce a bushel of wheat, $4.70 a bushel. In every case for 10 years 
the market price is still below what USDA says it costs, the full cost, 
to produce a bushel of wheat.
  Nonetheless, the wheat prices go down to $2.33 in 1977, meander up to 
$2.49, back to $2.42 in 1986. In fact, just 5 years ago wheat prices 
were $2.61. I ask anybody in this Chamber, how many farm units do they 
think will survive if we get to the point of $2.60 wheat and no safety 
net? What will happen when we have transitioned people out of the farm 
program because we said we will give you a few payments up front and 
then you are on your own.
  I know I strongly supported retaining permanent law until the year 
2002, but everybody understands they included that in this bill to get 
it passed. The full intention of those who support this farm 
legislation is to transition farmers out of a circumstance where a 
safety net exists so when prices collapse they have a little help.
  I am the first to admit, when they stand up to talk about, ``The farm 
program does not work,'' I am the first to admit the farm program, in 
my judgment, needs improving. It became a straitjacket for farmers. We 
had the Government telling farmers what to plant and when to plant it, 
and that did not make any sense. Every proposal before the Congress 
would have changed that, including the substitute that we offered.
  The current program did not work very well. What should have been a 
bridge across price valleys became a set of golden arches for the 
biggest producers in the country. I agree with that as well, and that 
ought to change. But none of those criticisms are a justification for 
pulling the rug out from under family farmers--none. If we are going to 
write a farm bill, we ought to do it seriously and thoughtfully, in a 
way that says this farm bill cares about whether we have family 
farmers.
  Mr. President, if we in the Congress are not interested in who farms, 
if we are neutral on the question of whether there are family farms out 
there with yard lights burning and people living on the farms, if we 
are neutral on that, if we do not care, then get rid of the whole farm 
program. Get rid of it altogether. We do not need a farm program. Do we 
need a farm program to give incentives to the biggest agrifactories to 
produce? I do not think so. Let them produce for the market. Let us get 
rid of the farm program.
  USDA was created under Abraham Lincoln. Abe Lincoln created the 
Department of Agriculture with nine employees--think of that. In the 
1860's, USDA, nine employees. Now, a century and a third later, we have 
a USDA with close to 100,000 employees. A third of those, I guess, are 
in the Forest Service. But think of what has happened with the USDA. We 
do not need a USDA, in my judgment, if the purpose of the farm program 
here in Congress is not to try to nurture and maintain and help and 
strengthen family farms.
  Someone says, how do you define a family farm? I do not have a simple 
definition. I guess a yard light. I mean, a family living out there on 
the farm, human beings living out there, that is a family farm, I guess 
I could define it.
  Michelangelo was asked, ``How did you carve David?''
  ``I chipped away a piece of marble at a time and chipped away 
everything that was not David.''
  I could chip away everything that is not a family farm and have a 
practical definition, I suppose. But my point is: If our business is 
not to try to help families to have an opportunity to survive the twin 
risks of the possibility of not being able to produce anything and the 
possibility of producing something and having no price, what is our 
business? If our business is not to try to protect those families or 
give those families some help, let us not have a farm program at all. 
If it is our business, let us create a farm program that does just 
that.
  This farm program says to farmers, we are neutral on the issue of 
whether families are living on the land. It says to farmers, ``We are 
going to transition you.'' We are going to say to you, ``We will give 
you some really attractive-looking things in the first year or so. 
Then, we are going to pull the rug out.''
  We are going to say to you, ``You might have record wheat prices this 
year, grain prices this year. You might have a bumper crop this year. 
You might have the best income you have had in a century of your family 
living on and operating on the land. We do not care. We are going to 
give you a big Government payment. But, down the road, you and your 
family might suffer catastrophe: no crop, no price, and do you know 
what we are going to say to you then? Tough luck.''
  This year we are going to say, ``Here is a payment you do not need,'' 
and a few years down the road we are going to say, ``Sayonara, tough 
luck. We do not care.'' That is not much of a farm bill, as far as I am 
concerned.
  For farmers in this country, people out there who are trying to make 
a living, struggling against the odds, trying to deal with economic 
influences that are so much larger and so much more powerful than they 
are--this piece of legislation, while attractive in the first year or 
two, in my judgment undercuts the true long-term interests of trying to 
maintain a network of family farms in our country.
  Let me finish where I started. We have kind of come full circle, in 
many respects. I know there are people on this floor who do not like 
what I said. They will stand up and say it is all baloney, this is a 
wonderful bill, they worked hard on it, they are wonderful people, and 
so on and so forth.
  Let me admit they are wonderful people and worked hard on it, but let 
me also say the product they came up with does not serve the interests 
of family farmers in this country. I do not want more Government in 
agriculture. I want Government to let farmers farm. But I also want to 
care whether there are family farmers left in our country. I want us, 
as a country, if we have a farm policy and we are going to

[[Page S3049]]

spend money on a farm policy, to decide we are going to spend it in 
pursuit of helping farmers when prices collapse, helping them stay on 
the land.
  If that is not our business, get rid of the whole business, just get 
rid of it all. Do not come here and pretend you are passing a bill that 
is good for family farmers when you are going to pull the rug out from 
under them 5 or 10 years from today.
  There is great disagreement in my State among farm organizations and 
commodity groups on this subject, but there ought to be no disagreement 
that family farmers have been the economic all-stars in our country. We 
have had, for some long while, a basic safety net to try to help family 
farmers over price valleys, when international prices drop and stay 
down. Those who believe that such a safety net is ill-advised are often 
the same people who are here suggesting minimum wages do not matter and 
a whole series of other economic contentions that I fundamentally 
disagree with.
  I think, if we are going to spend billions, we ought to decide to 
spend billions in pursuit of policies that really do help America's 
family farmers, America's economic all stars. The failure to do that 
forces me to vote against this piece of legislation and to conclude 
that the winners, as is indicated in this piece of work, are the grain 
trade firms. The winners are the millers. The winners are the grocery 
manufacturers. Sadly, the losers will be America's family farmers.
  We will have another day. This is advertised as a 7-year farm bill. 
There will be changes in this body and, when there are changes 
sufficient so that those of us who believe differently can come to the 
Chamber with additional ideas and have the votes to pass them, you will 
see a new farm program. This may last a year. But I tell you this, when 
this Chamber changes, we will be back. Those of us who believe that 
there are two sides to this issue, that the economic well-being of the 
big grain trading firms in this country is assured by their economic 
strength but that the economic well-being of family farmers is assured 
by our determination to try to help them, will be back. Those of us who 
believe this will come back with a farm bill that will work for family 
farms in our country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield time to the distinguished Senator 
from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Idaho [Mr. 
Craig], is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar, for yielding time.
  At the outset, let me thank Chairman Lugar and the ranking minority 
member, Senator Leahy, for the bipartisan way they worked, together 
with the whole committee, in crafting the farm bill that we have before 
us today. It was a tremendous pleasure for me and my staff to work with 
the staff of the Agriculture Committee to produce what I think is a 
truly revolutionary document, and a change, a positive change for 
American agriculture.
  Let me also recognize Sara Braasch, who worked with me on my staff, 
for the tremendous effort she put in, working with the Senate 
Agriculture Committee staff, resolving so many different issues that 
make up a good farm bill.
  Over the course of the last 2 years I have held a series of meetings 
across my State, meeting with farmers and ranchers about what they 
thought ought to be in a new farm bill, a new, national, public policy, 
as to how Government, Federal Government, ought to interface with 
American agriculture and Idaho agriculture. I heard in so many ways a 
level of frustration mounting across my State that, while they thought 
some level of farm policy was necessary, Government was no longer a 
cooperating partner.
  It had become a traffic cop, if you will, a conservation cop, if you 
will, telling that family farmer how to farm, what to farm, how much 
residue they could have on their soil, how they would have to do this, 
maybe they ought to change their equipment line to accomplish a 
different form of farming.
  I doubt that that is the kind of agriculture that Abraham Lincoln 
envisioned when he created USDA. I think he saw USDA as a partner for 
research, as a partner for bringing on new concepts and ideas, but 
certainly not as a large, monolithic governmental agency that was 
telling production agriculture how it ought to farm, and that is 
exactly where we saw farm policy heading.
  This weekend, I met, once again, with farmers in Idaho to talk about 
what is in the new farm bill. There were potato growers there, bean 
growers, wheat growers, barley growers, ranchers--a broad cross-
section--along with processors. They were pleased with what they began 
to see and hear. Dairy was there, and dairy, of course, is a large and 
growing segment of my State's agriculture. They are concerned, but they 
believe that we have made the right decisions to move them toward a 
more open market.
  That is exactly what I think we have accomplished: a significant 
change in agricultural policy, as the chairman of our committee so 
clearly spoke to last evening, and a very important change.
  We are saying to American agriculture, ``You have an opportunity now 
to adjust and change with the markets; that you don't have to farm to 
the program; that you don't have to have the Federal agent who comes 
out and says, `Oh, I think you are 7, 8, 10 percent over acreage, you 
are beyond the flex, you better take some of that out or change it a 
little bit.''' Is that farming or playing the game?
  The young farmers of Idaho--and, yes, they are family farmers--but 
they have millions of dollars invested. I find it interesting, when we 
worry about farmers, we always fall back on the word ``family,'' 
``family.'' Farming is a big business in my State today. It is family-
run, in many instances, but those families have assets in the millions 
of dollars, and they work daily as astute, well-trained businessmen and 
women trying to operate their agribusinesses.
  We know agriculture is changing, and we know that it is capable of 
adapting. When those young farmers and ranchers come to me, in most 
instances they find Government the liability and not the asset. I think 
that is why they look at what we are doing in S. 1541, and the new farm 
bill that we have before us, and say this is good policy.
  I will be the first to recommend to our chairman that the 
responsibility of the Senate Ag Committee over the next several years 
will be to monitor, to do effective oversight, to make sure that that 
which we are crafting into policy that will hit the ground in rule and 
regulation that American agriculture will respond to, we ought to 
watch, especially in the more complicated areas like the dairy policy. 
But certainly, as the chairman said last night, there will be fewer 
visits to the local USDA office by production agriculture in the coming 
years, he speaks well, because there should be. We are saying to 
American agriculture and to my farmers in Idaho today, you have great 
flexibility to do what you said you wanted to do.
  There are some provisions in this bill that are enhanced 
substantially, because along with all that we heard from agriculture 
over the last several years, Mr. President, there are several things we 
also heard that we just did not change and did not just take away from 
farm policy. Conservation is one of those. The CRP program has worked 
well in my State, and agriculture likes it because it gives us an 
opportunity to build back wildlife habitat and to improve water quality 
and to improve the erosion that was happening on some of our more 
erodible lands, some of our steeper landscapes.
  We kept CRP. We strengthened the conservation program. We recognized 
that here is where USDA and Government can be a cooperating partner, 
and I underline the word ``cooperating,'' not going in and telling 
them, ``Here is how you must do it,'' but ``Here are a variety of ways 
to manage your assets in a way that we can provide a better 
environment, and you can enhance your farmstead and all that you have 
on your private property.''
  Clearly, the chairman and the ranking minority member worked with all 
of us to assure that we had a strong CRP program; the creation of a 
wildlife habitat program; a grazing lands conservation initiative that 
will provide technical assistance to private landowners in grazing 
areas, again, a very

[[Page S3050]]

positive approach toward dealing with the responsibilities we ought to 
have; an extension of the resource conservation and development 
districts. That which the House did not do, we reinstated.
  We have strong water language, as was spoken to last night by the 
Senator from Washington as it relates to the responsibility of the U.S. 
Forest Service in responding to the relicensing or the recertification 
of water projects on public lands without holding these municipalities 
or water districts hostage or blackmailing them, as they should not do 
but as they were doing. We have offered a moratorium to make sure that 
we get USDA to understand their responsible and legal role under 
Western water law, and that is, not to take without compensation a 
property right as is clearly established under Western water law.
  Guaranteed payments to wheat and barley growers to help provide 
stability over a 7-year period--somebody said no more safety nets. I 
think we have provided a very good glidepath and a very substantial 
ramp on which to glide that path toward the market, and that is what we 
are asking American agriculture to do.
  I fought hard for a readjustment in an important program for my 
State, the sugar program. We have made major changes in deregulating it 
and creating greater flexibility. But it is a program that is no net 
cost to the taxpayer. It is one that pays for itself, and it is one in 
which, again, Government can play a valuable role, and that is to solve 
the political barriers that oftentimes happen in trade, where we can 
have massive dumping in a domestic market that could destroy that 
market for the producer. We have said, ``Here are the regulations and 
the process that will protect the domestic producer, while recognizing 
our responsibility to the consumer,'' and I think the sugar program 
reflects that.
  The one program that was the most difficult to change was the program 
that was the most regulated, and that was the dairy program. Literally 
for months in the Senate we tried to resolve that issue. In the House, 
there was a stalemate. Finally, in the last hours, we were able to work 
out compromises that like, again, all other programs in this bill, 
moves the dairy producer toward the market while at the same time 
allowing a tremendous opportunity for that individual producer to get 
into world markets. That is exactly where production agriculture in our 
country today must go to remain profitable.
  I said on the floor of the Senate some months ago that in my youth, I 
had the opportunity to be a national officer in the once called Future 
Farmers of America, now known as FFA. I remember standing on the floor 
at State conventions around this country and saying one farmer produced 
enough for his or herself and 30 other Americans.
  Today, we know that has changed dramatically. That one farmer 
produces enough for his or herself and about 130 other Americans or 
world citizens. I use that to dramatize how important it is for 
Government to participate with agriculture in knocking down the 
political barriers that disallow us from entering world markets. That 
is a legitimate role of Government. It is clearly spoken to in this 
bill.
  Another legitimate role is research. I think that is what our first 
agricultural President, Abraham Lincoln, had in mind, using the assets 
of Government to advance agriculture, not to control it and manipulate 
it and manage it. That is exactly what we have done historically. But, 
frankly, over the last decade, we have backed away from Government's 
responsibility in long-term research that has helped advance new 
variety and kept productivity on the farms of America at ever 
increasingly higher rates. I think we speak again to that issue in this 
bill.
  Let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying Government does, in my 
opinion, have a legitimate role in agriculture, and that is as a 
cooperator, to cooperate in the area of trade, to knock down the 
political barriers that might artificially be established that disallow 
production agriculture from getting into world markets.
  It also has an area in research. That is what we ought to advance to 
assure the constant maintenance and ever-increasing productivity on 
America's farms.
  It also has a responsibility to cooperate in conservation and 
improving environmental standards, but it does not have a 
responsibility to dictate the market or to micromanage the family farm 
or the agricultural production unit. That is what this farm bill speaks 
to.
  Let me close by once again thanking the chairman and the ranking 
member for recognizing our role, as the Senate Ag Committee, to move 
quality legislation to this floor and now to the President's desk. I am 
pleased to have been a part of it. I am proud to serve on the Senate Ag 
Committee. I think we have made a quantum leap forward in working with 
agriculture to move itself into the 21st century as a market-producing 
entity of the American economy.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, it has been our habit, at least thus far in 
the debate, to alternate sides. The distinguished Senator from Idaho 
has just spoken. The Senator from Oregon has been waiting to speak, but 
I request that it be permissible for the Chair to recognize a 
Democratic Party speaker and ask the distinguished ranking member to 
yield time and then to alternate herein. I will grant time to the 
Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wish to let the Senator know I am 
speaking against the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. I understand. I have time reserved in favor of the bill. I 
wonder if I might yield----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thought I had time from the minority leader to speak 
against the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator does, and the minority leader will let the 
Senator have whatever time he wants.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Ten minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see two colleagues here. We have had a 
speech in favor. Why do we not let the distinguished----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would yield myself 10 minutes from the minority 
leader's time to speak against the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Could I point out another thing, I say to the Senator? We 
have a conference on the appropriations, and the distinguished chairman 
of that wants to go forward. As the distinguished Senator from Florida 
only wants 5 minutes, why do I not yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Florida the 5 minutes so the distinguished Senator from Oregon, 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, can then next be 
recognized and then yield whatever time the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota wants.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I have to go to the State Department for an 
arrangement between a Minnesota company and another country in 15 
minutes. That is why I have been here early.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask that the time from the Democratic 
leader be given to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota to speak in 
opposition. I ask if he might try, as best he can, to accommodate the 
others, to limit his time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Absolutely. I would be pleased to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, can I ask if I might be recognized after 
the Senator from Oregon?
  Mr. LEAHY. I assure the Senator from Florida, he will be.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I am sorry we 
are all here at once. I will try to be very brief. I have been on the 
floor for some time waiting to speak.
  Mr. President, first of all, let me just thank all of my colleagues 
for their work on the bill, including the distinguished Senator from 
Indiana, whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I mean that 
very sincerely.
  Let me say that the good news is that farmers need to know where they 
stand. The spring planting season is upon us. People need to know what 
the program is going to be.
  The good news is that there are some programs, some provisions in 
this legislation that are positive and very important. One of them is 
the reauthorization of the Conservation Reserve Program, which I think 
has been a win-

[[Page S3051]]

win-win program. It does my heart good when environmentalists and 
farmers and outdoor recreation people all come to my office, all in 
strong agreement about the importance of this program.
  I also think that the $300 million for rural economic development is 
extremely important. In particular, the focus on encouraging and 
providing whatever kind of assistance we can for farmers to form their 
own value-added processing co-ops and retain as much of the value of 
what they produce as possible, is right on the mark.
  Finally, I am no strong supporter of what was the status quo, and I 
do believe, as my colleague from North Dakota said, in all too many 
cases farmers have had to farm a farm bill as opposed to farm the land. 
No question about it: more flexibility is certainly one of the things 
that farmers in my State have been very interested in.
  Let me talk about two fundamental flaws of this piece of legislation. 
I take very serious exception--and I do not think it is really 
provincial on my part to do so--to the dairy provisions. It has to do 
with why we are elected. We are elected to do our best, to speak for 
and represent and sometimes, I suppose, fight for people in our States. 
I thought that the Senate had spoken clearly that we were not in favor 
of a northeast dairy compact. I was very involved in the effort to 
knock that provision out. In the conference committee, we got a 
variation of that, giving the Secretary of Agriculture the right to 
certify such a compact.
  That troubles me to no end. It is a huge flaw in this legislation. 
The dairy provisions of this bill are not favorable to farmers in 
Minnesota, period. There is not substantial, genuine reform of the milk 
marketing order system, which is what we need. We have been losing 
thousands of dairy farmers in my State.
  What this potential northeast dairy compact is all about is it gives 
one region of the country an opportunity to have its own deal while it 
takes the problems of another region of the country off the table. It 
is simply unfair. For that reason alone, I would not vote for this farm 
bill.
  The second reason is--and I could go on and on, but I am not going to 
out of deference to my colleagues who are also here on the floor to 
speak--but to make a very long story short, I believe that this piece 
of legislation is fundamentally flawed in one other respect. What we 
have here is a carrot followed by a stick.
  The carrot is that if prices are high--and they currently are--and in 
addition to your price, you have a hefty support payment that goes on 
top of that, it is a carrot. I can hardly blame people for being 
attracted to that proposition. As a matter of fact, I can hardly blame 
some farmers in my State who I think are saying, ``Look, we don't know, 
Paul, whether there's going to be any farm program in the future. We 
might as well get the best financial deal that we can.'' I understand 
that.
  But the question is, what happens in the future? I heard my colleague 
from Idaho talk about a glidepath. But glidepath to where? I mean, if 
we are going to cap the loan rate at $1.89 for a bushel of corn and 
$2.58 for a bushel of wheat, the 1995 level, my question is, since what 
goes up, comes down, and what happens when prices are low again? That 
is the stick. That comes later on.
  We are talking about children of farmers who want to farm in the 
future. We are talking about whether or not farmers are going to have 
any negotiating power in the marketplace. I think what happens is that 
eventually, with this piece of legislation, the grain farmers in my 
State will be on their own. They are on their own with the grain 
companies, and they are on their own with the Board of Trade. They are 
on their own with the railroad interests.
  I agree with my colleague from North Dakota. I think the Tulsa World 
had it right: ``With a mix of luck, work and unusual organization, the 
lobby for big grain companies, railroads, meat companies, millers and 
shippers scored a big win in the Senate-passed overhaul of farm 
programs . . .''
  Mr. President, again, there is so much more to say. Let me put it 
this way. I wish there was a free market in agriculture. I wish Adam 
Smith's invisible hand was operative. I wish that in the food industry 
we had many small economic enterprises in competition with one another. 
But that is not what a rigorous economic analysis of the food industry 
really shows us.

  The conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table, 
exercising raw economic and political power over farmers, taxpayers, 
and consumers. Everywhere the farmers look, whether it is on the input 
side or whether it is the output side, they are the ones, the family 
farmers are the ones, who really represent the free enterprise part of 
this, but they are faced with oligarchy at best and monopoly at worst.
  I think this bill is a piece of legislation that is great for the 
grain companies because eventually they will get their prices low. If 
the farmers, as they look to who they sold their products to, if the 
farmers could see many small businesses, that would be fine. But that 
is not what they are faced with. They are faced with concentration. Now 
we are simply taking away the very leverage that farmers have had for a 
fair price in the marketplace.
  So this piece of legislation is a carrot, followed by a stick. I 
think it is going to lead to the demise of many family farms. I really 
do believe that. I know my colleagues disagree with me. I hope they are 
right. I hope I am wrong. Because the health and the vitality of 
communities in Minnesota is not based upon the acres of land that are 
farmed or the number of animals, but the number of family farmers that 
live there. I see this piece of legislation being a stacked deck 
against family farmers on the grain front. On the dairy front, the 
Northeast dairy compact is outrageous and discriminatory and never 
should have been put in the bill by the conference committee. On that 
basis alone, as a Senator from Minnesota, I do not support this piece 
of legislation. I hope my colleagues will vote ``no.'' I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The Chair recognizes Senator 
Hatfield.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield time to the distinguish Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of our Agriculture 
Committee, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, for yielding time. I, 
too, want to add my word of congratulations to the leadership of this 
committee, Senator Lugar and Senator Leahy, for bringing forth an 
upgrading and updating of this agricultural legislation.
  Mr. President, the flood of 1996 in my part of the country has had a 
devastating impact on much of my State. What I have enjoyed for many 
years, and now in my adopted home, is the lush and green countryside of 
the coastal area. It is now barren and covered beneath 2 feet of river 
silt. The once bountiful pasture lands are no more, and the dairy cows 
struggle, searching the bare landscape to find scant morsels of food. 
Many businesses, homes, and families have been adversely affected by 
the flood. Imagine a small part of this flood damage area, a small 
county in northwestern Oregon, seven raging rivers running through it 
and the silt-laden waste water flooding into three bays of the Pacific 
Ocean. There is such a county, and that county, Mr. President, is 
Tillamook County, a good Indian name, Tillamook County.
  Tillamook County on the northern Oregon coast is the poorest per 
capita income county of the 36 counties in my State. The entire 
population of the town of Tillamook consists of only 4,000 people. 
Roads which connect Tillamook to the rest of the State have been and 
will be closed for months. Highway 6, which is the east-west corridor 
to Portland, will be closed for months. Highway 101, which is the 
north-south corridor out of Tillamook, has been closed since November 
when the storm started hitting this part of the State.
  The leading enterprise in the area is dairy. Mr. President, no 
industry has suffered more than the dairy industry in Tillamook. As a 
result of the floods primarily, and windstorms, is that thousands of 
acres of Tillamook are covered with silt--in some cases as high as 2 
feet. It may take as long as 2 years for these lands to recover. Added 
to the destruction of the grazing land, there have been tremendous 
losses in livestock and feed, along with damaged equipment and 
facilities.

[[Page S3052]]

  Of this town of 4,000, more than 400 people work at the Tillamook 
County Creamery Association, a local co-op of producers and processors. 
In this county, there are over 2,000 people directly involved in the 
dairy industry. Those numbers do not include veterinarians, 
transporters, supply stores, restaurants, and businesses that live and 
die based on the health of the dairy farmers.
  In summary, Mr. President, this community is isolated due to closed 
roads. The land, which is the lifeblood of the communities, is 
smothered under 2 feet of silt. The economic base of this community has 
been decimated. The short-term prospects for this community are bleak.
  With such misery heaped upon this little community, it would have 
been easy for them to give up, but that is not what has happened. The 
community of Tillamook locked arms and is working their way back. 
Immediately after the floods, efforts were made to keep production 
levels as high as possible at the Tillamook County Creamery 
Association. Haygrowers throughout Oregon donated several thousand tons 
to feed the animals. The outpouring of relief efforts has been 
phenomenal. The Oregon Dairy Farmers Association coordinated relief 
efforts, which included $200,000 in donations from within the industry, 
lining up hay deliveries, and assisting hard-hit dairies outside of the 
town of Tillamook--which, by the way, this town of 4,000 is the largest 
town in that little county. Dairy farmers helping other dairy farmers. 
Local, State, and Federal agencies are also assisting with potential 
loan programs and technical expertise.
  I inquired if there was anything else that Congress could do for this 
community. The response was, ``Help us with the Pacific Northwest Milk 
Marketing order.'' Now, Mr. President, I attempted to include 
legislation in the farm bill which would have done so. My amendment 
would have separated, temporarily, Oregon from this regional milk 
marketing order. What is the Pacific Northwest Milk Marketing order? 
Let me explain.
  Oregon and Washington and a small part of northern Idaho are part of 
this regional marketing order. Federal milk orders are authorized by 
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. Mr. President, this 
depression legislation, almost 60 years old, unfortunately, is still 
governing much of our dairy industry. As the Senator from Idaho has 
indicated, this bill moves the dairy industry closer to the market 
economy. Under this law the Secretary of Agriculture establishes 
Federal orders that apply to buyers of milk. Orders are initiated by 
dairy farmers normally through cooperatives and can be issued only with 
the approval of the dairy farmers in the affected area. A milk order is 
a legal document issued to regulate the minimum prices paid to dairy 
farmers by handlers of grade A milk in a specified marketing area.
  Now, Mr. President, my amendment would have temporarily changed the 
milk marketing order for a period of 2 years to let flexibility apply 
to this unique situation in one part of that industry in the Northwest, 
the Tillamook County Creamery Association. The change would have 
allowed these farmers to get back on their feet and compete in an open 
market by giving them added flexibility in establishing their prices.
  It was at this point that I hit a brick wall. What was that brick 
wall? Darigold, Inc. Prior to 1989, Oregon had its own milk marketing 
order, and it was not until that time that efforts were made to combine 
the orders. Those efforts were headed up and dominated by Darigold. 
They used their size and their strength to combine Washington and 
Oregon under one marketing order, against the objections of the small 
milk handlers in Oregon. Darigold is the fourth largest cooperative in 
the Nation, the fourth largest cooperative in the entire Nation. 
Darigold had almost $1 billion in sales in 1994 alone, with much of 
their production--and please let me underscore this--with much of their 
production in powdered milk, for example, being purchased by Government 
surplus markets. Compare this with the Tillamook County Creamery 
Association, which had $124 million in sales, all in consumer products 
produced from local milk--consumer products, not big Government 
contracts. In their January 1996 member newsletter, Darigold claims a 
1995 production of 4.7 billion pounds of milk, 10 times the volume of 
the Tillamook County Creamery Association, with milk purchased from 
three States. Darigold produces a wide variety of milk products, 
including powdered milk, ice cream, packaged cheese, and butter. 
Compared that with Tillamook, which focuses mainly on a specialty 
product known as the world famous Tillamook Cheese, which is sold to 
consumers.

  How did Darigold hold up this amendment? The same way most things are 
done in this litigious society we live in--the Darigold lawyers came 
forth and threatened to tie up this legislation in the courts. They 
were sure they could do so for at least a year, and this is the year 
that needs help. This would have blocked the temporary separation of 
Oregon from the Pacific Northwest Milk Marketing order for this year. 
Tillamook County and its dairy farmers do not have the luxury of 
waiting a year. The Darigold brick wall would have been able to thwart 
the very will of Congress by stalling this amendment, if it had been 
adopted. Mr. President, this is a terrible injustice and a black eye on 
the capitalistic system, when the giants can run out the small 
operators from the marketplace because they have Government contracts.
  Tillamook County is small, it is battered, but I know it is not out. 
The strong will of the people of this community and the dairy industry 
in Oregon will not allow this setback to discourage them. I am 
disappointed that we will not be able to give Tillamook a helping hand 
at this time of great need. I am disappointed with the Darigold lawyers 
for blocking this assistance, and I am disappointed by the greed of the 
Darigold, Inc. Mr. President, in this situation, the almighty dollar 
was the bottom line, and compassion was nowhere to be found. That is 
not and should not be the character of our economic system.
  I thank my good friends from Washington and Idaho, particularly 
Senator Gorton and Senator Craig, who have been very sympathetic of the 
situation in Oregon. They have offered their assistance where possible, 
and I thank my colleagues for their sensitivity to the plight of flood-
damaged Tillamook and the State of Oregon.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield from my time such time as the 
Senator from Florida might need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to commence by stating my deep 
appreciation to Chairman Lugar and the ranking member, Senator Leahy, 
for their great consideration of issues that were important to 
agriculture across America and especially important to agriculture and 
the people of my State of Florida.
  Mr. President, as you well know, the State of Florida is a State 
peculiarly vulnerable to a variety of climatic and other disasters. One 
of the things that we have tried to do is to learn from those disasters 
and avoid, where possible, a repetition of previous mistakes, and to 
bring to the attention of the appropriate decisionmakers steps that 
could be taken in order to moderate the impact of future adverse 
consequences.
  In the last few years, we have had an unusual number of incidents 
that have impacted Florida agriculture. Hurricane Andrew is the best 
known, but by no means the only such incident. As a result of that, we 
have assembled a number of lessons learned, in terms of how American 
agricultural law for disasters, crop insurance, and other steps that 
are intended to soften the impact of negative events, could be modified 
to be more effective and applied to the special agriculture of our 
State.
  I wish to thank Senator Lugar, Senator Leahy, and their colleagues 
for their consideration and for the number of steps that are contained 
in this legislation that will have that effect.
  Let me just briefly summarize a few of those provisions. The Federal 
Crop Insurance Act will be amended by the legislation before us today 
to provide for coverage of crops that have been destroyed by insect and 
disease, as well as those destroyed by storm or flood, or other natural 
conditions.
  This act will expand coverage to nursery crops and to aquaculture, 
which have been two of the fastest-

[[Page S3053]]

growing aspects of American agriculture. It will require that the 
Federal Crop Insurance Act consider marketing windows when determining 
whether it is feasible to require replanting during a crop year.
  To elaborate on that, Mr. President, as you know, much of Florida 
agriculture is targeted on a winter growing season. There have been 
instances in which a natural disaster had occurred at the end of that 
season--let us say, in this month of March, there were requirements 
that you had to replant, even though by replanting the crops, they 
would mature in the middle of the summer when the window for our 
particular agriculture had closed. This will allow the Federal crop 
insurance administrators to consider the economic feasibility, as well 
as the agricultural feasibility of replanting a crop that has been 
destroyed. So, Mr. President, that represents an important set of 
lessons learned from disasters and now applied to moderate the impact 
of future disasters.
  Second, Mr. President, there is an important provision in this 
legislation that is to avoid what would be not a disaster, but a 
calamity of global importance, and that is the collapse of the Florida 
Everglades. The Florida Everglades represent a treasure, which happens 
to be located within the State of Florida, but has been long recognized 
as a national treasure since 1947. The second largest national park in 
the lower 48 States is Everglades National Park. It has been recognized 
by international bodies, including the United Nations, as an ecosystem 
of international importance. It is a system that has been in very 
serious trouble. It is a system, which started thousands of years ago 
as a unique flow of water, commencing in the central part of south 
Florida, in a slow incremental process that eventually then led to the 
area that we now call Florida Bay. It provided one of the most fertile 
areas for wildlife, plants, and fisheries in the world. It is a system 
which has been destroyed largely because of its uniqueness.
  When Europeans came to this region, they looked at the Everglades, 
and what they saw was a formidable swamp. They saw something that was 
different than they had known in their previous home. They committed 
themselves to the goal of turning this unique system into something 
that was common and pedestrian. For the better part of a century, that 
effort was pursued with great vigor, and with the support of the people 
of Florida, and of the Governments of the State and the Nation.
  It has been in the last 30 years that we have fully appreciated the 
fact that it was that very uniqueness of the Everglades that gave it 
its essential value. Also, it was that uniqueness that contributed to 
the many ways in which the Everglades sustained life, for humans and 
others, in the south Florida region.
  So a major effort to save the Everglades has been underway. It has 
been recognized that that effort would require a partnership, and an 
important member of that partnership was the Federal Government. The 
Federal Government has significant interest in the Everglades National 
Park's national wildlife refuges and national fresh water preserves.
  The Federal Government also will play a key role in executing those 
things that will be necessary for the salvation of the Everglades. The 
people of Florida do not ask the Federal Government to do this 
singularly, but they ask for a unity of purpose between the National 
Government and themselves.
  Mr. President, I am especially pleased to recognize the tremendous 
step forward that this legislation represents with that goal of ``save 
the Everglades.'' In this legislation, there is contained a direct 
entitlement funding for a special Everglades restoration initiative of 
$200 million. There are also contained various provisions which will 
encourage the disposition of surplus land, with the proceeds of that 
disposition to be used for Everglades restoration. One of those 
provisions could provide up to an additional $100 million for 
restoration of the Everglades.
  I want to particularly thank Senator Lugar, who has been especially 
vocal in his recognition of the importance of the Everglades, and 
Senator Leahy, who has been a staunch advocate of a whole variety of 
initiatives contained in this legislation that are designed to 
recognize the fact that there is no conflict between the economics of 
American agriculture and the protection of the fundamental 
environmental resources upon which agriculture depends.
  I commend both of these colleagues for their outstanding 
contributions, and there is no place in which this will be more 
significant or more appreciated than in the contribution toward the 
salvation of the Everglades.
  So I wish, Mr. President, to conclude with a joint statement with my 
colleague, Senator Mack, elaborating on the provisions that are of 
special importance to our State contained in this legislation, and to 
conclude with my deep thanks on behalf of the 14 million citizens of my 
State for what leaders of this legislation have done to prepare us for 
future disasters and to contribute to avoidance of what would be a 
disaster of global proportion if we were to lose the qualities of the 
Florida Everglades.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Senator Mack and I would like to take a 
moment to thank Chairman Lugar and ranking member Leahy for their hard 
work on the 1996 farm bill. We are particularly pleased with the 
inclusion of provisions that will have a direct benefit to the State of 
Florida, our growers, and the Everglades ecosystem.
  First of all, this farm bill will address three problems that have 
faced Florida growers of specialty crops. Upon enactment of Federal 
Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act, the Federal Crop Insurance Act 
will be amended to provide for coverage of crops destroyed by insects 
and disease, expand coverage to all nursery crops and aquaculture, and 
require the Federal Crop Insurance Act to consider marketing windows 
when determining whether it is feasible to require replanting during a 
crop year.
  Disasters are a way of life for all involved in agriculture. Disaster 
relief appropriations are an item of the past. The laws to today need 
to cover all of agriculture to allow recovery after time of great loss. 
The amendments which were passed go a long way to addressing 
inequalities in law and definition to allow coverage for major 
agricultural segments.
  Multiple weather-related disasters, from Hurricane Andrew to the 
record number of hurricanes in 1995, clearly illustrated deficiencies 
in disaster coverage of many agricultural commodities. Many 
agricultural products such as aquatic species and numerous 
horticultural products are not clearly defined as being eligible for 
disaster assistance. Additionally, even though the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act was passed, many agricultural commodities still do not 
have crop insurance available and as such can not even recoup planting 
costs under current guidelines.
  Changes were clearly needed to allow coverage of all agricultural 
crops during time of disaster. A tree grown for horticultural purposes 
should be covered whether it is grown in a port or in rows in the 
ground. Nontraditional species raised for food purposes should be 
clearly covered.
  Acquaculture-raised species--whether for food or nonfood purposes--
should also be covered. Foliage plants are agricultural commodities 
raised for aesthetic purposes. Tropical fish, while not for food 
purposes, are clearly raised in aquaculture for aesthetic purposes, and 
should be covered just as surely as our foliage protection. Many States 
now find that horticulture and foliage plants have become their No. 1 
agricultural commodity.
  Disasters are likewise not just weather-related events. A rapidly 
spreading pest or disease can statistically be a greater danger than a 
hurricane event.


     definition of disaster for federal crop insurance eligibility

  The history of natural disasters in Florida has demonstrated the need 
for the definition of disaster to include events that are not directly 
weather-related. Beyond a certain level, the devastation of the gypsy 
moth, citrus canker, or other pests and diseases constitutes a disaster 
of major scale. The 1996 farm bill will establish a pilot program to 
have the term ``natural disaster'' include extensive crop destruction 
caused by insects and disease.

[[Page S3054]]

    definition of agriculture for federal crop insurance eligibility

  Florida growers of specialty crops also need a definition of 
agriculture that includes more than just food, fiber and grain. 
Historically, for disaster purposes, neither aquaculture or nursery 
crops have been covered.
  As recently as the December freezes, producers in the Hillsborough 
County area were told that aquaculture species, such as tropical fish 
and aquatic plants, were not defined as agriculture. While these 
species are reared for aesthetic purposes, they are certainly 
agriculture--as much as any other horticultural production.
  In-ground plants and trees for the nursery industry were still not 
covered even after 4 years of negotiation and discussions with Federal 
Crop Insurance officials in Kansas City. Florida growers are 
appreciative that this farm bill will expand Federal crop insurance to 
aquaculture and direct the FCIC to establish a pilot program to allow 
nursery crops to participate in the Federal Crop Insurance Program.


  include ``marketing window'' as a criteria for requiring replanting

  A third problem for Florida growers of winter crops has involved the 
interpretation of the clause requiring replanting where feasible after 
disaster destruction. Until this farm bill, the Federal Crop Insurance 
has not considered marketing windows when making judgments about 
claims. Given that USDA can consider economics, potential marketing of 
the product must be considered as an economic factor.
  As a recent example, a potato crop in Dade County was destroyed. The 
climate of the county would have permitted the growers to replant and 
barely get in a crop before that weather became too hot. However, the 
marketing window and contracts for sale of the product would have been 
totally nonexistent by the time a long-term crop like potatoes could be 
raised. The Federal Government required the growers to replant even 
though no sales of that commodity would have been feasible after the 
area's marketing period was over. Florida growers raise crops in the 
dead of winter, and are often double and triple cropping the same land 
with a succession of commodities to meet very defined and limited 
marketing windows. I am gratified that the mangers of the farm bill 
agreed to include our provision requiring the Federal Crop Insurance 
Corporation to consider marketing windows in determining whether it is 
feasible to require replanting during a crop year.


                      brown citrus aphid research

  This farm bill also provides authorization of up to $3,000,000 in 
research funding for the eradication and control of the brown citrus 
aphid and the citrus tristeza virus. The virus, which is carried by the 
aphid, poses the most formidable threat in decades to the Florida 
citrus industry. The citrus tristeza virus, in several forms, has the 
capability of killing millions of citrus trees in Florida, Texas, and 
California over the next several years. The language included in this 
bill will help us provide to the citrus community of our Nation the 
tools it needs to combat this serious threat.


                     everglades restoration funding

  The 1996 Farm bill also provides an unprecedented opportunity to 
further the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem. I yield to Senator 
Mack.
  Mr. MACK. I and my esteemed colleague Senator Graham rise today to 
congratulate this Congress for its foresight and commitment to one of 
the most important restoration efforts in our Nation's history, the 
restoration of the south Florida ecosystem, better known as the 
Everglades. Under section 506 of the 1996 farm bill, the United States 
has made a historical commitment to this unique national treasure.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The Everglades is an extraordinary ecosystem that travels 
south from the Kissimmee River through the Everglades and down to 
Florida Bay. The Everglades ecosystem supports south Florida's 
industries of tourism, fishing, and agriculture and special quality of 
life of over 6 million residents by providing water supply and 
recreational activities. The Federal Government has a direct vested 
interest in the Everglades ecosystem, which houses the Loxahatchee 
Refuge, and three national parks: Everglades National Park, Big Cypress 
National Park and Biscayne Bay National Park.
  Mr. MACK. The health of the Everglades ecosystem is critically 
endangered. The same American spirit of ingenuity and adventure that 
led us to the Everglades at the turn of the century must now be called 
upon to save this extraordinary resource that is so emblematic of the 
American character. The Everglades has taught us that a strong economy 
and healthy environment are not mutually exclusive.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Historically, we have tried to tame the Everglades by 
focusing on small parts of the ecosystem without regard to how the 
whole system works. This has proved to be a mistake. As we have tried 
to develop or manage parts of the ecosystem separately, the result has 
been to wreak havoc on the entire ecosystem, thus putting the entire 
ecosystem in jeopardy. The Everglades is not a set of discreet parts 
like the limbs of a body but instead is a blood line that circulates 
throughout the entire ecosystem. The long term viability and 
sustainability of the ecosystem--whether it is wildlife, urban water 
supply, agriculture, tourism, recreation activities, or fishing--are 
all dependent upon the same lifeblood, the Everglades, the River of 
Grass. Decades of diking, damming and using the Everglades for singular 
purposes has so endangered the health of the Everglades that in the 
future the ecosystem may not be available to be used for any purpose.
  Mr. MACK. The State of Florida has made extraordinary efforts to 
address the complex problems of the region and to restore this precious 
resource. Because south Florida is home to 7 of the 10 fastest-growing 
metropolitan areas in the Nation, we are at a critical crossroad in the 
Everglades restoration. Together the State of Florida and the Federal 
Government can continue their developing partnership to consummate 
Everglades restoration.
  Mr. GRAHAM. While it is understood that a significant gap exists in 
our scientific knowledge about the ultimate ecological and water 
management needs of the Everglades ecosystem--which necessitates 
continued detail studies--the framework for restoration and design of 
major projects for land acquisition, water storage, and restored 
hydrology are clear. Restoration of one of the largest functioning 
ecosystems in the world is a massive undertaking. Congress has 
acknowledged that success will depend on the Federal Government, the 
State of Florida, and local, regional and tribal interests working in 
tandem.
  Mr. MACK. In acknowledgement of this responsibility, Congress has 
provided $200,000,000 and possibly as much as $300,000,000 to expedite 
Everglades restoration activities, which will include acquisition of 
the highest priority lands needed to improve water storage and water 
quality critical to the restoration effort. This unprecedented 
commitment of $200,000,000 will be provided to the Secretary of 
Interior to either carry out the restoration activities or to provide 
funding to the State of Florida or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 
carry out restoration activities. Congress does not intend for these 
funds to supplant any previous funds committed to any agency of the 
Federal Government or the State of Florida for the purpose of 
Everglades restoration, including the commitment to fund STA 1E, a 
component of the Everglades Restoration Project.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Specifically, the legislation does the following:
  Section 506(a) directs the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer to 
the Secretary of the Interior $200,000,000 of any funds not otherwise 
appropriated.
  Sections 506 (b) and (d) authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
use the $200,000,000 until December 31, 1999 to conduct restoration 
activities in the Everglades ecosystem in South Florida. In 
implementing these sections, the Secretary may rely upon the 
priorities, programs, projects, and initiatives identified by the 
Federal South Florida Interagency Task Force.
  Under Section 506(b)(3), the Secretary of the Interior can conduct 
restoration activities that include the acquisition of real property 
interests intended to expedite resource protection.
  Under Section 506(c) as may be appropriate, the Secretary of the 
Interior and transfer the restoration funds to the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers or the State of Florida or the South Florida Water Management 
District to carry out restoration activities in the Everglades 
ecosystem.

[[Page S3055]]

  Section 506(e) requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit an 
annual report to Congress that describes what activities were carried 
out under the initiative.
  Section 506(f) also established a special account to be funded by the 
sale of surplus Federal property in the State of Florida. The special 
account is to be managed by the Secretary of the Interior to carry out 
restoration activities. The Secretary of the Interior is limited in his 
ability to use the special account funds to acquire real property or an 
interest in real property. The Secretary can use these special account 
funds for real property acquisition only if the State of Florida 
contributes or has contributed an amount equal to not less than 50 
percent of the appraised value of the real property interest to be 
acquired. The actual sale of surplus property is to be managed by the 
Administrator of the General Services Administration. This account will 
not exceed $100,000,000.
  And finally, under section 506(g), the Secretary of the Interior is 
directed to submit a report to Congress that assesses whether any 
unreserved and unappropriated Federal lands are suitable for disposal 
or exchange for the purpose of conducting restoration activities in the 
Everglades ecosystem. Section 506(g) is not intended to amend or 
supersede any applicable Federal statute that governs Federal land 
management, exchange or disposal.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Florida for his kind words. I note that he and his colleague from 
Florida worked very, very hard with both Senator Lugar and me on this 
issue. It is one where we came together to address not only a Florida 
issue but what is truly a national issue.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Florida.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Lugar, our 
conference chairman, and his staff, Senator Leahy and his staff, 
Chairman Roberts and his staff, and Congressman de la Garza and his 
staff for helping us get to this important day for American 
agriculture.
  Policymaking decisions in agriculture have never been simple or easy. 
Chairman Lugar and the ranking Democrat, Senator Leahy, chartered a 
course that led them toward a bipartisan bill. Farmers and ranchers 
across the country are now awaiting the passage of this important 
legislation.
  For the first time in 60 years, we have a commonsense approach that 
will release farmers from the bureaucratic controls of USDA. Under this 
approach, farmers will no longer be told what to plant, where to plant, 
or how much to grow. Uncertain deficiency payments tied to market 
prices are eliminated and replaced with preset and market transition 
payments that farmers can count on with confidence.
  This legislation, formerly titled the Agricultural Market Transition 
Act, has been renamed the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform 
[FAIR] Act of 1996. This legislation not only reforms commodity 
programs but also includes rural development, conservation, credit, 
research, trade, and nutrition.
  Highlights of the bill include:
  Eliminates the requirement to purchase crop insurance to participate 
in commodity programs.
  Establishes an Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
  Export and promotion programs are reauthorized and refocused to 
maximize impact in a post-NAFTA/GATT environment.
  Maintains the Conservation Reserve Program.
  Reauthorizes nutrition programs.
  Reauthorizes Federal agricultural research programs.
  Provides for dairy reform. Eliminates the budget assessment on dairy 
producers, phases down the support price on butter, powder, and cheese 
over 4 years. Consolidates marketing years.
  Provides funding for Florida Everglades restoration.
  Establishes fund for rural America to be used for rural development 
and research.
  Retains the 1949 Agricultural Act as permanent law.
  Streamlines and consolidates rural development programs to provide a 
more focused Federal effort while encouraging decisionmaking at the 
State level.
  When we began the process of formulating an agricultural policy about 
14 months ago, the message I got was that farmers wanted less 
Government, less redtape, and less paperwork. They said we need 
planting flexibility and less regulation--to put it more simply let 
farmers be farmers.
   Mr. President, many commodity programs and provisions in the 1990 
farm bill expired on December 31, 1995. It is now late March. Spring 
planting is already underway in many Southern States, and it is 
imperative that producers know the requirements of the commodity 
programs. The farmers in this country already have their schedules 
altered by Mother Nature--they shouldn't have to wait for Congress too.
  Producers who raise wheat and feed grains and other commodities want 
to know what kind of program will be in operation before they make 
their planting decisions and seek money for their operating loans. 
Program announcements are usually made in early- to mid-February, and 
farmers usually begin to sign up for the programs at the beginning of 
March.
  Farmers in my State and across the country can wait no longer. We 
need a new farm program in place--quickly. It is time to pass 
responsible legislation that provides the agriculture sector with 
policy for the next several years.
  There are many other provisions that deserve to be highlighted, 
however I wanted to mention a few that I took an active role in trying 
to resolve. I support this package and believe it provides a safety net 
and the opportunity for the agriculture sector to meet the challenges 
that lie ahead.
  First, I am grateful that language concerning the regulation of 
commercial transportation of equine to slaughter is included. Under 
this provision the Secretary of Agriculture is provided authority to 
develop sound regulations that will protect the well-being of equine 
that are commercially transported to slaughter. Often these horses are 
transported for long periods, in overcrowded conditions and often in 
vehicles that have inadequate head room. Some of these horses are in 
poor physical condition or have serious injuries. These regulations 
would allow horses to get to a slaughter facility safely and as quickly 
as possible with the least amount of stress to the animal. I want to 
make it very clear this provision does not authorize the Secretary to 
regulate the transportation of horses other than to slaughter or the 
transportation of livestock or poultry to slaughter or elsewhere.
  Second, I also want to thank Senator Cochran for his assistance in 
confronting what may be the most serious health crisis facing the U.S. 
equine population. I'm referring to the Department of Agriculture's 
recent decision to grant a waiver allowing the importation of horses 
infected with equine piroplasmosis, also known as EP, so that they may 
compete in the Olympic games to be held in Atlanta this year. With help 
from Senator Cochran we have strong report language stating that the 
20-point plan that has been agreed upon by the European Union, the 
Georgia Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture must not be relaxed and the conditions must be followed and 
administratively enforced.
  Third, dairy policy has always been a contentious issue and it was no 
different during this farm bill. One provision I felt must be included 
was the continuation of the Fluid Milk Promotion Program. Building a 
stronger demand for milk is essential to the entire dairy industry. 
Fluid milk sales account for about 35 percent of the total amount of 
milk produced, which means changes in this category are significant. I 
believe continuation of this processor-funded program is a very good 
way to attack misperceptions and to keep people drinking milk. We need 
to continue to increase people's understanding of the benefits and 
importance of milk and continue to show consumers new ways to keep milk 
in their diets.
  Fourth, conservation concerns in Kentucky have centered around how to 
help farmers improve water quality. A new program--the Environmental 
Quality Incentive Program [EQIP] will target over $1 billion for 7 
years to assist crop and livestock producers with environmental and 
conservation improvements on their farms. I believe

[[Page S3056]]

this program will be very beneficial to the farmers in Kentucky in 
providing cost-share and technical assistance in improving water 
quality.
  Another issue I heard loud and clear from my Kentucky farmers dealt 
with the mandatory purchase of catastrophic crop insurance [CAT]. I 
made this one of my top priorities, and I am happy to report that my 
fellow conferees also heard similar comments from their farmers. The 
conference agreement eliminates mandatory catastrophic crop insurance, 
but requires producers waive all Federal disaster assistance if they 
opt not to purchase CAT insurance. This means that tobacco farmers and 
grain producers don't have to purchase CAT crop insurance to 
participate in a commodity program or to get their marketing card. 
Eligibility to purchase crop insurance is no longer linked to 
conservation compliance and swampbuster for producers who choose not to 
participate in farm programs.
   Mr. President, today's 2 million farmers and the 19 million workers 
employed in our food and agriculture system generate over 16 percent of 
our Nation's income. We must keep the farmer, the rancher, the food, 
and the agriculture sector healthy and growing. It is time to give our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers some answers and to pass this conference 
report today.
  Again, I thank our committee chairman, ranking member, and staff for 
their dedication and hard work.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the final 
passage of the conference report on H.R. 2854, the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. In some ways, it is only natural 
that this farm bill occurred like one of the other major factors 
affecting agriculture, the weather. With the weather, you're never sure 
when the rains will come, but inevitably, it will rain. This 
legislation brings an end to the waiting and uncertainty currently 
surrounding farmers and ranchers in my state, as well as around the 
country.
  I would like to thank Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Lugar and 
ranking member Leahy for their tireless work to bring together the many 
different sides and address their concerns in this farm bill. And of 
course, a hearty congratulations to my fellow Kansans and members of 
the Kansas agricultural triumvirate, House Agriculture Chairman 
Roberts, Senate majority Leader Dole, and USDA Secretary Glickman.
  As a supporter of Congressman Roberts' freedom-to-farm bill, it is 
rewarding to see its inclusion in the final legislation. For production 
agriculture, this bill represents producer flexibility, program 
simplicity, and stability--all important priorities that will allow 
U.S. agriculture to successfully compete in the world marketplace. For 
the taxpayer, this legislation shows the continued commitment by 
agriculture to lower spending and reduce the deficit. Clearly, if all 
government programs displayed agriculture's commitment towards reduced 
spending, there would be no deficit today.
  Many other important programs are also included in this legislation. 
A clear priority was given to conservation programs, including a strong 
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]. The CRP has proven to be a valuable 
tool to promote wildlife habitat, reduce soil erosion, and improve 
water quality. Reauthorizing this program at its current level and 
allowing increased flexibility for the producer will allow current 
program benefits to be retained and increase the focus of this program 
to improve the most environmentally sensitive lands.
  It should be noted that this farm bill is truly comprehensive 
legislation that will affect all Americans. Included in this bill is 
important trade legislation that maintains our commitment to providing 
valuable food aid to those nations in need, strengthens our ability to 
open new markets, and encourages the development of emerging trading 
partners. Research, nutrition, rural development, and credit programs 
are all included in this bill to ensure to their future viability.
  Mr. President, it is true that the rains will inevitably come. 
However, no action by Congress can remove the uncertainty of how much, 
when, and where it will rain; but we in Congress can and should remove 
the uncertainty surrounding agricultural programs by passing this 
legislation.


                              section 147

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the chairman and I want to discuss in more 
detail what was intended in section 147 of H.R. 2854, the section which 
grants congressional consent to the northeast interstate dairy compact, 
subject to certain conditions.
  This compact will allow the six New England States to regulate the 
price of all class I drinking milk sold in those States. The regulation 
may apply to any class I milk sold in the New England States but 
produced elsewhere, as well as to such milk produced by New England 
farmers. The compact also provides that farmers from beyond New England 
receive its benefits as well as their New England counterparts.
  The conditions of congressional consent are intended to ensure the 
compact operates in harmony with the Federal milk market order program, 
and in complement with the changes otherwise being imposed on that 
program by this act. Seven conditions of consent are identified.
  The condition in section 147(1) requires that the Secretary of 
Agriculture make a finding of compelling public interest in the compact 
region before the compact may be implemented. This provision ensures a 
determination by the Secretary of the compact's need in the region 
before the compact's authority to regulate interstate commerce, as 
granted by the consent provided by this act, can become operational.
  The next four conditions of consent outlined in section 147(2) 
through section 147(5) constitute substantive restrictions on the 
compact's operation, as entered into by the States. In response to 
concerns raised by some conferees, section 147(2) limits the compact's 
regulatory authority to only class I milk. Notwithstanding any 
provision of the compact to the contrary, the compact commission will 
not be able to regulate other classes of milk. This condition limits 
the compact's regulatory reach to only the local and regional, fluid 
milk market. It ensures that the compact will have no effect on the 
national market for manufactured dairy products.
  Section 147(3) constitutes a procedural limitation on the compact's 
operation. This condition establishes a finite time limit for the 
provision of congressional consent to the compact. The section 
establishes that congressional consent terminates concurrently with the 
completion of the Federal milk market order consolidation process 
required under section 143 of the act.
  Also in response to concerns raised by committee conferees, 
conditions in section 147(4) alter the procedure by which additional 
States may enter the compact. The list of potential new entrants is 
limited to a named few. Such States may only join if contiguous to a 
member State and only upon approval by Congress.
  Section 147(5) requires the compact commission to compensate the 
Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] for purchases by the Corporation 
attributable to surplus production in the New England States. This 
condition was necessary for the compact to ensure that there would be 
no score from the Congressional Budget Office. The compact commission's 
responsibility to make compensation is to be measured by the 
Secretary's reference to a comparison of the rate of increased 
production. The compact commission would have the responsibility to 
provide compensation for those CCC purchase attributable to an increase 
in the rate of New England milk production in excess of the national 
average rate of increase.
  Section 147(6) provides for cooperation by the Department of 
Agriculture in the compact's operation. The Department has in the past 
construed findings of fact in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 
of 1937 as precluding the Department's cooperation in the operation of 
State over-order pricing programs. This condition makes clear these 
past departmental determinations do not apply to the compact, and that 
the Department shall provide such technical assistance as requested by 
the compact commission and requires that the compact commission will 
reimburse the Department for that assistance. The provision is designed 
to avoid duplication in

[[Page S3057]]

audit procedures and any other mechanism needed to administer the 
compact, and thereby to reduce the compact's regulatory burden and 
cost.
  Except in one regard section 147(7) provides only language of 
clarification, rather than imposes any additional, substantive, or 
procedural restriction on the compact's operation. This condition in 
the main part clarifies that the commission may not limit or prohibit 
the marketing of milk or milk products in the compact region from any 
other area in the United States. It also clarifies that the commission 
may not alter or amend procedures established under Federal milk 
marketing orders relating to the movement of milk between or among 
orders.
  Neither of the first two sentences of that section is intended to 
limit the compact commission's authority to establish a compact over-
order price regulation for all fluid milk marketed into the compact 
region in any form, packaged or bulk, produced in another production 
region in the United States. The last sentence of this section 147(7) 
delineates this point.
  The one substantive restriction of this condition is its limitation 
of the use of compensatory payments under section 10(6) of the compact. 
Because the use of compensatory payments is disfavored in milk 
marketing law, the compact itself placed strict restrictions upon their 
use in section 10(6). Their use even as so restricted proved to be of 
some concern, accordingly, the conference report further restricts 
their use under section 147(7).
  Does the chairman agree that this description accurately reflects the 
views of the conferees.
  Mr. LUGAR. That is correct.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Section 334 establishes a new conservation program 
called the environmental quality incentives program. One of the 
purposes of the program, as stated in section 1240(2)(B), is to assist 
``farmers and ranchers in complying with this title and Federal and 
State environmental laws.'' Could the Senator explain to me how this 
might occur?
  Mr. LEAHY. In order to provide the opportunity for an environmental 
quality incentives plan to be designed to assure that a producer is in 
compliance with other Federal State rules, regulations, and laws, USDA 
should enter into agreements with the appropriate agencies to assure 
that USDA is the only agency with routine decisionmaking authority and 
oversight of development and implementation of the plan. These inter-
agency agreements should focus on the development process of the plan, 
not specific conservation practices or management techniques; strive 
for maximum flexibility due to the variability of agricultural 
operations and resource conditions; provide that specific practices in 
the plan may be implemented in varving timeframes within the duration 
of the plan; assure that implementation of the plan is not interrupted 
by frequent revisions caused by changes in agency agreements; and 
recognize the need to encourage producers to develop plans by allowing 
reasonable implementation periods that provide for economic recovery of 
costs. If a plan is designed to assure that a producer is in compliance 
with other Federal or State rules, regulations, and laws, the producer 
may request plan revisions when necessary to accommodate any 
significant operational changes or unforeseen technical problems within 
the farming or ranching enterprise.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield, from the time of the distinguished 
Democrat leader, Senator Daschle, to the Senator from Wisconsin such 
time as he may need to speak in opposition to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. President, we have heard many good things about this farm bill 
and the promises of market orientation and positive reform that it 
brings to farm policy, but I believe a more critical examination of 
this bill demonstrates something entirely different, and so I want to 
refute some of the assertions that have been put forth during this 
debate.
  I think every Member of the Senate would agree that agricultural 
policy needs reform. The realities of production, markets and budgets 
change rapidly, and therefore what is demanded is a periodic revamping 
of agricultural policy. I agree that we need greater market orientation 
in farm policy, and I agree that we need less Government intervention 
into the production decisions of farmers. However, we also need a farm 
policy that is defensible to all citizens of our country, and I believe 
that this bill will ultimately fall short in this very important 
regard.
  The structure of current farm programs is basically to provide a 
safety net, making supplemental payments to farmers only when prices 
are low, and freeing farmers to make their money from the market when 
prices are sufficiently high, as they are currently.
  In contrast, this bill offers farmers a so-called guaranteed payment 
every year for the next 7 years, based entirely on their past 
production, regardless of market prices. If market prices are high, as 
they are today, farmers will receive the same payments as they would in 
times of low prices. In fact, farmers will not even be required to 
plant a crop in order to get the Government payment. I have a very hard 
time defending this as a wise expenditure of Federal dollars.
  Another assertion about this bill that I challenge is the idea that 
the goal of simplification and flexibility in farm programs requires 
guaranteed payments to farmers, even if they do not plant a crop. We 
all agree that farmers should have greater planting flexibility and 
that the Federal Government should get out of the business of dictating 
planting decisions to farmers. But again, farm programs must be 
defensible to all citizens of our country, not just those few in a 
position to reap short-term windfall profits from the Government.
  Another assumption that the casual observer of this farm bill debate 
might be tempted to make after listening to the debate is that this 
bill cuts the cost of farm programs. Yet, a quick analysis of the cost 
projections for this bill indicates that in the first 2 years of this 
bill the taxpayer will be required to pay an additional estimated $4 
billion for farm programs over what they would pay under the current 
program. Why? Because the taxpayer will be required to make large cash 
payments to farmers in times of expected high market prices, as opposed 
to making payments to farmers only in those years when prices are low.
  While these are a few of my concerns about the overall structure of 
the bill, as a Senator from Wisconsin, my overriding concerns are with 
the dairy provisions of this bill. And in that regard I believe that 
this bill offers a very mixed and a dangerous message.
  On the one hand, I am hopeful that the milk marketing order reform 
provisions of the final farm bill will give the USDA the tools that are 
necessary to bring about greater regional equity in milk pricing 
policies and to make the milk marketing order system more reflective of 
today's markets.
  The bill instructs the Secretary of Agriculture to consolidate and 
reform orders within 3 years, and essentially instructs him to do so 
without consideration to the existing price system established by the 
1985 farm bill. I think this is a positive change, and I am very 
hopeful it will bring about a marketing system that is more defensible 
in today's economy and more equitable to all the dairy farmers of our 
country.
  However, I am stunned by the inclusion of another provision of this 
bill, which I believe goes in the complete opposite direction of market 
orientation, and that is the northeast interstate dairy compact. While 
the bill does not approve the compact, it does explicitly give the 
Secretary of Agriculture the authority to do so on a temporary basis if 
the Secretary determines that there is a compelling public interest in 
the area.
  My colleagues will recall that during the Senate consideration of the 
farm bill, we voted to strike the northeast dairy compact from the 
bill. In doing so, the majority of the Senate demonstrated their 
disagreement with efforts to establish what amounts to regional dairy 
cartels, and on the House side the northeast dairy compact never was 
included.
  So it is very hard for me to understand how a dangerous provision 
like this can appear in a conference report when it has been clearly 
rejected by both Houses of Congress. In my mind, Mr. President, that is 
back-room dealing at its worst.

[[Page S3058]]

  It is true that some provisions have been added to the compact to try 
to blunt its negative effects. Other safeguards that had been agreed to 
in previous debates were deleted. But my overriding concern about the 
northeast dairy compact is now and always has been one of dangerous 
precedent.
  Since my first day in the Senate, I have fought to make Federal dairy 
policy more equitable to the dairy farmers of the Upper Midwest. Most 
agricultural economists, and now even the Secretary of Agriculture, 
agree that the current milk pricing policies have had a 
disproportionately negative effect on the farmers of my region, and I 
am hopeful that the milk market order reform provisions of this bill 
will help reverse that injustice. But I fear that even the most 
equitable milk market order reforms will be meaningless in the long run 
if we start allowing regions to segregate themselves from the rest of 
the country economically through efforts like the Northeast Dairy 
Compact.

  Our country and its Constitution are built on the concept of a 
unitary market without barriers. While I appreciate the efforts that 
have been made to water down the ill effects of the compact, I strongly 
believe that the long-term ramifications of this compact on a State 
like Wisconsin, which depends so heavily on national markets, are 
ominous.
  A New York Times editorial this past weekend stated the following 
about the Northeast Dairy Compact:

       A House-Senate conference committee has managed to tarnish 
     the most important farm bill in years by inserting a last-
     minute provision for a New England milk cartel that would 
     gouge consumers and violate the free market concept that has 
     made the 1996 farm bill worthwhile. The regional milk 
     monopoly is the very opposite of the kind of reform this bill 
     was meant to provide.

  It will now be up to those who support true market-oriented dairy 
pricing reform to make that case to the Secretary of Agriculture and to 
assure this regional compact does not come into effect.
  Lastly, while this farm bill eliminates the 10 cent per hundredweight 
budget assessment that all dairy farmers hate, its net effect on dairy 
farm income will be negative. In fact, I know of no other farmers that 
are asked to give up their price safety net as dairy farmers are 
through the elimination of the Milk Price Support Program without 
providing some sort of direct transition payment to soften the blow. 
While I question the wisdom of the overall structure of this bill, it 
would seem only logical to apply that structure equitably across 
commodities, and this bill does not do that with respect to the dairy 
farmer. So I will cast my vote against this farm bill.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation, and I do so 
enthusiastically, although I must say I do have some reservations about 
a few of the titles which I will talk about later.
  Overall, this bill does move in the right direction. It moves toward 
freedom to farm, which I think is absolutely important for agriculture 
in America, to be not only profitable for the farmer but to be able to 
produce goods that can be sold all over the world.
  I am very proud of the conservation title in this legislation. I 
think the dairy title takes a step in the right direction. Dairy, as 
has been said by various people on the floor, is probably the toughest 
area to reform, but we have taken steps in the right direction. It is 
going to take a little bit longer to get the kind of reforms in dairy 
that are necessary to be more free market oriented, but I think we have 
moved substantially in the right direction, and I support this bill.
  I have some problems with respect to sugar and peanuts, but they will 
not keep me from voting in favor of this legislation and to commend 
both Chairman Lugar and Senator Leahy, the ranking member, for a job 
well done in putting this agreement together under fairly serious time 
constraints as we approach the planting season.
  Let me first focus on the conservation title because this Congress 
has been excoriated by many in the national media for being an anti- 
environmental Congress. I suggest this farm bill is the most 
proenvironmental farm bill ever passed. It makes some terrific reforms 
by focusing on incentive-based programs, where we encourage farmers to 
be good stewards of the land. Farmers are good stewards of the land, by 
and large. We should have programs to complement their natural 
tendency, which is to take good care of the land that they need to grow 
their crops or to raise their cattle or sheep or whatever the case may 
be.

  This is a very important step in the right direction. We should 
commend the leaders here, and the Congress, for putting this bill 
forward in an area, as I said before, where we are being criticized for 
not being sensitive to the environment. We have established new 
programs, incentive-based programs, that I believe will have a 
tremendously positive effect on the environment in rural America.
  As a sponsor of the Environmental Quality Incentive Program that 
Senators Lugar and Leahy introduced and incorporated into this bill, I 
am particularly encouraged by the cost-shared assistance that will be 
available for livestock and crop farmers.
  Senator Lugar mentioned the Farms for the Future Program earlier. 
This is an amendment I offered on the floor of the Senate to provide 
$35 million for farmland preservation. It is an incredibly successful 
program in Pennsylvania. In fact, we have an overwhelming demand for 
this program in Pennsylvania that we simply cannot meet. This is an 
attempt to have the Federal Government help out to preserve high-
quality farmland that happens to be located in an area near an urban 
area that is under very intense pressure for development. What we are 
seeing happen, obviously, as the urban sprawl continues to move out 
into the rural area, we are losing very valuable farmland. In fact, in 
many of my counties, particularly in southeastern Pennsylvania, we are 
seeing the whole farm economy destroyed because of the pressure of 
development. I know it is not just happening in Pennsylvania. It is 
happening across the country. Farmland preservation is a way to 
recognize that the farm economies in these areas where we have such 
high quality farmlands and we have a good agriculture base are worth 
preserving and protecting. This is a way to do it. So I am very excited 
about this aspect of the conservation title.
  Finally, the whole freedom to farm concept is important with respect 
to the environment. Instead of dictating our farm policy from 
Washington, we are now giving flexibility to farmers. So they are not 
going to plant the same crop on the same ground, year after year. This 
practice requires increased uses of pesticides and fertilizers, because 
you are draining the ground of nutrients every year because you are 
planting the same crops. Now, you will see different crops planted and 
a reduction in the use of pesticides and herbicides. That is a very 
important, environmentally positive aspect to the freedom to farm 
approach.
  So, there are a lot of things in this farm bill we should be very 
excited about from that perspective. I want to congratulate, again, the 
Agriculture Committee and the conferees, for keeping these programs 
strong and crafting a good title.
  Let me now move to an area I am concerned about and that, obviously, 
is sugar and peanuts. But one other thing before that. I am 
disappointed we were not able to eliminate permanent law. Permanent law 
is from 1949. It is a law that is obviously not in use. It is 
superseded every few years when we do a farm bill, as we will this 
time. We will suspend permanent law, but it is still on the books. We 
say, ``What does it matter if it does not come into effect? Why is it 
so important that you want to get rid of this?''
  Permanent law is really the hammer held over our heads, that if we do 
not pass a farm bill, if we do not keep these farm programs going and 
we do not repeal permanent law, we kick back to this permanent law 
which means we have outrageously-priced commodities. This is, really, 
one of the reasons I believe we continue to pass farm bills and we 
continue to have an interfering Government hand in agriculture.

[[Page S3059]]

  If we got rid of permanent law, then the farm bill would have to be 
passed based on its merits as a bill, not because there is a hammer out 
there that would throw the economy into disruption if we did not pass a 
farm bill. So, retaining the permanent law hammer gives me a little bit 
of trepidation that, when this farm bill comes up again for 
reauthorization, the transition to more free markets could be hampered 
because of that hammer. So I am disappointed in that. But, again, it is 
another fight for another day.
  Finally, on the sugar and peanuts--I could talk at length about both, 
but I am going to focus my attention on what I see is the more 
egregious of the two programs and that is the peanut program. I stood 
on the floor right at this spot and offered an amendment on peanuts, 
which was a gradual phase-down of support price. The opponents of that 
amendment got up here and demanded--they said, ``Look, you guys do not 
understand. We have real reform in here.'' They just said, ``This is 
substantially reformed in the original bill. You do not have to go this 
far. This is outrageous reform, the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
talking about. This is just too severe. We have real reform in this 
underlying bill. As a result, you can be for reform of the peanut 
program and not vote for the amendment of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.''
  Well, as I knew at the time and as I said at the time, I said: Yes, 
there are some reforms in here. They are not substantial. It is 
lipstick on a pig. But, yes, you can argue there are reforms here. But 
you know what is going to happen. These folks, who are advocates of 
this program, they are going to get in conference and they are going to 
gut all the reforms and they will come back and it is business as 
usual.
  Surprise, what happened? They get to conference and almost all the 
minimal reforms that occurred in the original bill are gone. They are 
gutted. There is almost no reform in this bill anymore with respect to 
the peanut program in particular. That is fine. I should have known 
better. In a sense, I did know better. But I will state right here, 
that this program, while it is only reauthorized every few years--5, 7, 
whatever years it is--may be only reauthorized that often, but we are 
going to have another vote on the peanut program this year, maybe more 
than one vote. We are going to do it on appropriation bills. We may do 
it on who knows what other bills. We are not going to continue to 
sandbag reform on peanuts and then go to conference and gut it and have 
it included in the big bill where you cannot get to it anymore.
  This battle is not over. There will not be any argument anymore from 
the other side that we actually reformed it because you did not reform 
it. Now we are going to talk about the merits of this program, as to 
whether it should go forward. Let me talk about the merits of this 
program. Yes, we cut the support price of peanuts from $678 a ton down 
to $610 a ton for quota peanuts.
  By the way, the world price for peanuts is $350 a ton, but we are now 
at the tough, mean-spirited rate of $610 a ton, if you are on quota. We 
have two classes of citizens in peanuts, who grow peanuts. We have 
people who are lucky enough that their granddaddy was able to get a 
quota or license from the Government to grow them, and you get $610 a 
ton. If your granddaddy was not around when they were giving out the 
quotas, you only get, if you sell them on the additional market to the 
Government, $132 a ton.
  It is the same quality peanuts, maybe grown by the same farmer, some 
are quota some are additional. But you get $132 versus $610. OK? The 
world market is $350.
  So we have two classes of people out here. You say, ``Well, yeah, you 
reduce the price.'' ``Well, yes, we reduce the price. Guess what? We 
now have made this a no-cost program.'' That is the way they sort of 
got around it.
  No, it is not reform. It is not going to cost money anymore. How do 
they do that? Every year the Secretary of Agriculture estimates what 
the consumption of peanuts will be in this country and sets the quota. 
Let us say it is 1.2 million tons of peanuts, and he sets the quota.
  The Secretary cannot allow the Government to be a big buyer of 
peanuts, and the reason is because we cannot get stuck with a lot of 
expensive peanuts and not be able to sell them.
  Mr. President, I ask for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield 1 additional minute.
  Mr. SANTORUM. So the problem is, he will have to go out and short the 
market; in other words, he will have to have a lower quota than they 
actually expect so they do not end up buying a bunch of peanuts and 
being stuck with the cost.
  We had two provisions in there that actually penalized farmers 5 
percent every time they sold their peanuts to the Government when they 
had a price equal to the quota price available on the market. Well, 
they gutted that provision. They gutted that provision completely.
  How do they do it? First, they said the farmer has to put up his 
entire crop. What do you mean ``entire''? You put up 99 percent of your 
crop and you sell 1 percent on the open market, and you avoid all 
penalties. That is No. 1. There is a big loophole here, No. 1.
  No. 2, it says that you have to sell your entire crop to the 
Government for 2 consecutive years, and then you get penalized. One 
year one producer sells it all to the Government, the next year another 
one does, and you play games with producers so nobody gets caught. That 
is another big loophole in this.
  I can go on with a whole variety of other gutting amendments that 
occurred in conference. But the fact of the matter is this program is 
not reformed in this bill. We are going to have plenty of opportunities 
on the floor of the Senate over the next 6 months to reform it, and I 
am looking forward to that debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time does the Senator wish?
  Mr. HEFLIN. Ten to twelve minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alabama. My time is 
dwindling, so I yield 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk a few moments on the 
farm bill conference report that is before the Senate. Last year, when 
the farm bill process began, farmers came to me representing all types 
of commodities enthusiastically supporting the continuation of the 
present programs which provided a safety net for farmers in times of 
disaster or low market prices. They told me the programs were working 
well, and, particularly in the South, these programs had worked 
exceptionally and extremely well, specifically in regard to cotton.
  However, there was substantial Republican opposition to the 
continuation of such programs, even within budgetary limits. Therefore, 
the Republicans pushed the Agricultural Market Transition Act of 1996, 
formerly known as the freedom to farm bill, in which the farm program 
payments were decoupled and all Government programs would ultimately be 
phased out at the end of 7 years.
  In order to gain producers' support for a farm program phaseout, the 
Republicans advocated fixed, but declining, payments regardless of 
market prices. The program that they advocated guaranteed payments to 
farmers whether they needed them or not. This program, in my opinion, 
constituted a welfare program.
  In regard to cotton, it is understood that if you can produce cotton 
and get a price close to the target price, which is 72.9 cents a pound, 
you can make a living. The target price was based on the idea of taking 
the cost of production and the minimum amount necessary to have a 
return on equity comparable to what business groups endeavor to try to 
have as a return on equity, on a conservative basis.
  But we find that under this program, this freedom to farm act, that 
if cotton went up to 85 cents a pound, which would be a bonanza year 
for profits and for prices, nevertheless under this, you would get a 
Government payment, a mailbox payment. If cotton went, as it did last 
year, to $1.06 a pound, you would, nevertheless, under the Republican 
proposal, get a Government subsidy. There is no point in paying money 
to people who do not need it, and that would be what would have 
happened last year under this particular program. Support for farmers

[[Page S3060]]

should be available during times of low market prices or uncontrollable 
natural disasters. Payments should not be made to farmers when 
commodity prices are as high as they currently are.
  I oppose such an approach, feeling that this program could not 
survive close public scrutiny and is simply not good policy.
  However, in the Senate, there was extended debate, there were cloture 
motions filed, and it appeared that cloture would not be obtained at 
one point, so compromises were worked out. Senator Leahy took a lead in 
trying to work out a compromise, and I commend him for the end result. 
I do not like all the compromises, but at least with the circumstances 
with which we were faced, we did achieve a bill.
  One aspect of the compromise was reinstating permanent law. Permanent 
law will ensure that Congress in the future must address farm programs 
and not simply allow them to expire.
  The addition of permanent law as a part of the now called Federal 
Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 is a vital element for 
assuring that the Federal Government will refocus its attention on 
agricultural policy and ensure that we maintain a partnership with 
rural America and not abandon our agriculture producers at the end of 7 
years.
  The Senate compromise also reauthorized conservation programs, 
including the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] and permitted new CRP 
enrollments. The conservation title of the farm bill demonstrated a 
very strong commitment to the environment.
  In addition, the very important nutrition programs were also 
reauthorized.
  Discretionary agricultural programs, such as research, trade, rural 
development and credit were also rolled into the final bill.
  The conference report before us today contains much of the Senate 
bill, and even some improvements were achieved in conference, including 
improvements in the peanut program. However, to me, this bill contains 
about an equal amount of good and bad, and this is so even after the 
compromise changes were included in the conference report.
  If I had to weigh the good and the bad on a scale, they would come 
out about equal. But we are faced today with the fact that the planting 
season is upon us. A day has not passed in which I do not hear from 
farmers anxious for some direction from Congress regarding farm 
programs. Time is of the essence. The planting season is upon us, and 
that is an element that we must consider.
  Nevertheless, I cannot overlook my strong concerns regarding the 
outyears when it is predicted that commodity prices will fall and the 
farmers will need an adequate and certain safety net.
  The agricultural policy in China, for all practical purposes, is 
today controlling cotton prices in America, among others. They have 
vast billions of citizens to feed, and whatever policy they may 
establish concerning agriculture, it certainly affects the commodity 
prices in America today. If Chinese agricultural policy changes 
immediately, or in the next couple of years, then we will again 
experience commodity price fluctuations and the safety net provided in 
the bill before the Senate does not provide an adequate safety net to 
deal with this potential problem, and this concerns me deeply.
  But at the same time, we also are faced with another situation. In my 
State of Alabama and in the Southeast, and in other sections of the 
country, last year saw disastrous conditions that affected the 
production of farm commodities. In the cotton belt, we had to deal with 
the boll weevil, the tobacco budworm, and the beet armyworm. Alabama 
also experienced a terrible drought, and then had to deal with two 
hurricanes unfortunately at harvest time. Alabama, along with other 
regions of the country, each had their share of uncontrollable factors 
to deal with this last season. Unfortunately, catastrophic crop 
insurance proved to be inadequate and many farmers struggled to make 
back their cost of production, and many did not. We tried to pass some 
limited degree of disaster assistance for cotton farmers during 
agriculture appropriations, but this effort was unsuccessful. So we are 
looking at a situation today where the first payment under the, as I 
call it the freedom to farm act, would act as a disaster payment to 
farmers for the disastrous situations experienced last year.
  Therefore, while I believe this bill to be flawed in some areas, I 
have decided to vote for the conference report. I base this decision on 
weighing the good and the bad, and I believe it to be about equal. The 
fact that it is late in the day and this bill does provide some 
immediate assistance to farmers, I will, with reservation, vote for 
this conference report. I have hopes in the future that we will come 
back and take a responsible look at the policy, a year from now or 2 
years from now, and look again at the overall policy pertaining farm 
programs.
  I would like to commend Senator Leahy for his work in this regard.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will yield another minute for that, Mr. President.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I think he did a great job and he reestablished a great 
deal of Democratic principles into the policy that we have, 
particularly research and conservation and environmental as well as 
others in regard to it.
  I would briefly like to mention the peanut program. In my judgment 
the peanut program reform went far too far. According to studies that 
were made by Auburn University, the final version of the peanut program 
being voted on today will result in a 28-percent loss of income to the 
peanut farmer. While other commodity producers are receiving transition 
payments, the peanut producer is seeing nearly a one-third reduction in 
his income. In my judgment, the degree to which the program was 
reformed was unnecessary and punitive.
  Mr. President, as I am looking at this farm bill, this will be the 
last farm bill that I will participate in, since I am retiring at the 
end of the year. I have long been a supporter of the American farmer. 
My commitment to agricultural producers has been constant throughout my 
career. I am concerned that the bill before us today does not provide 
the kind of safety net that I would prefer to see and leave as a legacy 
for future generations of farmers. I hope that in the future, Congress 
will not turn its back on American farmers in the event that commodity 
prices fall and farmers are left without any price protection.
  I ask the Senator if I could have a couple more minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield another minute to the Senator.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Basically, I think that the farm bill ought to have 
balance. Take for example feed grains. Feed grains are important to the 
producers, and the structure of their program is important to them. But 
so on the other hand are the users of feed grains, such as the 
producers of cattle, hogs, and catfish. It is so necessary to have a 
balance. So I hope that as we look to the future and look again in 
regard to these matters, that we will attempt to achieve a balance 
between producers and users of agriculture commodities.
  I would like to recognize Senator Lugar for his work on this farm 
bill. Senator Lugar has been a good chairman. I disagreed with him on 
many aspects of the bill and of the overall policy but he was certainly 
a gentleman throughout; he made certain that everybody had an 
opportunity to be heard. I think that he wants to achieve a balance in 
regard to farm policy and hopefully this will be addressed in the 
future.
  So, as we look forward toward the future, we hope we can have a farm 
policy that has balance. At some time in the future I will deliver a 
speech to the Senate relative to balance--balance relative to trade, 
balance in regard to agriculture policy. But today, Mr. President, I 
will vote for the conference report.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are going back and forth. I see a Member 
on the other side of the aisle. But I note, if I might, the 
distinguished chairman. I do intend to make a statement later in praise 
of both Senator Heflin and Senator Pryor, two of our most distinguished 
Members, who are leaving the committee at the end of this year.

[[Page S3061]]

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Senator Grassley is prepared to wait for 
Senator Kerrey's speech. Senator Kerrey has been on the floor. I will 
ask recognition for him to speak following Senator Kerrey.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am not seeking recognition to speak, but 
merely to ask the question, is there a possibility that we could seek, 
once the speakers coming up are through--I have been here for a good 
while this morning. In fact, I have enjoyed being over here this 
morning listening to some of this debate. But I see some of my 
colleagues, Senator Kerrey, Senator Bryan. I would be glad to follow 
them, if I just knew some order.
  Mr. LEAHY. I wonder on our side, as we go back and forth on the 
Democrat side, I wonder if my colleagues would be willing to have it be 
the sequence of Senator Kerrey, Senator Bryan, Senator Pryor. Is that 
what the Senator is suggesting?
  Mr. PRYOR. I would be glad to follow my colleague, Senator Bryan.
  Mr. BRYAN. If I might, the distinguished Senator from Arkansas has 
been here longer than I.
  Mr. LEAHY. Why not Senator Kerrey, Senator Pryor, Senator Bryan, as 
we take our turns. That is assuming there will be a chorus between each 
Democrat of a Republican seeking recognition.
  Mr. LUGAR. If the Chair would permit, following Senator Kerrey, 
Senator Grassley would be the Republican speaker, to be followed then 
by the two Democratic speakers, and then any Republican that comes on 
the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the chairman
  Mr. PRYOR. So I will not surprise either of the splendid managers of 
this piece of legislation, I am going to vote against this bill. But 
there is one section I find very appealing in this legislation. I want 
to talk about that section just for a while, 4 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Those in opposition will have time yielded by the 
distinguished Democratic leader, and we will take that at that 
appropriate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader has 84 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Is the Senator from Nebraska speaking in opposition?
  Mr. KERREY. Yes. I ask for 10 minutes, to be charged against the 
Democratic leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first let me praise the conferees. Given 
the acrimony surrounding the debate, and given the lateness of the 
hour, it is entirely possible for conferees to look and produce 
nothing, or to produce a bill which the President would have had to 
veto. I appreciate very much--I know a great deal of movement had to 
occur in order to resolve many of the conflicts. I applaud them for 
having produced a piece of legislation that the President has indicated 
that he will sign and that he would like to revisit next year.
  Mr. President, I would like to go through some of the things I see 
are good in this bill. I do intend to vote against it, but there are a 
number of things that are quite good.
  First, in the area of conservation, one of the great success stories 
of farm programs over the past 60 years has been the tremendous 
improvement in conservation of soil and of water that has occurred on 
the private property in this country. Very often one of the political 
lines is used when describing the farm program as ``What a failure it 
has been.'' But one need only look at the snapshot of what this country 
looked like in the 1930's versus what it looks like in the 1990's. 
Indeed, you can go back to the 1980's and see considerable progress 
just in the last 10 years. It has been a great, often untold story, 
this success story in this country.
  This bill authorizes the CRP at 36.4 million acres through 2002. All 
conservation programs are going to become more responsive to State and 
local needs since the technical committees that control will be 
required to include agriculture producers as well as nongovernmental 
organizations, giving them an expanded role.
  This is no small item, Mr. President. It empowers people at the State 
level to come up with plans for the CRP that dovetails with their plans 
for conservation, their plans for tourism, their plans for water 
quality. We have tried that at the State level in Nebraska, and I can 
alert colleagues that groups that typically opposed one another have 
been able to reach agreement as a consequence of being given the power 
and control over making these kinds of decisions.
  There is simplified conservation planning in this legislation for 
farmers through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the 
Conservation Farm Options. It is a tremendous improvement. I applaud 
the conferees for including it.
  It provides for pilot wetlands mitigation projects to give farmers 
flexibility in managing their frequently cropped wetlands that have 
been badly degraded.
  It makes many improvements to the law dealing with good-faith 
violations of conservation requirements and granting of variances from 
conservation requirements, stemming from ``abandonment'' of farmed 
wetlands and in defining ``agricultural land'' so the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture will be the agency responsible for delineating wetlands 
on pasture, rangelands and tree farms.
  Next, the Resource Conservation and Development Program, which has 
also been very successful in my State, is reauthorized through the year 
2002. The next big thing I identify is something quite good, spoken at 
length by many other people, but we have retained permanent authority 
for farm programs. Thus, we are not phasing out the farm program, not 
only at the end of 7 years, but the door is open if this program turns 
out not to be successful, for us to revisit and perhaps change the law.
  Third, it increases planting flexibility, though we take a step 
backward from the 1990 farm bill in planting flexibility for farmers 
who want to plant fruits and vegetables. I am pleased the conferees 
adopted a provision I requested regarding alfalfa and other forages. 
For the first time, farmers and ranchers will not be penalized for 
harvesting alfalfa and other forages on their base or contract 
agencies. This will help farmers meet their conservation compliance 
requirements and may result in more conserving-use species being grown 
on environmentally sensitive land.
  I point out there was an alternative, called the Farm Security Act, 
providing tremendous flexibility and simplicity by reverting to the 
normal crop acreage system, what we, on the Democratic side, proposed 
and tried to get supported. It would have retained a market orientation 
but would have provided tremendous new simplicity and flexibility for 
the farmer.
  In addition, the rural development programs are improved. The 
creation of the Rural Community Advancement Program will give States 
more flexibility to address their individual needs, and the Fund for 
Rural America will provide additional resources for addressing needs in 
both rural development and in research.
  Next, on the negative side, now moving from the good to the bad, 
depending on your point of view, my point of view is that it is very 
bad to create a fixed payment system that is, in essence, ignorant of 
the market, ignorant of the farmer's revenue, and ignorant of whether 
the farmers even plant a crop. This decoupled program of so-called 
guaranteed payments is far from being market oriented. It is market 
ignorant. American taxpayers would not stand for our Government giving 
AFDC payments to a family making $100,000 a year, any more than they 
will stand for our Government giving producers a freedom-to-farm 
payment--up to $230,000, in fact--when that farmer has received record-
breaking profits or when he decides not to plant at all.
  Next, it overpays farmers when revenue is high but leaves farmers 
without adequate protection during bad years when they need Federal 
support the most. Worse, the loan rate is capped for the 1995 levels. 
It can go down, but it can never go up. In a time when farm prices have 
increased and are projected to remain high for several years, these cap 
loan rates quickly become as outdated as the crop basis of previous 
farm bills.
  Wheat and feed grain farmers, the individual producers themselves, 
came and said, ``If you take these caps off, we will pay for it by 
taking reduced guaranteed payments,'' but the majority party refused to 
make this commonsense change.
  In 1996, the farm program was expected to cost very little. To be 
clear

[[Page S3062]]

on this, in 1985 the farm program cost $26 billion; last year, $10 
billion. This year was going to cost $6 billion; next year it is 
forecasted to be $3 billion as a consequence of prices being high. 
Farmers are getting a decent income from the market, and the taxpayers 
are benefiting from the greatly reduced cost of the farm bill.
  As much as I dislike many of the aspects of the 1990 farm bill, it is 
undeniable, from a taxpayer's perspective, that the 1990 farm bill was 
working. Our deficit will actually increase by $4.5 billion by the end 
of 1997 as a result of this bill.
  Yesterday, we heard the Secretary of Agriculture come before the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and present the President's 
budget for 1997 to Congress, and he had to say, ``We did not know what 
the farm bill would be, so we could not include the farm bill 
consideration.'' But his budget, assuming spending needs would be the 
same as they have been under the 1990 farm bill, shows that there is a 
$3 billion increase in the mandatory side of the farm program payments.
  So, please understand for those who will vote for this thing and 
issue the press release talking about how it will be cheaper in the 
first year, and the budget that we will debating this year, the budget 
will actually increase on the mandatory side by $3 billion. Increasing 
mandatory spending by $3 billion in 1997 can mean one of only two 
things, Mr. President: Either the deficit will increase, or 
discretionary spending will have to decrease.
  In the President's 1997 budget, budgetary authority for discretionary 
spending amounts to $13 billion. Budget authority for mandatory 
spending is $59 billion, including the nutrition programs. That $13 
billion is a $200 million increase over last year. With inflation 
running about 2\1/2\ percent, that is an actual cut, Mr. President. 
With this $3 billion increase in the mandated side, unless we bust the 
budget or find an offset someplace else, we will have to take the 
discretionary programs down even further than is being recommended by 
the President.
  Next, Mr. President, our Nation's neediest people are shortchanged by 
this bill, since the Food Stamp Program is reauthorized for only 2 
years. Only 2 years' authorization of food stamps, while farmers are 
supposedly guaranteed payments up to $230,000 for 7 years.
  Research is shortchanged as well, Mr. President, with programs being 
authorized only through 1997. This is a result of the House insistence 
that we should force ourselves to craft a new bill dealing with 
research within that time period. I agree our research program should 
be reexamined and updated. However, if the past 14 months is any 
indication of how quickly the House and Senate Agriculture Committees 
and Congress as a whole will act to reauthorize agriculture-related 
programs, the majority's insistence of only a 21-month authorization 
for research is not a very good idea.
  Less planting flexibility for farmers who grow fruits and vegetables 
is the next objection I have, Mr. President. Potatoes, in particular, 
is a crop grown increasingly in my State, and not only grown but also 
processed. So it is an important source of jobs. Under the 1990 farm 
bill, the current law, any farmer could plant potatoes as long as that 
farmer agreed to give up any Federal subsidy on the acres that were 
planted to potatoes. That is fair policy.
  Unfortunately, I was unable to persuade the majority that we should 
adopt the same policy of planting flexibility for potato growers under 
this bill. Instead, the conferees adopted a provision that will create 
an allocation system, a quota, Mr. President, for farmers who want to 
plant potatoes or other fruits and vegetables on contract areas. 
Instead of allowing any farmer to plant potatoes, if the farmer agrees 
to forego his Federal subsidy it limits potato production on contract 
acres to three situations: First, a region with a history of double 
planting; next, a planting history that includes potatoes; and farmers 
that can prove to the U.S. Government, the USDA, they have grown 
potatoes in the past, but that farmer is limited to planting no more 
than his average production of potatoes in the 1991-95 period.
  So in conclusion, we are saying freedom to farm, more flexibility, 
but you are not able to do what you are allowed under the old farm 
bill, which is, if you want to plant an alternative crop you are 
allowed to take a decreased payment off your normal base. I object to 
this arbitrary planting restriction, particularly since farmers of each 
of the three situations must also give up their guaranteed payment.
  Mr. President, the last time the Congress failed to enact a farm bill 
during the year it was due was in 1947. I point out, in 1990, when this 
bill was being debated, when the current law was being debated, in July 
1990, there was a great debate over an amendment offered by the Senator 
from Texas, Senator Bentsen. What he said was, we are going to 
authorize the Secretary--any section of this farm bill is extended 
during that 5-year period to reauthorize the rest of the farm bill. 
Why? Because the Republicans at this time were quite concerned--there 
was a colloquy between the distinguished Senator from Indiana and the 
Senator from Kansas saying, we have to do this because July is too 
late.
  We waited far too long, Mr. President, this time around. 1947 was the 
last year when this happened. That year there was a Democrat in the 
White House and Republicans controlled the House and the Senate. In my 
judgment, we are going to have to do the same thing that the voters did 
in 1948 to break the current logjam we have on the farm bill and the 
appropriations bill if the American people's will is not going to 
continue to be frustrated.
  However, the conference committee--as I said at the beginning, I must 
revert to praise--the conference committee does a terrific job. They 
could have ended the day and passed nothing. They were up against a 
time line--self-imposed, in my judgment--as a result of not getting the 
work done. That having been said, it would have been very easy for them 
to have passed something the President could not have signed.
  I hope that the political changes in 1996 present us with an 
opportunity to revisit this bill on behalf of farmers who need income, 
on behalf of people in communities who depend upon that income for 
jobs, on behalf of the taxpayers who are going to pay for it, and, most 
important, on behalf of the American consumer.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Iowa, Senator Grassley.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Congress and the Senate takes up today 
the passage of legislation regarding the farming community and is 
presenting legislation as a basis for a safety net for the agriculture 
of the next century. The programs of this century are outdated for the 
agriculture of the next century.
  Now, Mr. President, the opponents of this bill take great delight in 
calling this a welfare bill for farmers. Well, of course, that shows a 
complete lack of understanding of the farm economy and of farm 
programs.
  First of all, farmers have relied on a Government program for the 
past 60 years. The urban press has always referred to Government 
programs as ``welfare'' because they are too stupid to understand the 
interrelationship between food production and what goes on in cities 
and the jobs that it creates.
  But what the press does not tell you is what the farmers have done 
for the American consumer. Farm programs have helped farmers to supply 
us with the best and the cheapest food supply in the world. Is this 
welfare? Everyone--most of all, the consumer--has benefited from farm 
programs, and they will continue to do so under this bill.
  But Congress has passed, in this bill, the most sweeping changes in 
farm programs in 60 years. We will not, in this new environment of 
change, pull the rug out from under farmers in this legislation.
  We are providing in this legislation a glidepath to the free market 
type of agriculture that most farmers want. This bill provides a 
glidepath. It provides guaranteed, certain payments to farmers to allow 
them to adjust to a new era of agriculture.
  This era will be heavily influenced by free market forces instead of 
Government programs. This new era will also be influenced by the 
opening of markets in Europe and the Pacific rim when free-trade 
agreements, such as GATT, are allowed a chance to work.

[[Page S3063]]

 Most farmers welcome the opportunity to meet every competitor abroad, 
compete in every market, and send a clear signal--which this bill 
does--that we are going to supply that market. We are going to be in 
the market to stay.
  But, of course, during transition, there must be an adjustment 
period. The Government safety net must continue in order to ease the 
transition. This bill accomplishes that goal.
  And anyone in this Chamber who thinks farmers will take this market 
transition payment and not plant a crop has a total lack of 
understanding not only about farming but about economics in general.
  The farmers I know cannot afford to pay the property tax on their 
land and to take these payments and expect to make a living from them. 
They will have to earn income from the land. Not only do they have to 
do it, they want to do it. They have to produce and market a crop in 
order to provide such a living.
  With all due respect to any of my colleagues who think otherwise, it 
is insulting to our farmer constituents to insinuate that they will 
take a Government payment and fly off to Florida and let the 
productivity of their land and the return from that productivity be 
nonexistent.
  Obviously, you are not talking to the same farmers that show up at my 
town meetings and visit my office. These farmers want to continue to 
farm the land and make a living from that land.
  So let us give farmers just a little bit of credit. Let us trust them 
not only to do the right thing, but to do the only thing that makes 
sense economically. That is what most of this farm bill is all about--
letting farmers make their own decisions, instead of Government making 
all of their decisions for them.
  Mr. President, I simply cannot, on another point, buy the argument 
made by the opponents of this bill that we have failed to provide an 
adequate safety net for farmers. The farmers I talk to do not think the 
current program is any safety net at all.
  If you want to see how the current program would work for some 
farmers if it were extended, talk to the farmers in southern Iowa, 
western Illinois, and northern Missouri who did not get a crop planted 
in 1995, and ask them about a safety net. They had little or no crop to 
market this year. Yet, they did not receive a deficiency payment 
because prices are so high. They lost a lot of income, and many of them 
are on the verge of going out of business. Yet, some of my colleagues 
want to extend the 1990 farm program because they think it is a better 
safety net.
  This new farm bill has all the components of an adequate safety net. 
First, it makes guaranteed, fixed payments to farmers for the next 7 
years--something they can count on. It lets farmers manage their income 
from the Government, instead of some bureaucrat in Washington doing it.
  Since we know the amount that we have to spend on the farm program 
over the next 7 years--and we have to know that if we are going to get 
to a balanced budget--why not let the farmers manage this money instead 
of Washington? Once again, the opponents of the bill would rather keep 
the powers in the hands of unelected, faceless bureaucrats, when the 
farmers, business people, as they are and must be, are competent to do 
this and want to do it and welcome the freedom to do it.
  This farm bill also has a strong Marketing Loan Program. This 
represents the true safety net for our farmers. It protects the farmers 
against rapid decline in prices. Finally, we establish a new program in 
this farm bill called revenue insurance. In fact, it is already being 
used in Iowa under the name of crop revenue coverage. This new product 
is a public-private partnership that represents the future of farm 
programs. The farmers I talked to in town meetings over the past 
weekend are very excited about this product. They feel that it is the 
only safety net that they need, one that they can control, and one that 
is related to the marketplace.
  So let us not substitute our judgment for that of our farmers. It is 
their business, their livelihood, and there is nobody who knows better 
how to manage the 350-acre average-size farm in Iowa than the man who 
is operating it or the woman who owns and operates it. They know better 
than many people here. Let them decide what a sufficient safety net is 
for their business. I think most of them will decide that this new 
revenue insurance product is a very strong safety net.
  Also, Mr. President, the opponents of this bill argue that we are 
ending Government involvement in farming, and that this is just plain 
wrong. These are scare tactics designed to undermine the intent of this 
bill.
  First of all, permanent law, specifically the 1949 act, is still in 
place as an incentive for Congress to consider farm legislation after 
the year 2002.
  Second, I understand from the Congressional Budget Office that 
agriculture will have about a $4 billion baseline for farm programs 
after 2002.
  Finally, and most significantly, the bill establishes a strong 
insurance program. This program will be a public-private partnership 
that provides a very strong safety net for family farmers.
  So Government will continue to play a very important role in farming. 
But the role will be much more limited. It is accurate to say that 
farmers' business decisions will no longer be made in Washington. But 
the Federal Government will continue to play a role in providing a 
safety net.
  Maybe the opponents of this bill want the Government to continue to 
control all aspects of agriculture. But farmers do not want that, and 
the supporters of this bill do not want that. But it is just fear-
mongering to insinuate that the Federal Government will pull the rug 
out from under the family farmers. This simply will not happen under 
this very good piece of legislation.
  I commend the manager of the bill for writing a very good piece, as 
well as the Senator from Vermont.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield time from the time of the 
distinguished Democratic leader to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member, 
Senator Leahy, for yielding to me. I want to compliment not only 
Senator Leahy but also our friend and chairman of the committee, 
Senator Lugar of Indiana.
  This has been a very, very difficult process indeed--Mr. President 
steering this particular piece of legislation through the Agriculture 
Committee ultimately onto the floor of the Senate. In my opinion, it is 
long overdue. We will not fight that battle now. That has been the 
battle of the past days, and perhaps it could be a battle for a future 
day. But at least let me say that our two ranking members, our two 
managing members, this afternoon have worked very hard and very closely 
to bring this matter to the floor of the Senate this afternoon.
  I would like to take just a moment to highlight section 926 of the 
farm bill conference report to my colleagues in the U.S. Senate. I find 
myself in a very unusual position of pointing to something in this 
report which I actually support, and those sections are few and far 
between. But this is section 926 that I strongly support.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have not nor will I today support 
the freedom-to-farm concept espoused in the philosophy of this 
legislation. I believe it ends the much-needed safety net for our 
family farmers. However, I have stated my opinion numerous times on 
this floor, in the Agriculture Committee, and most recently in the last 
week or so as a member of the conference committee that brought this 
bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  Nevertheless, I would like to very quickly highlight one particular 
provision which was included to recognize one of our distinguished 
colleagues in the U.S. Senate. Section 926 of the report designates the 
research facility operated by the Agricultural Research Service--ARS--
near Booneville, AR, as the ``Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research 
Center.''
  Booneville, AR, by the way, is less than 15 miles south from an even 
smaller Arkansas town known as Charleston. The reason I bring this up 
is that Charleston, AR, just so happens to be the hometown of our 
colleague, the senior Senator from Arkansas, the Honorable Dale 
Bumpers. At one time Senator Bumpers not only operated a small 
business, which was a hardware store, but he was also an attorney in 
Charleston, AR. He took great pride in stating that he was not only the 
only

[[Page S3064]]

attorney but that he was the best attorney in Charleston, AR.
  Mr. President, naming this research facility after the Honorable Dale 
Bumpers could not be more appropriate, and I am very pleased today to 
play a very small part in making this distinction possible. Senator 
Dale Bumpers has been a tremendous ally for the farmers and ranchers of 
Arkansas and across the whole country.
  As chair and now ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Senator Bumpers has worked and continues to work 
tirelessly on behalf of the agriculture community. He is also, as we 
all know, the former chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee.
  It was early 1976 when the Booneville Chamber of Commerce went to 
work to find a better way to utilize State-owned land near this 
particular town. With the tireless help of Senator Dale Bumpers, the 
necessary groundwork began, and this truly grassroots project was off 
and running. After consideration of all possible uses for this land, 
the overwhelming conclusion was that a research facility to benefit 
small farms would be the most valuable use. I so well remember this 
project. It seems so many years ago, as I was Governor at the time and 
did what I could at the State level to push this project forward.
  Over the next couple of years working with Senator Bumpers, with his 
help, vision, and foresight with the feasibility studies that he was 
responsible for when they were conducted, additional backing was 
gained. Certainly they showed that a research facility for small 
farmers in small farming operations was justified. Since it was State-
owned and State-involved, Mr. President, support from the Governor was 
crucial. And when my successor, Governor Bill Clinton, entered office 
in 1979 he quickly recognized the merit of establishing a small farms 
research center. Approval from local organizations was also obtained, 
and the citizens of Booneville traveled to Washington, DC, to the 
Nation's Capital to follow through on their efforts. I remember so well 
those meetings. I also remember the leadership of Senator Dale 
Bumpers--that much-needed fire that got these funds committed, and the 
project was then off the ground.

  Finally, in 1980, Mr. President, with all of the planning, and all of 
the studies finally completed, about 15 acres of State-owned land was 
leased to the University of Arkansas, which in turn was leased to the 
Department of Agriculture to be used in research. All of this would not 
have been possible without the leadership and the vision--and certainly 
the commitment--of the Honorable Dale Bumpers.
  On behalf of the citizens of Booneville, AR, and throughout our 
entire State, on behalf of the farmers and the ranchers who have and 
will continue to benefit from the important research conducted there, 
let me at this time express the much-deserved appreciation for all of 
Senator Bumpers' efforts in making a worthy project become reality. We 
hope that this small token of recognition will demonstrate our 
gratitude to Senator Dale Bumpers.
  Let me conclude, Mr. President, by stating that this idea to name 
this particular facility has been kicking around I must say for a long 
time. For a long time many members of the community of Booneville have 
thought that the appropriate name for this center would be the ``Dale 
Bumpers Small Farms Research Center.'' We have leaders like Jeral 
Hampton, Rick Lippard, Gene Remy, Don Dunn, A.B. Littlefield, and John 
T. Hampton who served on a committee to steer this center from the 
blueprint stage to the active research stage that it finds itself in 
today.
  It is a great opportunity, and I must say a great challenge that lies 
ahead to benefit not only small farmers in our State but small farmers 
in research across this great country of ours.
  It is a great honor for me. It is great to be able to assist in the 
proper naming of this U.S. Department of Agriculture research center 
after our distinguished colleague and senior Senator from the State of 
Arkansas.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand that under unanimous consent 
Senator Bryan would be recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. Responding to the floor manager's inquiry, I will speak 
for less than 10 minutes, hopefully.
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: This Senator would like to know 
what the speaking order is that is coming down the pike?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let us defer to the floor manager.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, may I suggest to the Chair that it might be 
appropriate after Senator Bryan is recognized that Senator Jeffords be 
recognized on our side, and then Senator Harkin, if that would work out 
with the arrangement. We have attempted to alternate back and forth. 
But there was no Republican present when Mr. Bryan appeared and, 
therefore, I recognized that he was the next speaker on that occasion. 
But after him, I would like to proceed to Senator Jeffords.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I understand Senator Bryan, Senator Jeffords, 
and Senator Harkin, in that order.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I thank the majority floor manager for 
accommodating me and recognizing me in sequence.
  Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the conference report 
and to speak about an aspect of this farm bill that is particularly 
troubling to me and has been troubling to me for many years.
  Again and again this Senate has passed provisions to reduce and to 
reform the Market Promotion Program which is also known as MPP. Each 
and every time the Senate has called for reform of MPP the conference 
committees which convened subsequent to the passage of those reforms 
have removed the reform language from the final conference report.
  By way of background, Mr. President, the Market Promotion Program was 
created to encourage the development, maintenance, and expansion of 
exports of U.S. agricultural products. MPP is a successor to the 
Targeted Export Assistance Program [TEA] which was established in 1986. 
TEA was originally created to counter or offset the adverse effect of 
subsidies, import quotas, or other unfair trade practices of foreign 
competitors directed at U.S. agricultural exports. Since 1986, the 
Federal Government has spent $1.43 billion on TEA and MPP.

  The General Accounting Office has pointed out that the entire Federal 
Government spends about $3.5 billion annually on export promotion. 
While agricultural products account for approximately 10 percent of 
total U.S. exports, the Department of Agriculture spends about $2.2 
billion each year or 63 percent of that total. By contrast, the 
Department of Commerce spends $236 million annually on trade promotion.
  MPP is operated through approximately 64 organizations that either 
run market promotion programs themselves or pass the funds along to 
individual companies to spend on their own advertising efforts. In 
fiscal year 1994, about 43 percent of all MPP activities involved 
generic promotions while 57 percent involved brand-name promotions.
  In fiscal years 1986 through 1993, $92 million of MPP funds went to 
foreign companies.
  Mr. President, when I talk about MPP funds, I am talking about tax 
dollars collected from American citizens who remit their taxes to the 
Federal Government each year. That $92 million represents nearly 20 
percent of the total funds allocated for brand-name promotions during 
those 8 years. In fiscal year 1994, more than 140 foreign companies 
received MPP funds.
  Although the stated goal of MPP is to benefit U.S. farmers, the 
program can also benefit foreign enterprises. By funding foreign firms, 
the General Accounting Office has contended that MPP can make it more 
difficult for U.S. firms to compete and to obtain a foothold in foreign 
markets. While it has been argued that the funding of foreign companies 
may produce short-term gains in the export of U.S. agricultural 
commodities, those gains are likely to come at the expense of U.S. 
firms gaining a more permanent foothold in overseas markets.
  On September 20 of last year, the Senate voted 62 to 36 to reform the 
MPP Program and to lower the amount of Federal Government money 
supporting it. This amendment was cast in the

[[Page S3065]]

form of the Bumpers-Bryan amendment and would have made three reforms 
to MPP.
  First, under the provisions of the amendment, only small businesses 
and Capper-Volstead cooperatives would be eligible for financial 
assistance.
  Second, no funds would be used to provide assistance to foreign trade 
associations.
  Third, the funding level would be reduced to $70 million.
  When the fiscal year 1996 agriculture appropriations conference 
report came back to the Senate on October 12 of last year, it was 
passed on a voice vote. The conference committee had removed the Senate 
language reforming MPP and restored its level of annual funding to $110 
million.
  Again we tried to reform MPP when the 7-year farm program 
authorization first came before the Senate last month. The Senate 
passed the Bryan-Kerry-Bumpers-Reid amendment by a vote of 59 to 37, 
and it contained the same provisions that were previously included in 
the Bumpers-Bryan amendment, the reforms as well as reducing funding to 
$70 million annually. Now the farm bill conference report has come back 
to the Senate and, again, repeating the pattern of the past MPP reforms 
that passed the Senate, have been removed.
  Let me make specific reference, Mr. President, to language contained 
in the conference report itself that addresses this subject, and I 
quote:

       Funds shall not be used to provide direct assistance to any 
     foreign for-profit corporation for the corporation's use in 
     promoting foreign-produced products.

  Now, at first blush, a superficial reading of the language might 
suggest that foreign companies would be excluded from receiving money 
through MPP, but this apparent reform is disingenuous. While the 
language adopted by the conference committee might prohibit direct 
assistance to foreign companies, it does not prohibit indirect 
assistance to foreign companies by nonprofit associations. And in what 
may be the ultimate irony, the conference report implies that a new 
reform is being enacted that would preclude payment to foreign 
corporations for foreign-produced products. MPP was never designed--and 
I repeat never designed--to compensate corporations for foreign-
produced products. This claim of reform is illusory.
  At a time when the gospel of budgetary restraint has reportedly been 
embraced by all, a majority of the agricultural conferees continue to 
pursue a taxpayer giveaway to foreign corporations.
  Finally, this conference report adds a new and rather curious 
mandate. It officially changes the name of the Market Promotion Program 
to the Market Access Program [MAP] as it will now be designated. Is 
this reform? I would submit that if it looks like a duck, walks like a 
duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, it is a duck. Whether it 
is called MPP or MAP, this program remains what it has always been, a 
frivolous use of taxpayer money and a prime example of a corporate 
welfare program that should be eliminated.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. First of all, I commend the chairman of the Committee 
on Agriculture, along with the ranking member, for the incredible work 
that they have put into this bill. I believe it is an excellent piece 
of legislation that provides stability, enhances markets, streamlines 
outdated programs, creates incentives to protect the environment, and 
benefits all farmers from all regions of the country. Having worked on 
several farm conferences in my period in the House, I know how 
difficult and how hard it is to come through with a consensus. Not only 
do you have to worry about all the farm interests but also you have to 
worry about all of those who are affected by farm policy. It is a 
tremendous piece of work which they have accomplished. I also thank the 
Members in the House with whom I worked for many years, for their 
support at the critical time on the conference committee. Without their 
help this could not have come about.
  I am especially pleased that the conference reached a comprehensive 
dairy title that reflects the interests of all regions of the country. 
I was most keenly concerned about the Senate farm bill's inability to 
give our dairy farmers at least a fair deal. It was this concern that 
motivated me to vote against the bill for the first time in my 20 years 
in Congress.
  Fortunately, through the help of our chairman and ranking member from 
my good State of Vermont, the conference committee, after hours of 
intense consideration produced a dairy title that provides stability 
for our farmers and true reform in the dairy program. The dairy title 
eliminates the 10-cent-per-hundredweight assessment paid by dairy 
producers, returning $150 million annually to dairy producers 
throughout the country at this difficult time for them. It reforms and 
consolidates the Federal milk marketing order system, consolidating the 
orders from 34 to between 10 and 14 will help bring more uniformity in 
prices throughout the country. It continues price support purchases 
from December 31, 1999, followed by a recourse loan program for butter, 
nonfat dry milk and cheese beginning on January 1, 2000, giving the 
industry the means to compete in world markets and enhancing the future 
of a strong, renewed dairy industry. Most significantly for the farmers 
of New England, the bill grants consent to the Northeast Interstate 
Dairy Compact.
  Mr. President, in March of last year, I introduced the Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact along with the entire New England delegation. 
The dairy compact is intended to help give farmers and consumers fair 
and stable milk prices in New England. It will establish an interstate 
commission consisting of one delegation from each of the six New 
England States. The commission will have the authority to hold public 
hearings on the fluid class 1 milk market in New England.
  The dairy compact originated in the Vermont legislature over 7 years 
ago. It has universal support among Vermonters and throughout New 
England and is critical to the maintenance of the region's dairy 
industry, if not its survival, offering both income stability and 
income enhancement. The compact has been overwhelmingly approved by the 
legislatures of all six New England States and simply needed the 
consent of Congress.
  What the State legislatures offered was not at all a novel idea. The 
widespread support for and central importance of the dairy compact to 
New England has been throughly emphasized by the regions Governors, 
legislatures, consumers, farmers, and local processors.
  The single most overwhelming fact about the economics of dairying in 
New England is that the price to the consumer continues to increase at 
the same time the price to the farmer continues to go down. In fact, 
current farm milk prices are, as low as they were over 10 years ago 
while the price to consumers is substantially higher.
  The hard working dairy farmers of New England have seen federally set 
minimum prices return less money than it costs them to produce their 
milk. The result, during the 1980's, 40 percent of the New England 
farms ceased to operate. In my own State of Vermont, where agriculture 
is such an important part of our economy and way of life, nearly 50 
percent of the farms have been lost in past 10 years.
  The inclusion of the dairy compact in the conference report is a 
tribute to the hard-working dairy farmers of New England, who are such 
a vital part of the region's heritage. The compact ensures that family 
farms from St. Albans to Pawlet, to those in the Northeast Kingdom and 
all across New England will have the ability to survive and remain 
economically viable into the next century.
  Mr. President, milk processing plants, feed and equipment 
dealerships, veterinarians, banks, and many others suffer when farms in 
their communities go out of business.
  Not surprisingly, the dairy processors' lobby fought hard to prevent 
Congress from approving the compact. After all, they have benefited for 
a long time on both ends of their business from cheaper farm milk and 
higher consumer prices.

  Several of my colleagues have heard from large milk processors in 
their States about how this compact could hurt the national dairy 
industry or the farmers in their own State.

[[Page S3066]]

  Such claims are false. The compact would in no way prevent milk from 
coming into the region or affect the price of milk in any other region 
of the country. Despite the claims of the processors' lobby, the fact 
remains that the compact is very similar to existing State over-order 
programs currently in place. Like those programs, the compact would not 
conflict with or alter the Federal milk marketing order system, but 
only complement its operation. In short, New England States are working 
cooperatively as a region only to maintain a healthy dairy industry in 
New England, without adverse effect on the rest of the country.
  The compact has been carefully crafted so that it will not affect the 
national dairy industry. Nonetheless, in order to address any concerns 
that the conference committee may of had of how the compact will work 
in practice several additions were included.
  The compact limits the ability of other States to join; allows 
farmers outside New England who sell milk within the region to benefit 
from the compact; restricts the interstate commission to regulate class 
I milk only, and will terminate concurrent with the Secretary's 
implementation of the dairy pricing and Federal milk marketing order 
consolidation and reforms.
  Mr. President, I am also pleased that this bill takes great strides 
at addressing conservation practices. USDA conservation programs have 
traditionally addressed the problems faced by producers growing row 
crops. The technical and financial assistance that livestock producers 
need have not been well addressed by our current set of conservation 
programs. This bill creates a new Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program to help farmers with conservation projects, creating new 
incentives for farmers to protect and enhance the use their land.
  In addition, the bill includes a $35 million initiative to buy 
easements on farmland threatened by development and $50 million 
wildlife habitat program. These provisions, along with several others 
will help farmers from throughout the country deal with water quality, 
erosion and other conservation challenges.
  Mr. President, the hard work and partnership with both the House and 
Senate has produced a comprehensive bill that reflects accountable 
reform, important market stability, and environmental responsibility.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement on the farm bill.
  This is the first major, fundamental change in Federal agriculture 
policy since the first farm programs were created in the 1930's.
  Today an international market has developed for America's farm 
products and we need to provide the mechanisms that allow farmers to 
base decisions on market conditions and not on Government programs.
  This conference agreement provides farmers with that mechanism 
through the Market Transition Program.
  The Market Transition Program moves agriculture in a new direction 
which will give farmers the freedom to plant what they want, when they 
want.
  The Market Transition Program also ends the production control 
programs of the Depression era.
  Under our current system, farmers may be required to take land out of 
production which allows our foreign competitors to make up the 
difference in the world markets.
  This conference agreement gives the farmer the flexibility to base 
business decisions on market conditions and not on Government programs.
  Mr. President, this conference agreement allows the Department of 
Agriculture to spend $67.7 billion on commodity, trade, research, rural 
development, and conservation programs over the next 7 years as 
estimated from the December 1995 baseline.
  CBO's preliminary estimates indicated that this conference agreement 
saves $2.1 billion over the next 7 years.
  This conference agreement does not achieve the $4.6 billion in 
savings that was included in the Vetoed Balanced Budget Act of 1995. 
However, it does provide a down payment toward a balanced budget and is 
a step in the right direction.
  Mr. President this bill also adds spending discipline to the 
commodity programs by including a spending cap. Spending for commodity 
programs through the Commodity Credit Corporation has varied widely 
from $600 million in 1975 to $26 billion in 1986.
  The spending cap will limit unforseen spending increases which have 
frequently occurred in past years.
  Mr. President, on a more parochial issue, the bill includes a 
provision regarding the New Mexico valencia peanut pool.
  The Senate-passed bill included an amendment to clarify the original 
intent of the law. The House passed bill had no such provision.
  Mr. President, as part of the 1985 farm bill, Congress created an 
exclusive pool for New Mexico valencia peanuts, and the provision was 
retained in the 1990 farm bill.
  The original intent of the law is to allow only those valencia 
peanuts physically grown in New Mexico to enter the pools of the State.
  However, peanut growers in my home State have notified me that 
valencia peanuts grown in Texas have entered the New Mexico pool 
because of a loophole in existing regulations.
  It is my understanding that the USDA regulations allow a producer to 
enter valencia peanuts grown on a Texas farm if that producer has a 
combined New Mexico-Texas farm that is administered in New Mexico.
  The compromise reached in this agreement clarifies that valencia 
peanuts must be physically produced in New Mexico in order to enter the 
New Mexico valencia peanut pool for 1996 and subsequent crop years.
  The compromise also grandfathers those producers who entered valencia 
peanuts grown in Texas during the 1990 to 1995 crop years.
  Producers may enter Texas grown valencia peanuts in the New Mexico 
pool, but the amount is limited to the 6-year average--1990 to 1995--
that the producer entered into the pool during that period.
  For example, producer ``A'' entered 10 tons of Texas grown valencia 
peanuts for each year during 1990 to 1995--a total of 60 tons for the 6 
year period. Producer ``A'' would have a 6-year average of 10 tons.
  Producer ``A'' will be able to enter up to 10 tons of Texas grown 
valencia peanuts per year into the New Mexico pool.
  Producer ``B'' also has a combined New Mexico-Texas farm administered 
in New Mexico. But, producer ``B'' has no history of entering Texas 
grown valencia peanuts into the New Mexico pool during the 1990 to 1995 
crop years.
  Under this scenario, producer ``B'' would not be allowed to enter 
Texas-grown valencia peanuts into the New Mexico pool for future crop 
years. Producer ``B'' could, however, continue to participate in the 
New Mexico pool with peanuts physically grown in New Mexico.
  Mr. President, this conference agreement also includes other 
provisions which are important to native Americans and the operations 
of the Commodity Supplemental Food Program.
  I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
Agriculture Committee for their review and consideration of this and 
other issues that I brought to the committee's attention.
  I urge the adoption of the conference agreement.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the 
conference report to H.R. 2854, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act--the farm bill.
  Mr. President, this is a bill which has been too long in coming to 
the floor of the Senate. The authority contained in this bill expired 
on New Year's Eve. This debate began on the 1995 farm bill. And with 
the tardiness of our action this bill will barely be in time for the 
1996 crop.
  I will cast my vote in favor of adopting this report. I feel that it 
is essential that we get this legislation passed and to the President 
for his signature. It is time for our Nation's food producers to know 
what their program will be in the coming year.
  It is my hope that by next week, this bill will be signed into law. 
The Secretary of Agriculture has recommended that the President sign 
it. And the President has indicated he will do so. So I am pleased that 
today we will pass this bill.
  There are a number of important items which have been included. In my 
mind, the most important inclusion is

[[Page S3067]]

retaining the 1949 Agricultural Act as underlying, permanent law. Mr. 
President, I am convinced that the 1949 act is the reason we have had 
this farm bill debate. And I expect that 7 years from now, it could 
very well be the reason we have a farm bill debate at the sunset of 
this bill.
  This legislation contains a number of valuable conservation programs. 
In our part of the country, the Conservation Reserve Program, the CRP, 
is a major factor in wildlife habitat conservation, water quality 
enhancement, and soil conservation. We are continuing this valuable 
program. And we are authorizing a new Environmental Quality Incentive 
Program which will help producers of both crops and livestock to make 
management changes for the improvement of the natural resource on which 
their future and their livelihood depends. This program will also 
provide for cooperative efforts with conservation organizations to 
enhance wildlife habitat. It's a win-win for States like Montana.
  I am pleased that this is comprehensive legislation--it extends 
beyond the commodity programs. In addition to conservation, we have 
addressed credit, research, trade, rural development, and promotion 
activities. In the arena of trade we have authorized the important 
Market Access Program, the Export Promotion Program, and the Foreign 
Market Development Program. These programs are vital to our export 
activities.
  Agriculture trade is a real bright spot in our total trade effort. 
Our agriculture exports last year were over $54 billion dollars. This 
year, we are expected to exceed that, reaching $60 billion. That will 
leave us a positive agriculture trade surplus of $30 billion.
  The commodity program featured in this bill directs our farmers to 
obtain an ever-increasing percentage of their income from the 
marketplace. In today's world, that means American producers will need 
to be very competitive and expand their exports. And while our export 
programs are not funded at levels I would prefer, they will go a long 
ways toward our export goals.
  The commodity programs will provide farmers the flexibility to plant 
crops which the market demands. No longer will the Government be making 
planting decisions. While that will be helpful to many farmers that 
flexibility will carry with it a need to develop and improve 
alternative crops to grow more successfully in arid climates like that 
in Montana. Only then will Montana farmers have true planting 
flexibility. The work at Agricultural Research Stations like the one in 
Sidney, MT will be an important part of this equation.
  In this year, with good prices and sizeable payments it should be a 
pretty good year for our Montana producers. I hope that the prices we 
are now experiencing can be maintained. If so, this program should work 
well for the entire 7 years it is authorized. However, we need to take 
advantage of the strong price cycle we are in to reform the crop 
insurance program so it is a more functional system of risk management. 
If we fail to accomplish this task we could be in for tough times in 
the late years of the bill.
  There are other problems I see in this bill. I am disappointed that 
this will end the Emergency Livestock Feed Program. And I would like to 
see the loan rate caps removed. I would also prefer that the research 
title was authorized for the entire 7 years. This forces a research 
title to be authorized next year or to risk authorization by 
appropriation in our important research program. Some might find these 
to be small concerns, however, to my State they are important.
  Before I close Mr. President, I want the record to reflect my 
appreciation for the work of our Senate conferees on this issue. They 
had a difficult task and I would like to thank them because this bill 
is far preferable to the bill brought to conference by our colleagues 
across the Hill. So I would thank the conferees, especially the 
chairman and the ranking member for their efforts in getting this 
accomplished.
  And with that Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to approve this 
conference report and I yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has 
finally reached closure on the farm bill.
  Bringing the farm bill to this final stage in the legislative process 
has not been an easy task. As we approach the end of this debate, I am 
reminded of the words of Thomas Jefferson, who once said ``Were we 
directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon 
want bread.''
  While we are far from wanting bread in America, Jefferson's words 
sound almost as if they had been said by a farmer only 2 hours ago, 
instead of two centuries ago. Farmers today, like farmers in 
Jefferson's time, want to get their profits from the market, with as 
little Government interference as possible.
  The new approach to farm programs embodied in this bill, known as the 
Market Transition Act, or freedom to farm, finds its roots in these 
views. The new commodity programs are designed on the belief that it is 
important to reduce Government interference with planting decisions. 
These new programs have been fashioned to provide farmers with the 
simplicity, flexibility, and certainty that they seek.
  I have great reservations about some aspects of this new approach, 
however. Farmers still need a system in place to help moderate risk, 
and provide a financial safety net. In this regard, the Market 
Transition Act falls profoundly short. And that is a very serious flaw 
we must revisit as quickly as possible.
  Perhaps these problems would have been resolved had the farm bill 
been handled by this Congress as farm bills have been handed in the 
past. For over 40 years, farm bills were considered early, and passed 
on time. Farm programs, which are so very important to rural America, 
and which can have far-reaching effects, were rigorously debated and 
reviewed well in advance of their expiration date. While the results 
may not have been perfect, previously Congresses gave farm bills the 
time and attention they deserved.
  But, I am not running the Senate. And the hour is late. There is a 
time to debate, and a time to act. Planting season is upon us. We must 
move beyond politics, and move ahead. Farmers need a farm bill in 
place--now.
  The Market Transition Act may need to be revisited. But it is time to 
enact a law. My vote for the 1996 farm bill was a vote to end debate, 
pass a farm bill, and provide farmers with the certainty they need for 
this crop year.
  There are good things about this farm bill. The bill is strong in the 
areas of conservation, environment, rural development, and research. 
The Conservation Reserve Program is maintained at 34.6 million acres. 
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program is authorized at $200 
million per year to help livestock and crop farmers control pollution 
and erosion. The Fund for Rural America, a program I support, was 
created to provide $300 million for rural development and research 
initiatives. The Market Promotion Program, now known as the Market 
Access Program, survived and is authorized at $90 million to promote 
U.S. agriculture exports overseas. And permanent law is retained, 
lessening the danger that in 7 years, Federal support for agriculture 
will end.
  I am particularly pleased this bill includes my proposal to increase 
the marketing loan rate for oilseeds. For soybeans, a major Illinois 
commodity, the marketing loan rate will 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. Allowing the soybean loan rate to rise by 5 percent if 
prices increase helps to treat soybeans equitably with other crops, 
allows soybeans to compete more effectively for acreage, and provides 
some protection for small producers against increased volatility in 
production and prices that may result from full planting flexibility.
  With other aspects of this bill, however, I have serious concerns.
  I am greatly disturbed by the decision of the conferees to include 
the Northeast interstate dairy compact. These provisions were soundly 
rejected by the Senate, not considered by the House, and, therefore, 
without question, should never have been included in this conference 
report. I intend to work with my Midwestern colleagues in the Senate to 
ensure that the U.S. Department of Agriculture never implements this 
compact, which would set dangerous constitutional precedent and have a 
serious impact on both dairy farmers and dairy companies in Illinois.

[[Page S3068]]

  I am also concerned that food stamps have been reauthorized for only 
2 years. Roughly 27 million Americans are served by food stamps, 1.2 
million of whom are Illinoisans, and over half of whom are children. 
Food stamps are about providing the nutrition necessary to ensure that 
mothers and babies remain healthy, students remain alert, and the 
unemployed make it through tough times. It is poor policy for Congress 
to play political games with programs designed to support the health of 
children, working families, and the elderly.
  Many of the improvements in this bill would not have been possible 
without the leadership of the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator 
Daschle. While he will vote no on this bill, he has worked to make this 
a better bill, and I commend his leadership on agriculture issues which 
are so very important to his State.
  I would also like to thank the distinguished majority leader, Senator 
Dole, and Senators Lugar, Leahy, Grassley, and Cochran for their work 
on this bill, and for their assistance and support for programs 
important to the State of Illinois.
  Mr. President, agriculture programs must change with the times. The 
economic practices and social trends in rural America are vastly 
different than in decades past. These changes aren't just important to 
farmers and rural communities. They are not just about dry statistics 
buried in some obscure report. They are about issues that are 
critically important to everyday people.
  That is why changes to farm programs must be made judiciously. Major 
changes to Federal farm policies must receive careful attention before 
they are made, so that inadvertent mistakes that could be very harmful 
to farmers are avoided.
  We can do far better than this bill. But doing nothing--having no 
bill--is not an option, and that is why I will vote in favor of the 
1996 farm bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased that we finally have a 
farm bill which will pass and will be signed by the President. The bill 
is long overdue. Farmers should not have to wait any longer for 
certainty regarding the programs they will operate under.
  I regret that the bill has taken so long. The process itself has 
contributed to a poor outcome for American agriculture and for rural 
American communities. There are some positive sections of the bill--
conservation, nutrition, and needed funding for rural development. But 
the commodity provisions take us exactly in the wrong direction. The 
bill decouples Government support from production and from market 
prices. It caps loan rates at low levels. And it directs the majority 
of taxpayer payments to the largest, most affluent farms to the same 
degree as the status-quo programs which operate so unfairly now.
  It would be more appropriate to refer to this legislation as the 
``corporate agribusiness bill'' than as a farm bill. After a few short 
years, American farmers will be left to the tender mercies of a global 
marketplace that is dominated by corporate conglomerates and trading 
boards.
  We might have produced a better farm bill if our debate over it had 
been more timely and deliberate. The effort to include an entire 7-year 
bill in last year's budget reconciliation bill, with little debate and 
practically no input from Democrats, followed by the now-successful 
push to pass a plan that was not subjected to extensive hearings or 
substantial input from rural America has produced a bad bill. Better 
proposals were offered in both the House and the Senate, including a 
reform bill introduced here last year by Senate Minority Leader 
Daschle, which I was proud to cosponsor. But those proposals were never 
given real consideration.
  This bill is as deeply flawed now as when I voted against its 
original Senate version. It was not improved by the conference 
committee. It does not represent good farm policy and will not likely 
promote economic revitalization in rural America. I will vote against 
it now, and it is my hope that as this bill's flaws become even more 
apparent in its implementation, the result will be its reconsideration 
by the next Congress so that more genuinely progressive reform of 
Federal farm policy can be enacted.
  Some people, including some Minnesotans, believe that the so-called 
freedom-to-farm approach to farm policy is the best way forward for 
American agriculture. I profoundly disagree with that judgment. I 
believe it is designed to benefit large corporate agribusiness and will 
actually harm most family farmers. It will likely increase current 
trends toward economic concentration in agriculture, to the 
disadvantage of small and moderate-sized farm operations.
  I have consistently favored long-term Federal farm policy that would 
promote family agriculture and revitalize our rural economy. That is 
not what freedom-to-farm represents. It is such bad policy that it will 
discredit farm programs forever. The public will not support farm 
programs that write checks to farmers when prices are high, and no 
matter what, or even whether anything, is planted.
  During initial consideration, Senator Dorgan offered an amendment 
which I supported, which would have required that farmers plant a crop 
in order to receive the guaranteed Government payment. That was voted 
down. I don't think this is the kind of policy that reaches out to the 
general public for support at a time when we are looking at slashing 
the budgets for health care and education programs.
  Freedom-to-farm represents a dubious carrot followed by a very real 
stick. What is the short-term carrot? The carrot is so-called 
``contract'' payments, or ``transition'' payments on the way to the 
elimination of farm programs. Farmers who have some debt, or who have 
had a poor crop in the past couple of years, or who did not get good 
prices last year, would like a Government payment this year on top of 
decent prices. There is no question about that.
  I understand why some people consider that promise attractive. They 
believe that a promise of 7 years of payments is the best they will get 
from this Congress. But the contracts cannot be guaranteed. Congress 
can do another budget bill at any time and reduce or eliminate the 
payments. The entire purpose of freedom-to-farm is to reduce farm-
program spending, then eliminate it. Even current policy, which I have 
never supported, offers farmers more protection over seven years than 
freedom-to-farm.
  What is the medium-term and the long-term stick? Prices will not stay 
where they are likely to be this year. Freedom-to-farm caps loan rates 
at 1995 levels. As the so-called guaranteed payments diminish, and then 
when they run out, how many Minnesota farmers can make a living off of 
$1.89-a-bushel corn, or $2.58-a-bushel wheat? Is that the future we 
want to leave our young farmers?
  That is the reality of freedom-to-farm. It ultimately leaves farmers 
to the tender mercies of the grain companies and the railroads and the 
Chicago Board of Trade--$1.89 corn is what freedom-to-farm is about. 
Maybe not this year. But who believes that prices will always be 
strong? I voted for an amendment to lift the caps off the loan rates. 
That amendment failed. If farm policy were designed to deliver farmers 
a fair price in the marketplace, there would be no need for any 
Government payments. But this bill is designed to encourage maximum 
production and low prices.
  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. I still believe that our 
proposal, modeled after the Farmers Union plan and endorsed by the 
Minnesota corn growers, was the best proposal. Perhaps the debate over 
agriculture policy in the United States will be resumed next year. I 
intend to see that it is.
  Mr. President, I have been working since I arrived to the Senate 5 
years ago to achieve an improvement in Federal dairy policy and 
meaningful reform of the Federal milk marketing orders. This bill does 
not achieve that goal. Some small improvements in dairy policy were 
included in the conference committee, notably the elimination of 
assessments. But not nearly

[[Page S3069]]

enough. And the bill now will allow creation of a Northeast dairy 
compact, despite our overwhelming vote here during initial 
consideration of the farm bill against that outcome, and despite the 
fact that the compact was not in either the House or Senate version of 
the bill. The Northeast compact would only further forestall real 
Federal order reform. It would cut a special deal for one region's 
dairy farmers to the detriment of dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest. 
And it would set a bad precedent for interstate commerce in milk by 
creating new regional barriers. We need good national dairy policy. And 
I will continue to resist establishment of a Northeast compact in the 
absence of substantial reform which will benefit the Midwest. Minnesota 
and Wisconsin are the best natural dairy-producing states in the 
country. It is not rational that Federal policy should drive thousands 
of Minnesota producers from business.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that we finally have authorized the 
enrollment of new acres into the successful and popular Conservation 
Reserve Program [CRP]. I worked very hard on that. And I am pleased 
that we could include some additional conservation, rural development 
and nutrition provisions. It is very important that we ensure that 
rural development efforts include assistance for farmer-owned, value-
added processing cooperatives, which represent an extremely hopeful 
development in rural America. They are the best of rural America's 
innovative, self-help tradition, which keeps capital and jobs in local 
communities.


                 Safe Meat and Poultry Inspection Panel

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the inclusion 
in the farm bill conference report of language establishing a Safe Meat 
and Poultry Inspection Panel. This seemingly innocent-sounding 
organization may actually be a device to delay needed food safety 
reforms, and give power over crucial safety decisions to a part-time, 
administratively unworkable group. Under the terms of the conference 
report, it would be superimposed over the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service as one more, unaccountable layer of government.
  Authorization for this new panel was contained in neither version of 
the farm bill, and it was not subjected to hearings in either body. It 
was slipped into the report at the last minute and has had no public or 
press scrutiny. Not only would it duplicate existing bodies such as the 
National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, the 
panel would also be exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 
its open-government requirements. Even worse, should it be used to 
delay or restrict needed safety reforms, the result will be disastrous, 
not just for consumers but also for the industry itself.
  At a time when Britain may be compelled to kill its entire cattle 
herd because of mad cow disease, the meat industry cannot afford any 
more actions which will diminish public confidence in our food supply.
  I am especially concerned that the new panel would delay issuance of 
the final version of the proposed pathogen reduction; Hazard Analysis 
and Critical Control Point System [HACCP] rule. This set of 
regulations, more commonly known as the E. coli rule, is crucial for 
controlling this deadly organism and modernizing American meat 
inspection.
  Mr. President, a year ago last March I introduced the Family Food 
Protection Act which built on these regulations and extended them even 
further. I was moved by the death of Katie O'Connell, a beautiful, 
happy 2-year-old girl from my home State of New Jersey who died from 
eating a hamburger at a fast food restaurant. Although her meal was 
contaminated with the deadly pathogen called E. coli, the meat that 
Katie ate had been declared safe by inspectors from the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture.
  Katie died from a disease that should have been detected through our 
Federal meat inspection system. Katie is no longer alive because that 
system failed her and her family and has failed thousands of others 
across the country.
  Diseases caused by foodborne illness often strike those most 
vulnerable in our society: our children. Two summers ago, health 
officials in New Jersey battled another outbreak of the disease that 
killed Katie O'Connell. One family, the McCormicks of Newton, NJ, had 
two of their children (ages 2 and 3) hospitalized. Their lives were in 
danger because they, too, ate meat that was declared safe by Federal 
inspectors in the Department of Agriculture.
  These cases are far from isolated: the Centers for Disease Control 
estimates that over 9,000 people die and another 6.5 million get sick 
from food borne illnesses each year.

  The USDA regulations proposed a year ago February would require a 
daily testing for salmonella at meat and poultry processing plants 
across America. Additionally, each of the Nation's 6,000 
slaughterhouses and processing plants would have to develop operating 
plans designed to minimize possible sources of contamination--in other 
words, to design systems to avoid contamination in advance instead of 
fighting it after it breaks out.
  This proposal represents a significant improvement over the current 
system which has remained in place remarkably unchanged for over 90 
years--since the reforms put in place in the wake of Upton Sinclair's 
wrenching expose, ``The Jungle.''
  Ironically, a cost-benefit analysis was done on the proposed rule. 
Even though it used a very conservative figure for the value of human 
life, the ratio was still extremely favorable. According to the 
analysis, while the rule would cost $250 million per year initially, 
falling to $220 million a year once it was fully implemented, the 
benefits were at least $1 billion per year. If a more generous value 
were used for human life, the cost-benefit ratio was, of course, even 
more positive.
  And $220 million would be the cost to consumers only if every penny 
of the system's costs were passed along--just two- tenths of a cent per 
pound. That's right. Two-tenths of a cent per pound. So a consumer 
would have to buy 5 pounds of hamburger before incurring even a penny 
of cost. Contrast this with the cost to consumers of $1 billion to $3.7 
billion per year attributable to lost wages and medical costs that 
otherwise would occur without the rule. Surely, the typical American 
would be more than willing to pay this modest price to avoid sickness 
or even death to a loved one.
  I don't want any more children to die. According to the USDA, the 
summer months are the prime time for food borne diseases. I question 
the need to reinvent the wheel at this time.
  Unfortunately, these proposed regulations have been the subject of 
countless hearings, roundtable meetings with industry and consumer 
groups, and on and on. At one point the industry even claimed that the 
E. coli organism was not technically an adulterant under our food 
safety laws in an attempt to deny the agency the ability to regulate. 
This new panel is yet another attempt to delay.
  Do we really need to waste years, lives, and money redoing old 
analyses and creating new ones in an effort to stall or even defeat 
these regulations?
  Mr. President, I am concerned that these regulations are already a 
target of members in the other body who would try to delay them further 
through appropriations riders and other techniques. Instead of delay, I 
urge my colleagues to stop interfering with these regulations. They are 
exactly the kinds of regulations we claim to want. They are cost-
effective, deal with a serious problem, and have been subjected to 
close scrutiny by a wide variety of interests. We should not misuse the 
farm bill to thwart these important regulations.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my colleagues have been speaking today 
about their frustrations with the 1996 farm bill. I share those 
frustrations as well as dismay about the process in which this body has 
been engaged.
  In early February we considered this legislation on the Senate floor. 
The specific commodity program provisions of that bill were never once 
the subject of a Senate Agriculture Committee markup, and in fact, were 
not even the subject of a single hearing in that committee. That the 
commodity provisions represented a drastic change from both the 
philosophy and mechanics of current policy appeared irrelevant to the 
sponsors of this bill.
  The process for consideration of this bill was flawed in numerous 
ways. For example: The text of the underlying bill considered on the 
floor was written

[[Page S3070]]

in the backroom, separate even from the eyes and ears of members, of 
many members of the Agriculture Committee; Almost immediately after the 
bill was introduced, the majority leader filed cloture to limit debate 
on the measure before debate had even begun; This bill was considered 
on the floor with just 10 hours for members to offer and debate 
amendments prior to final passage; Farmers, the public, and even 
Senators were not given an adequate opportunity to review this bill 
before it passed on the floor of the Senate.
  Contrast that to consideration of the 1990 farm bill in which each 
title of the bill was considered separately by the Agriculture 
Committee during extensive public markup sessions. Consideration of the 
1990 farm bill, reported on June 21, 1990, gave Senators nearly a month 
to study the bill and another 7 days of floor consideration before 
final passage. Senators were free to iron out their differences with 
the managers and were provided time for full and open debate with 
adequate opportunity to offer amendments to the bill.
  The 1985 and 1981 farm bills provided similar opportunities for 
review and debate. Senators had roughly 2 months to review the 1985 
farm bill after it was reported and had 12 days of active floor debate. 
Following the filing of the committee report on the 1981 farm bill, 
Senators were provided with over 3 months to study and review the bill 
before its passage in September after 5 days of floor debate.
  It is no wonder that the general public is frustrated with Congress. 
Based on this farm bill process they have every right to be. The 
conference agreement on which we are to vote in just a few hours was 
printed in the Record just 2 days ago. I ask how many of my colleagues 
have had an opportunity to read this bill? There are numerous 
provisions in this bill that were in neither the House nor the Senate 
bill. The implications of these provisions have not been fully 
explored.
  I wonder if Senators are aware that this bill gives broad authority 
to the Secretary of Agriculture to propose and implement commodity 
promotion programs without an initial congressional authorization. In 
fact, producers of any commodity could be assessed a mandatory tax 
under this proposal for a period of 3 years before they ever get a 
chance to vote on the promotion program they have been forced to pay 
into. This bill contains no protections for consumers in the event that 
agricultural processors wish to establish mandatory promotion programs 
and pass those costs directly on to consumers.
  Are Senators aware that section 501 of this bill attempts to rewrite 
30 years of legislative history with respect to commodity promotion 
programs in an effort to combat Federal court challenges to these 
programs? Mr. President, that language was in neither the House nor the 
Senate bill and has not been the subject of hearings or debate in 
either Chamber of Congress. I want to make clear that the legislative 
findings in section 501 of this bill are not indicative of the views of 
more than a handful of farm bill conferees. Many of these findings, in 
fact, do not even make sense unless one is aware of the efforts of 
dissenting farmers to reform programs or are familiar with the first 
amendment challenges to these programs. Indeed Mr. President, this bill 
contains some very creative language intended to rewrite an already 
well-established history as to the purpose and intent of these 
programs.
  I think this has been a shameful process, Mr. President, 
irresponsible to farmers, consumers and taxpayers, and completely 
inconsistent with our responsibilities to carry out a deliberative 
legislative process.
  It seems the Congress can't even decide what this farm bill is about. 
Since its inception, the name of this farm bill has changed 3 times. 
First we were told this bill was the freedom to farm bill. Then it 
became the Agricultural Market Transition Act--a name which perhaps 
most accurately described the motivation of the sponsors of this 
legislation: to transition farmers away from the basic safety net 
provided by existing programs. Now, Mr. President, it is called the 
Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act, or FAIR. That name 
creates a catchy, if not superficial, acronym, but is about as 
inaccurate a name as could be found. It presumes this bill represents 
both reform and improvement of existing programs. In my opinion, this 
bill does neither.
  Even the catchy acronym is a misnomer. To whom is this bill fair? I 
don't see any fundamental fairness in this bill.
  Is it fair to the average farmer to be given an ultimatum on the very 
programs that help manage the vagaries of farming caused by factors 
beyond his control? Because that is what many farmers in Wisconsin felt 
they were given. They were told that Congress was going to eliminate 
farm programs in any case, so they had better grab the money in these 
transition payments while they can.
  However, when some of these farmers argue in favor of the bill, they 
really appear to be arguing for the maintenance of the safety net, not 
in favor of termination of these programs and the so-called transition 
payments. They argue that farm programs are critical in allowing family 
farmers to secure credit. They argue that farm programs provide them 
with the security to adopt forward-looking business plans. They argue 
that without farm programs, the attrition rate in farming will only 
increase while younger people will be unable to enter farming. I have 
not heard substantive arguments in favor of eliminating the basic 
safety net for farmers and replacing it with guaranteed but declining 
payments that aren't tied to market prices.
  Is it fair to small farmers who rely more on the existence of farm 
programs for their survival than larger corporate farms, that this 
declining pot of money is not targeted more toward their needs? This 
bill bases a farmers' payment on what he received in the past. Large 
farmers continue to get large payments under this bill. How does that 
help small farmers transition away from their reliance on Federal 
programs? The answer is, it doesn't, Mr. President.
  This bill could have provided a tremendous opportunity to reform farm 
programs by targeting limited Government funds to smaller farmers. 
While this bill takes some steps to reduce corporate welfare, Congress 
could have made far greater reductions in the payment limitations. 
Instead the bill makes a slight reduction in the maximum deficiency 
payments one can receive but fails to eliminate loopholes that allow 
large farmers to get twice that amount. Eliminating loopholes and 
reducing payment limitations would have likely achieved greater Federal 
savings in commodity programs than the commodity titles in the so-
called FAIR Act without hurting America's family farms. Instead, this 
bill depletes the small pot of money for farmers by providing 
transition payments in the same proportions as they are now provided. 
That doesn't sound very fair to me.
  Is this bill fair to taxpayers who will now be asked to provide 
annual checks to farmers even when market prices are good? The fact is 
that these market transition payments cannot be justified on sound 
fiscal grounds. While this bill may save money over 7 years, based on 
CBO projections, it results in far greater costs in the next 2 years 
for commodity program payments compared to current law. That is because 
we don't make unnecessary payments under the current farm bill. 
Government costs are low when market prices are high. Existing programs 
make payments to farmers only when market conditions are poor and farm 
income is depressed. But market conditions are expected to be favorable 
in the next few years. Even so, the FAIR Act doles out the money to 
producers even if they are making a profit through the marketplace. 
This bill is fiscally irresponsible and fundamentally unfair to 
taxpayers. USDA reports that, based on their estimates, taxpayers will 
pay out $25 billion more to farmers under this bill than under current 
law. Every taxpayer should ask why they should pay farmers when market 
prices are high.

  Is this bill fair to consumers when the most costly programs from 
their perspective, such as the sugar and peanut programs, are left 
fundamentally untouched? Is it fair that the program which has very 
little effect on consumer prices, the dairy price support program, is 
the program eliminated in the name of consumer protection? Is it fair 
to consumers that this bill virtually ignores the aspects of Federal 
milk marketing orders that do have a substantial impact on consumers--
that is the federally established

[[Page S3071]]

prices for fluid milk that are excessive in many parts of this country? 
No, Mr. President. This bill is not fair to consumers, particularly on 
dairy policy. It is a fraud from the standpoint of consumer protection, 
making only token changes in the programs that most offend the 
pocketbook.
  In my opinion this bill should be called the unfair act of 1996 
because it is most unjust to dairy farmers in the upper Midwest. 
Fundamentally, this bill includes major provisions strongly opposed by 
the upper Midwest dairy industry. This bill provides congressional 
consent to the Northeast Dairy Compact and includes much of the House-
passed Solomon amendment which the upper Midwest had opposed.
  The provisions of the House-passed dairy amendment were improved 
somewhat in the conference committee but are still devastating to 
America's family dairy farmers. The House passed amendment reduced 
dairy farmer income by $4 billion over the next 7 years by eliminating 
the price support program for milk. The conference agreement is 
expected to cause only slightly less pain because the support level is 
not reduced as much prior to program termination. However, the 
conference agreement eliminates the price support program in 1999 
rather than 2000 as provided by the House bill.
  It is ironic the dairy price support program is eliminated in this 
bill given that it was the lowest cost of all commodity programs in 
fiscal year 1995, except for no-net cost programs such as sugar and 
tobacco. The program cost less than $4 million in fiscal year 1995 
according to USDA. Interestingly, the no-net cost programs all operate 
under strict supply control mechanisms in order to extract the support 
price from consumers through higher market prices. The dairy price 
support program does not rely on supply control and has had little 
impact on consumer prices unlike the sugar and peanut programs.
  And yet, the dairy price support program is the only commodity 
program actually terminated in this legislation and dairy farmers the 
only producers not provided with transition payments. Not only do 
producers of other commodities continue to benefit from their 
underlying programs maintained in this bill, but they also receive 
sizable transition payments annually.
  As a result, most observers expect dairy farmers to suffer from a 
larger decrease in family farm income than producers of any other 
commodity affected by this bill. Producers of some other commodities 
will actually enjoy income increases out of this so-called reform bill, 
at least in the next 2 years. But dairy farmers are asked to suffer.
  Mr. President, I am baffled as to the reason why this was agreed to 
in this conference report. The dairy price support program has made 
great strides toward market orientation and operates truly as a safety 
net. While the conference agreement authorizes a processor recourse 
loan program for dairy after price supports are terminated, such a 
program can merely act as a price stabilizer, not as a price support 
mechanism.
  I am extremely concerned about the impact of terminating the price 
support program. Wisconsin loses over 1,000 dairy farmers annually. I 
am fearful that without a basic safety net, that rate will increase in 
the coming years, particularly if the inequities of the Federal milk 
marketing order system are not eliminated.
  I have spoken often on the floor and to the Agriculture Committee 
about the need to reform Federal orders to eliminate market 
distortions, regional inequities, and consumer-related costs caused by 
excessive class I differentials. Even Secretary of Agriculture Dan 
Glickman has conceded that Federal orders have created regional 
inequities and that upper Midwest producers have suffered as a result. 
I had hoped the farm bill process would ultimately provide for those 
much needed changes.
  I am concerned, however, that this bill does not ensure that such 
discriminatory features will be eliminated. The House bill provided 
exceptionally limited reform of the Federal milk marketing order 
system, which is among the most outrageous commodity programs in 
existence.
  Unfortunately the minimal reforms in the House bill were made only 
slightly stronger by the conferees. The agreement requires the 
Secretary to reduce the existing number of orders to between 10 and 14. 
That is certainly a step in the right direction. However, consolidation 
alone does not guarantee a fundamental restructuring of class I prices 
nor does it ensure that Eau Claire, WI will no longer be used as the 
basing point for pricing milk. These should have been simple assurances 
to provide if the conferees were sincere in their reform efforts as 
some claim.
  The conference agreement appears to release the Secretary from 
compliance with statutorily required class I differentials in the 
reform process, but provides no further guidance on what factors the 
Secretary is to consider in these deliberations. All too often, those 
factors are political, not economic, and they do not work in our favor. 
There is absolutely nothing in this bill to ensure that class I 
differentials will be reformed or substantially altered from their 
current levels. In fact, the report language appears to specifically 
allow for an outcome in which reformed differentials are virtually the 
same as the current excessive statutory minimums. I will work to ensure 
that does not happen.
  I think, however, that the greatest blow to the upper Midwest is the 
inclusion of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact in the conference 
agreement. The compact was not only defeated in the Senate, it was also 
excluded from the House bill. Its emergence in the final conference 
agreement is outrageous and unconscionable. While many might contend 
that the conference agreement provides a scaled back version of the 
compact, I am still concerned about its ultimate approval, its 
precedent, and its potential impact.
  The conference agreement gives congressional consent to the compact 
subject to the Agriculture Secretary's determination that it serves a 
compelling public interest in the Northeast. I have a number of 
concerns with this. First, while this may put some members at ease, I 
caution those who think the Secretary of Agriculture will be more 
resilient against the political forces that came to bear upon the 
entire U.S. Congress and which resulted in the inclusion of this 
language. Second, a finding of a compelling public interest in the 
compact region is not an appropriate test for approval of this compact. 
The U.S. Constitution requires Congress to approve interstate compacts 
in order to protect the national interest. We can assume that the 
States agreeing to the compact have already determined that this is in 
their States' overall public interest. That test should be irrelevant. 
Rather, Congress should be able to ensure that the compact serves a 
compelling national public interest. I think the Northeast Dairy 
Compact would fail that test. Third, I think it is quite cowardly for 
the Congress to abdicate its role in the approval of this very 
controversial compact by making the Secretary do the dirty work. 
Authority for compact approval resides in the legislative branch, not 
the executive branch. This is a congressional responsibility, and this 
bill shirks it.
  That the term of congressional consent for the compact is tied to the 
implementation of consolidated Federal orders, is somewhat of an 
improvement over a compact of indefinite term. I would provide two 
caveats to those who think this provides protection to dairy producers 
elsewhere, and in particular in the upper Midwest. First, once consent 
is provided, it will be easier to reinstate after expiration. Second, 
the compact could remain in place much longer than the 3-year deadline 
for implementation of order consolidation. Consolidation can be delayed 
if the Secretary is enjoined by a court order from implementing order 
changes, thus providing continuing consent for the compact.
  The conference agreement attempts to provide safeguards to prevent 
the compact from interfering in interstate commerce by keeping 
noncompact milk outside of its borders. However, the compact commission 
will still be able to require that anyone buying milk from outside the 
compact region pay the compact over-order price. That provision, 
coupled with transportation costs, is still an extremely effective 
barrier to trade.
  I urge my colleagues to keep in mind that the fight over the compact 
was not just about the regional walls it erected. It was also about the 
impacts

[[Page S3072]]

the compact would have on national markets for milk and dairy products. 
And, Mr. President, the dairy compact will have impacts outside its 
region. Increasing prices in the compact States, particularly to the 
levels anticipated by those farmers, will cause increased production. 
That production will likely spill over from fluid markets into 
manufactured product markets. That will ultimately impact the base 
price that all farmers receive for their milk, since prices nationwide 
are linked to prices for manufactured dairy products. In fact, the 
conference agreement neglected to include language contained in Senate 
Joint Resolution 28, ensuring that such production responses would not 
impact the national market.
  Furthermore, the conference agreement will allow the compact States 
to provide their processors with export subsidies so that they can 
export their high cost product to other parts of the United States that 
are playing by the rules. This is the type of subsidy we are asking 
other countries to eliminate through our trade agreements, yet we are 
creating our own domestic export subsidies through this compact.
  The Senate made clear by voting down the compact during consideration 
of the farm bill that this type of price fixing compact is not 
acceptable. And yet here we are again, fighting the Northeast Dairy 
compact. Having won this issue in the Senate we will now be forced to 
fight this administratively as well. And if it is approved 
administratively, we will have to fight when the Northeast comes back 
to Congress seeking renewal of this consent. And finally, we will fight 
this battle as other regions come to Congress looking for approval of 
similar price fixing agreements for dairy farmers in their regions.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the New 
York Times regarding the compact be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 23, 1996]

                        Milk Sours the Farm Bill

       A House-Senate conference committee has managed to tarnish 
     the most important farm bill in years by inserting a last-
     minute provision for a New England milk cartel that would 
     gouge consumers and violate the free-market concept that has 
     made the 1996 farm bill worthwhile. The full House and Senate 
     need to excise this noxious favor to the New England dairy 
     lobby before approving the bill in voting set for next week.
       The dairy interests achieved their victory in the 
     conference committee after failing to persuade either chamber 
     to enact such a proposal earlier. The conferees accepted the 
     bill's major reform, a seven-year phaseout of subsidies for 
     corn, wheat, rice and cotton. That could save billions 
     eventually and release farmers to make their own marketing 
     decisions free of government supervision. But the conferees 
     adopted a weak Senate provision that would reinstate the 
     subsidies after 2002 unless Congress again votes them out.
       The conference committee also weakened the Government's 
     ability to preserve wetlands, something neither house had 
     done on its own. The committee wants to restrict the 
     Agriculture Department's valuable program to prevent 
     diversion of fishing streams that run through Federal land.
       There were some environmental gains. At least $200 million 
     was approved to buy and restore major stretches of the 
     Florida Everglades. A program to encourage farmers not to 
     develop environmentally fragile land was renewed, as were 
     food stamp and nutrition programs. A program to help farmers 
     keep their animal waste and other pollutants from running off 
     into waterways was adopted.
       But the regional milk monopoly is the very opposite of the 
     kind of reform this bill was meant to provide. The bill would 
     authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to permit the six New 
     England states to set high prices and erect tariff hurdles 
     against outside competition. That is totally alien to the 
     central idea of agriculture reform, which is to set loose the 
     forces of free-market competition.
       How could such a backlash occur? The agriculture committees 
     of both Senate and House are dominated by farm and dairy 
     interests. By appointing conferees from this limited group, 
     Congressional leadership vests tremendous power with the 
     members least responsive to the current popular concern over 
     the environment and over consumer prices. The full Senate and 
     House can do better.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, at the beginning of the 104th Congress I 
thought it inconceivable, given the deregulatory and market-oriented 
rhetoric of some of our Senate leaders, that the Northeast Dairy 
Compact would be granted approval. It is the antithesis of market 
orientation. It seeks to protect agricultural producers in one 
particular region by imposing artificially high costs on consumers.
  In fact, this compact flies in the face of the rhetoric associated 
with this very farm bill. I've heard so many Senators claim this bill 
allows farmers to make decisions based on the market, not on Government 
payments. But the compact attempts to insulate a small group of farmers 
from the very market conditions this bill embraces so tightly.
  Mr. President, I am opposing this farm bill for the many reasons I 
have outlined today. And I know this bill will pass. I intend to fight 
hard for the upper Midwest as both the Northeast compact and Federal 
order measures proceed through the administrative process. I will work 
with Secretary Glickman to ensure that meaningful reform of Federal 
milk marketing orders is implemented in a timely manner.
  And if, as the minority leader has suggested, this is a 1 year farm 
bill, I will be back on this floor trying to improve dairy farmer 
income which is so badly slashed in this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on March 15, 1996, I wrote to Chairman 
Lugar to express my concerns about the potential undermining of 
wetlands conservation provisions in the farm bill. Proposals to exempt 
a vast number of wetlands from the Swampbuster Program and changes to 
the definition of ``agricultural land'' for purposes of wetlands 
delineations were among the specific concerns raised in my letter. I am 
pleased to report that Chairman Lugar has responded to these concerns. 
A letter written by Chairman Lugar upon the completion of the 
conference states:

       The bill makes no changes to the existing definition of a 
     wetland, and does not exempt any lands based solely on 
     cropping history or size. Although the report does define 
     ``agricultural lands'' for the purpose of implementation of 
     the interagency memorandum of agreement on wetlands 
     delineations, it does not amend Section 404 of the Clean 
     Water Act or require any changes to the 1987 Army Corps of 
     Engineers wetlands delineation manual.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter 
dated March 23, 1996, be printed in the Record following this colloquy. 
I congratulate Chairman Lugar and ranking member Leahy for their 
efforts in crafting a sound conservation title that will benefit the 
environment and the economy well into the next century.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LUGAR. I want to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his kind 
words. As I mentioned in the letter, I believe that this conference 
report is the most environmentally responsive and responsible farm 
legislation in our Nation's history. As chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act 
and the Federal Wetlands Program, Senator Chafee's support means a 
great deal to me.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                  U.S. Senate,    
                Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 1996.
     Hon. John H. Chafee,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         Dirksen 410, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Chafee: Thank you for your letter of March 15 
     in which you expressed interest in the conservation 
     provisions of the 1996 farm bill. I am pleased to report that 
     the Conferees agreed to what I feel is the most 
     environmentally responsive and responsible farm legislation 
     in our nation's history.
       You specifically mentioned a concern that existing wetland 
     conservation provisions might be undermined in the farm bill. 
     In fact, the Conference agreement makes several common-sense 
     updates to the ``swampbuster'' compliance requirements that 
     will make the program more flexible for producers while still 
     protecting wetland functions and values. The bill makes no 
     changes to the existing definition of a wetland, and does not 
     exempt any lands based solely on cropping history or size. 
     Although the report does define ``agricultural lands'' for 
     the purpose of implementation of the interagency memorandum 
     of agreement on wetland deliberations, it does not amend 
     Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or require any changes to 
     the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual.
       In other areas, the Conference agreement established the 
     new Environmental Quality

[[Page S3073]]

     Incentives Program, which stands to make a significant 
     positive impact on water quality. In addition, the 
     Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Programs 
     are reauthorized through 2002, with new provisions that will 
     make the WRP more attractive to producers. Combined with the 
     new crop planting flexibility provisions in the commodity 
     title, these conservation efforts represent an impressive 
     commitment to addressing the potential adverse environmental 
     impacts of agricultural production. I know that, as Chairman 
     of the Environment and Public Works Committee, you can 
     appreciate the tremendous investment made in this new farm 
     bill. I hope you can enthusiastically support the Conference 
     Report when it is debated on the floor later this week.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard G. Lugar,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am pleased that the conferees agreed to include a 
provision in the bill that I originally authored regarding revenue 
insurance. I and the farmers in my State truly believe that revenue-
based risk management tools are a vital resource for today's and 
tomorrow's American farmer as the weather, market, and global trading 
patterns continue to fluctuate and pose often unpredictable risks for 
farmers worldwide.
  The FAIR Act would require the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to 
offer pilot revenue insurance programs for a number of crops for crop 
years 1997 through 2000 so that by 2002 and the end of the production 
flexibility contracts provided under this bill, we will have well-
tested revenue based risk management products available for farmers.
  It is very important to note, however, that it was never my intent to 
restrict the authority of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation as it 
currently exists under law to conduct pilot programs. There are two 
revenue insurance pilot programs currently operating for crop year 
1996. I, and I do not believe the conferees, intend for this new 
language in any way to interfere with the operation or expansion of 
these existing programs to other crops under the same terms and 
conditions under which they are currently operating. Rather, my intent 
was to encourage the Corporation to expand current efforts to other 
crops and speed the development of such products for the American 
farmer. Does the chairman agree with this interpretation--that the FAIR 
Act language is not intended to restrict the existing authority of FCIC 
to approve pilot programs under similar terms as the 1996 revenue pilot 
programs--for example on a whole State basis, although in a limited 
number of States?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes; I would agree that the conferees intended for this 
language not to restrict FCIC authority to implement the revenue 
insurance pilot program authorized by this Act.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the chairman. I strongly urge the Corporation 
to further experiment with revenue-based insurance products and to do 
so under similar terms and conditions represented by the 1996 crop year 
revenue insurance programs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996 eliminates the requirement that farmers buy 
catastrophic crop insurance in order to participate in other USDA farm 
programs. However, as I indicated in my letter to you on March 20, 
there is some concern that language as drafted may not technically 
delink the crop insurance purchase requirement for forage. The language 
in the bill delinks the crop insurance purchase requirement for crops 
planted in spring of 1996. However, forage crops, as perennials, are 
typically planted once every three or four years. Thus, forage crops 
which will be harvested in 1996 may have been planted several years 
ago, and may not be captured by the language in the bill.
  It is my understanding that it was the intent of the conference 
committee and the intent of this legislation to delink crop insurance 
purchase requirements for participation in other USDA programs for all 
crops, including forage. Is that correct?
  Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct. section 193(a)(2) of this bill is 
intended to allow delinkage of the purchase of catastrophic crop 
insurance for all crops including forage harvested in 1996 and beyond. 
Producers of forage crops harvested in 1996 should be able to 
participate in all USDA programs without purchasing catastrophic crop 
insurance, regardless of when that forage crop was planted. There was 
no intent to exclude forage from these delinkage provisions and the 
Secretary should interpret section 193(a)(2) as such.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I had hoped to be able to support the farm 
bill conference report. On balance, however, the conferees did not make 
enough improvements to the bill passed by the Senate for me to do so. 
In several important ways, the conferees have made it worse. It is 
unfortunate that this Congress, overdue in completing action on a farm 
bill, has produced this bill in apparent haste to get something down.
  The conferees have included a dairy title that treats milk producers 
very differently from other agriculture sectors, and is potentially 
damaging to Michigan milk producers. This bill reauthorizes the basic 
dairy price support program that we have today, but reduces the price 
support level from $10.35 per hundredweight [cwt.] in 1996 to $9.90/
cwt. in 1999. Then, in the year 2000, the program is somehow to 
magically transform into a recourse loan program. This type of 
experimentation, without adequate consideration or hearings on its 
economic effects, could seriously harm the dairy sector and producers 
income, not to mention supply and price stability. I regret that the 
conferees did not incorporate more of the comprehensive and cost-
effective Gunderson approach into the final product.
  Further, the bill opens the door for establishment of the Northeast 
Dairy compact, a door that we had closed in the Senate bill. It gives 
the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to create the compact if he 
finds a ``compelling public need in the [Northeast] region.'' This is a 
mistake and I will join efforts to repeal this provision if this bill 
becomes law.
  I have been open to producers' desire to increase their flexibility, 
in the context of Federal farm programs, so long as it has not required 
crops like fruits and vegetables to unfairly compete against crops that 
receive Federal price supports. This bill continues that protection, 
which is important for Michigan's diverse and productive fruit and 
vegetable sector. But, my colleagues and producers should remember why 
the Federal Government has a farm program--our Nation needs a secure 
and stable supply of food. Producers have always had the flexibility to 
not participate in these programs.
  The contract payments in the bill may assist producers to achieve 
greater flexibility and encourage them to be more sensitive to the 
market. But, I am still disturbed that the Government payments bear no 
direct relation to market prices. Producers will receive these payments 
in times of high prices even though they are doing well. That makes no 
sense. There are no provisions for a safety net when prices drop. That 
makes no sense either.
  The managers of the bill have informed me that there is no 
requirement that a contract payment recipient actually engage in 
farming on contract acreage for the 7 years that the contract runs. At 
a time when we are reforming welfare and emphasizing work, I find it 
unacceptable to give taxpayers dollars away to a producer or owner who 
might decide to leave contract land fallow and still collect a tidy 
Government payment.
  Simplification of Federal agriculture programs is generally a good 
idea. That is one positive concept in the bill before us, which I hope 
will bear out in implementation. I am also pleased that this bill 
contains most of the important conservation programs, particularly the 
Conservation Reserve Program, and the trade, and research titles that 
were included in the Senate bill. And, we have been able to prevent any 
serious damage to the sugar program.
  In my judgement, however, Congress could and should have put together 
a better farm bill than this one, and in a more timely way. The 
majority should have put the farm bill higher up on its agenda so that 
we would not be acting hastily now to give producers some direction on 
Government agriculture policy so far into the crop year. This bill 
charts a controversial and uncertain course for 7 years. But, at least 
we have retained permanent law so that Congress must revisit 
agriculture policy no later than 2002.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the 
Federal

[[Page S3074]]

Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act.
  Mr. President, I am one of only a few working farmers in Congress. 
Having worked the land most of my life, I know, first hand, what it is 
like to try to make a living under Federal farm programs. As my 
colleagues began crafting a new farm bill, I believed we had an 
historic opportunity to change the way our farm sector operates while 
still maintaining a strong commitment to conservation practices that 
truly protect the environment.
  Now that our work is complete, I can tell you that Congress is 
steering the farm community in the right direction. Through the FAIR 
Act, farmers will no longer be told by someone in Washington what to 
plant, how much to plant and even how much not to plant. Farmers will 
now have the freedom to make their own planting decisions based on 
market demands rather than mandates from Washington.
  The age of micro managing the farm sector from a corner office at the 
USDA is over. And it should be. The world has changed dramatically 
since I first took over the farm from my father. Whether we like it or 
not, NAFTA and GATT are now the law of the land. Fortunately, Congress 
recognized this and crafted a farm bill that gives farmers the freedom 
to respond to these new market demands. Had Congress not done their job 
by producing the FAIR Act, farming in this country would have been left 
behind in the cold.
  This farm bill also goes a long way toward protecting the 
environment. Mr. President, it only makes common sense that farmers 
would support strong conservation practices because a healthy 
environment is essential to a good harvest. As a matter of fact, the 
conservation title attracted strong bipartisan support because it 
reauthorized and expanded the Wetlands Reserve Program and the 
Conservation Reserve Program and created new conservation initiatives 
like the Environmental Quality Incentive Program. Through strengthening 
the conservation title, this Congress has proven our commitment to 
protecting the environment while allowing farmers to make a living from 
their land.
  I am proud of the work done by my colleagues in both the Senate and 
the House. Senator Lugar, Representatives Roberts, and the conferees 
have produced a farm bill like no other in the history of this Nation 
and they should be commended for it.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in many ways this farm legislation is 
historic. In my 23-plus years as a member of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, I have never been faced with so many changes in the overall 
structure of American agriculture--and, in large measure, for the 
better most of America and the farmers of this country.
  I doubt that anymore seriously imagined that this Congress could 
succeed in streamlining agriculture programs and increasing the 
effectiveness of agriculture. This bill includes reforms to most of the 
major commodity programs, including peanuts, cotton, dairy, feed 
grains, and wheat.
  In my home State of North Carolina, agriculture has long been a 
leading industry, providing jobs and economic opportunity for countless 
small family farmers and their communities. This legislation will give 
North Carolina's farmers stability for at least next 7 years while 
removing the strong arm of government controls over our commodity 
programs. It will ease the strain on rural America.
  Mr. President, I applaud the two chairman for undertaking these 
market-oriented reforms that will unquestionably help the family 
farmers adapt and adjust to 21st century. As a former chairman of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee, I know and understand the difficult and 
painstaking process that has consumed weeks and months.
  I am convinced that this farm bill will help farmers become more 
productive, and will continue to save tax dollars and it will improve 
the rural environment.
  At a time when the Federal debt has climbed beyond the 5 trillion 
dollar mark, Congress owes it to the farmers and taxpayers of this 
country not to enact a meaningless temporary solution, but to establish 
a sound new policy of agricultural reform.
  That is what happened, and I, for one, believe both Agriculture 
Committees, House and Senate pursued the real reforms that were needed. 
In that, I am proud of the peanut farmers of my State and other States 
for embracing a no net cost program and sacrificing close to $500 
million out of their pockets to contribute to balancing the Federal 
budget in 7 years. In order to save the peanut program we all had to 
sacrifice, but in the end, this bill retains the peanut program and 
reforms it to make it more efficient for the farmers and less costly 
for taxpayers.
  This bill offers a future to the farmers of America, who can now wake 
up everyday and knowing what their future payments will be. The 
taxpayers will know how much of their money will be spent. U.S. 
agriculture now has a future--our farmers have a future.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to offer my full support 
for the farm bill conference report. I believe this bill, carefully 
crafted after many months of hard work and compromise, will offer much 
needed stability to farmers across America. In addition, it symbolizes 
a new path for our agricultural industries, leading us away from the 
Depression-era policies of the past and towards a freer, more flexible 
system which will empower our farmers to face the challenges of the 
21st century.
  I am particularly pleased and supportive of the conservation and 
nutrition components of the bill, which I believe illustrates the 
strong bi-partisan collaborative work that crafted this compromise. The 
environmental provisions will help farmers protect agricultural lands 
through specific appropriations that will conserve farmland from 
development. With my homestate of Colorado facing a tremendous growth 
in population, this will enhance the precious preservation of private 
land, open space and wildlife habitat from developers and subdivisions. 
In addition, by recognizing the inexorable ties between agriculture and 
water, this bill will provide much needed support to farmers to help 
protect our water supplies and maintain water quality.
  I also want to congratulate the managers of this bill--Senators Lugar 
and Leahy, and the conferees in maintaining and extending the Food 
Stamp Program. This will reiterate the commitment of the Federal 
Government to families, women and children that rely on this vital 
program for their daily subsistence. I know there are many issues that 
still need to be resolved for welfare reform legislation, but I am glad 
that the farm bill recognizes the importance of the Food Stamp Program.
  Mr. President, I would like to conclude my statement by reiterating 
the fundamental importance of agriculture to my homestate of Colorado's 
economy, environment, and identity. The importance of this bill to my 
constituents is tremendous, and I hope these dramatic reforms will 
breathe new life into the farms of America to revitalize the industry 
for the next century.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as you know, every 5 years Congress 
undertakes a rewrite of farm legislation. Some years this process is 
relatively painless, some years it is more difficult. Farm programs are 
bipartisan efforts, with both sides working to achieve the best result 
possible for the nations farmers.
  This year has proven to be the most contentious, hard fought farm 
bill in memory. I am fortunate, through seniority, to have become a 
member of the Senate Agriculture Committee--the first Senator from 
Virginia, I might add, in nearly 30 years.
  For close to 1 year the Agriculture Committee has been working 
diligently to craft a new farm bill for our country. On September 30 of 
this past year, the old farm bill expired. Under the necessary budget 
changes and spending priorities that we set forth, a large portion of 
the farm bill was part of the Balanced Budget Act that Congress passed 
and sent to the President. The President, unfortunately for America, 
vetoed it. This veto created a critical problem for U.S. agriculture.
  The problem is that commodity support programs for the next 7 years 
were wiped out with the President's veto of the Balanced Budget Act. 
Existing authority for those programs had expired. All the remain are 
outdated statutes from 1938 and 1949.
  The solution required action. Chairman Lugar skillfully negotiated 
the regional and political obstacles that

[[Page S3075]]

could have doomed this effort. Certainly, there are areas still to be 
addressed and work to be done. But today we take a major step forward 
in farm policy--a step toward the future.
  Mr. President, the farm bill debate is a microcosm of the larger 
debate we have witnesses over the balanced budget. It represents a 
struggle with those who are comfortable with the status-quo, who want 
to continue the failed policies of big government intervening in 
people's lives and dictating their decisions. We are ending Washington 
control of farm policy.
  Reformed farm policy is one step towards our goal of smaller 
government and a balanced budget. But, as you know, this is a new 
direction. Even the name of this bill--the Agricultural Reform and 
Improvement Act--indicates the direction toward which farmers want to 
go.
  Briefly, this farm bill will accomplish several things. The bill will 
reform and modernize farm programs; provide a more certain income 
safety net for farmers through direct payments; strengthen conservation 
programs; and, provide broad planting flexibility.
  In short, we give farmers what they want--greater flexibility and 
freedom from Government intervention. Farmers like the plan because it 
is good for the bottom line. Support is broad because it will have the 
most positive impact on farm income. The plan is simple, certain and 
efficient. It eliminates layers of bureaucracy and accompanying 
regulations. Best of all, this bill shifts decision making from 
Washington back to the farm.
  The bill calls for the end of Government planting controls. It 
provides an entirely new outlook for American agriculture, which I find 
very exciting both as a member of the Committee responsible for farm 
policy and as somebody who has owned and operated a farm.
  The plan is simple, in contrast to the needless complexity of current 
programs.
  It offers certainty. Farmers will know what their future payments 
will be. Taxpayers will know how much these programs will cost. U.S. 
agriculture will have more security against future budget cuts.
  Finally, it is market oriented. Farmers' payments will be the same 
even if they choose to plant alternate crops. Producers' planting 
decisions will be based on the market--as these decisions should be. 
Under this bill there will be planting freedom, not arbitrary 
government controls.
  This bill is good for the environment. It strenghtens conservation 
programs, enhances wetlands protection, and emphasizes improving water 
quality, which is of critical importance to Virginia and the Chesapeake 
Bay.
  This bill's agricultural provisions are a long-term plan endorsed by 
a broad spectrum of agricultural groups, including, in my State, the 
Virginia Farm Bureau and the Virginia Agribusiness Council. Let us be 
clear: U.S. producer and agribusiness organizations nationwide support 
this plan. We owe it to those who work in agriculture in our respective 
States--not to those who would dictate farm policy from behind a desk--
to pass this bill.
  Mr. President, I have heard many Senators lament the delay in 
enacting a new Farm Bill. While this bill is a few months late--due in 
large part to President Clinton's veto of the balanced budget bill--the 
reforms it contains are years overdue.
  I am proud to have participated in this historic legislation during 
my first term as a member of the Agriculture Committee. And I commend 
Chairman Lugar and his able staff on a job well done.


                              section 389

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, section 389 comes as a result of many hours 
of negotiations involving the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. 
Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and various Members 
of Congress. The language agreed to by the conference committee is a 
step forward in an effort to ensure that the Forest Service does not 
take water from existing users without providing proper compensation.
  My amendment, as modified by the conference committee, provides for 
an 18-month moratorium on any U.S. Forest Service decision to require 
bypass flows or any other relinquishment of the unimpaired use of a 
decreed water right as a condition of renewal or reissuance of a land 
use permit. Nothing in this section changes current law regarding the 
allocation of water or rights to the use of water, and the expiration 
of the moratorium is not intended to be a recognition or grant of 
authority to the Forest Service for imposition of bypass flows.
  The amendment also creates a water rights task force to study, make 
recommendations, and report back to the Congress and the administration 
on questions of: First, whether, and the manner in which, a Federal 
water right should be acquired by the U.S. Forest Service for minimum 
instream flow, environmental and watershed management purposes on the 
National Forests domain either through purchase from or a lawful 
exchange of valuable consideration with a willing seller; second, 
measures, if any, deemed to be necessary to protect the free exercise 
and use of decreed non-Federal water rights which require land use 
authorization permits from the U.S. Forest Service; and third, the 
legal and economic effects of creating a Federal environmental water 
right upon existing state laws, regulations, and customs of water usage 
and measures that would be useful in avoiding or resolving conflicts 
with any regulatory taking of a valuable decreed water right pursuant 
to conditions for the reissuance of a special use permit.
  This language is intended to reaffirm the fact that for over 150 
years, the United States has followed a policy of deferring to State 
laws governing the use and allocation of water in the western United 
States. As the Supreme Court observed in California v. United States, 
438 U.S. 645, 653 (1978):

       The history of the relationship between the Federal 
     Government and the States in the reclamation of the arid 
     lands of the Western States is both long and involved, but 
     through it runs the consistent thread of purposeful and 
     continued deference to state water law by Congress.

  It is also necessary to understand that national forests were created 
to protect and allow water uses, not as an excuse to take water away 
from people that have been using it for decades. The national forests 
were created pursuant to the Organic Administration Act of 1897, 16 
U.S.C. 481, which explicitly provides for the use of water from 
national forests for domestic, mining, milling, or irrigation purposes. 
In United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978), the United States 
Supreme Court rejected claims by the Forest Service that the Organic 
Administration Act authorized the assertion of claims to the use of 
water for fishery and other secondary purposes of the national forests. 
The Supreme Court held that the Organic Administration Act was enacted 
by Congress ``principally as a means of enhancing the quantity of water 
that would be available to the settlers of the arid west.'' The Court 
rejected the Forest Service claims to the use of water for secondary 
purposes because they would defeat the purpose for which the national 
forests were created, in part because these claims would result in a 
gallon-for-gallon reduction in the water supply available for use by 
farmers and cities in the West. The bypass flows that the Forest 
Service now wants to require are for the same secondary purposes, and 
would result in the same, or even greater, losses of water by existing 
users.

  The assignment of land management functions to a Federal agency in 
and of itself does not provide an appropriate legal basis for assertion 
of water rights by Federal agencies to preempt State law with regard to 
the expropriation of already existing decreed water rights. The 
enactment of the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act [MUSYA], 16 
U.S.C. 528-31, and the Federal Land Policy Management Act [FLPMA], did 
not change or expand the primary purposes for which the national forest 
lands are to be managed pursuant to the Organic Administration Act. In 
fact, the National Forest Management Act [NFMA] expressly provides that 
any change in land use authorizations ``shall be subject to valid 
existing rights,'' 16 U.S.C. 1604(i). In addition, sections 701 (g) and 
(h) of the Federal Land Policy Management Act [FLPMA] contain explicit 
savings provisions regarding the management and use of water, 
specifically disclaiming any delegation of authority to ``affect'' the 
use of water. The provisions make

[[Page S3076]]

it clear that these acts create no new Federal authority over the use 
or water, and most certainly do not authorize the imposition of bypass 
flows on existing facilities.
  It is also important to recognize that any Federal claims to water 
for the Organic Administration Act, Federal Land Policy Management Act 
[FLPMA], National Forest Management Act [NFMA], or other Federal 
purposes, whether based upon appropriative rights, riparian rights or 
reserved rights, must be asserted and established pursuant to the 
McCarran amendment, 43 U.S.C. 666.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I ask that the Senate act favorably to 
pass the conference report to H.R. 2854, the Agricultural Market 
Transition Act, which includes my amendment containing the subject 
moratorium and task force language. I would hope that in the coming 18 
months an agreement will be reached on this subject--an agreement which 
will ensure the adequate protection of western water.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in supporting the 
final passage of the conference report for the farm bill, and 
applauding the efforts the members of the Senate and House Agriculture 
committees. In particular, I call attention to the efforts of Senator 
Craig, coauthor of the compromise which this body adopted a few weeks 
ago, and which formed the basis for the bill we are adopting today.
  Mr. President, this bill is an important step forward for our 
Nation's agricultural policy. For Idaho's farmers, it means the freedom 
to have the Federal Government off their backs and out of their 
tractors. For the first time in a century, they will be able to plant 
crops according to the market, instead of according to Uncle Sam's 
outdated policies. The 7 year contracts and loan programs provided in 
the bill give farmers the safety net they need to make this transition.
  Under the bill, Idaho's wheat farmers will have the security to 
analyze market demands. Idaho's growing dairy industry will be better 
prepared to take their place in the world market. And Idaho's sugarbeet 
growers will be in an excellent position to compete as domestic market 
restrictions are removed.
  This bill grants agricultural producers the freedom to meet the 
demands of growing international markets. They will be able to step 
back and look at their crop rotation plans, and to try new and 
innovative crops that might not have been allowed under the old 
programs. Some of those new crops may well prove to be the solution to 
soil erosion, or a dependable alternative source of income. Such 
individual innovation and specialization were not possible under the 
old bureaucratic dictates.
  Mr. President, this bill is important because of what is changes, but 
it is also important for what it strengthens, and that is our Nation's 
commitment to research and international trade development. Of all the 
concerns raised by Idaho's farmers since we began debate on the bill, 
commitment to research and international trade has been at the top of 
their list.
  Under the new rural development provisions, and specifically through 
the agriculture competitiveness initiative, we will see a strengthened 
agriculture research program, the key to our Nation's strong food 
supply system. This research program will encourage the development and 
application of new technologies, such as the precision farming research 
being conducted at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in Idaho 
Falls.
  The bill also maintains a strong commitment to international market 
development programs. So long as our Nation's agriculture producers 
face subsidized competition in our foreign markets, we will need to 
ensure that our producers are in a position to meet that challenge. We 
have maintained the Export Enhancement Program and the Market Promotion 
Program, and elevated the Foreign Market Development Program to an 
independent status. These programs are vital tools for Idaho 
commodities, such as wheat, beans, peas, and lentils, to help them 
develop their overseas markets.
  The bill also removes needless burdens and provides important 
incentives. It eliminates the requirement that farmers sign up for crop 
insurance and encourages private insurance companies to fill the gap. 
It streamlines current USDA conservation programs, and provides new 
incentives to help farmers achieve these national goals. I am 
particularly pleased to see that successful conservation programs, 
including the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve 
Program, will continue to be a tool to protect the environment and 
provide habitat for wildlife.
  Agriculture is Idaho's No. 1 industry. Its diversity forms the 
foundation for the rest of the State's economy. There is still work to 
be done to remove regulatory and tax burdens on farmers, these small-
business people who are the stewards of our Nation's open spaces. This 
includes our efforts to reform the Delaney clause and its unrealistic 
limitations on pesticide tolerances, and to remove disincentives to re-
registration of minor crop pesticides. But this farm bill is the first 
step to bringing Idaho's and the Nation's farmers into the 21st century 
and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first let me express my sincere admiration 
and respect for the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator 
Lugar of Indiana. Senator Lugar is a man of vision and reason with 
respect to our nation's agricultural policies, and the Senate is 
fortunate to have a man of his caliber as Chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee. It is an extremely challenging position, due to the 
pleadings of numerous regional and narrowly-focused agricultural groups 
that descend in droves upon the Congress every 5 years. They urgently 
request more and more Federal aid, lest the extent of their taxpayer-
funded subsidies, price supports, and grant programs stray too far from 
the status quo.
  A Senate that is split between Members dedicated to fiscal 
responsibility, and those equally dedicated preserving virtually every 
aspect of Federal largesse, is not a promising forum for a boldly 
reformist farm bill. For those of us that were hoping for a 
significantly less costly, less expansive farm bill, this is deeply 
regrettable. I cannot support a massive new farm bill that does little 
to lighten the heavy burden that price supports and farm programs have 
long placed on taxpayers, and I will oppose this conference report.
  Mr. President, the unprecedented election of 1994 has been 
interpreted in many ways; its signals meant different things to the 
diverse Members of this body, and among the luminous commentators who 
purport their views to represent the pulse of the masses. My personal 
beliefs about what the American people are calling for often run head-
on into the resistance of this body. I can, however, confidently convey 
my judgment about one meaning of the November, 1994 election without 
reservation. Clearly, the new Congress was not empowered to cautiously 
piece together an expensive array of farm programs, and pass the bill 
to taxpayers. This Congress was not directed to timidly wander among 
agricultural special interest groups and seek a consensus that would 
offend no one. No one, of course, except for taxpayers, who unknowingly 
will be stuck with the bill.
  I oppose this conference report with regret. I supported H.R. 1541 
with the understanding that it would actually reduce the cost of farm 
programs by 15%. The Senate-passed version of S. 1541 was widely 
described as a substantial reduction of spending on farm subsidies. I 
also hoped that the House would make further reductions and fiscally 
responsible reforms. I was mistaken. This conference report contains 
almost $50 billion in direct farm subsidies over the next seven years, 
and in its entirety will cost taxpayers close to $70 billion over that 
time. If any savings are achieved they will be modest, and I am all too 
familiar with the outcome of previous farm bills, which routinely cost 
billions more than anticipated.
  This is simply unacceptable, Mr. President. We are acquiescing to the 
well-organized interests who are satisfied with nothing but a bigger 
trough from which to feed.
  At a time when Congressional overspending has already rung up a $5 
trillion dollar debt; and when we must fight the administration and its 
free-spending allies every step of the way for even the most modest 
restraints on spending, a $70 billion farm bill is simply indefensible. 
I cannot justify voting

[[Page S3077]]

for such a bill to my constituents in Arizona, who this year must work 
five months a year just to pay their taxes!
  The logic of passing a new, $70 billion farm bill escapes me, Mr. 
President, but I think it will prove positively unfathomable to most 
Americans. A large segment of the Congress seems to operate in a world 
completely disconnected from any sense of urgency about deficit 
spending. News reports which mindlessly turn reductions in increases 
into life-threatening cuts--as we saw with the School Lunch Program 
last year--cynically feed this atmosphere. This manipulative shell game 
will go on and on, I'm sure, until a decisive majority of the 
Congress--with the support of a President who has the courage to lead--
stands up and simply says, ``Enough!''
  To the contrary, this conference report--and this Administration--
continues to say: ``No problem.''
  Just last week the Washington Post had a prominent story about how 
the fiscal year 96 deficit will be dramatically lower than expected. It 
will undoubtedly bolster the administration's confidence in striving 
for billions more in domestic spending. Of course, there was no mention 
in the article about how this year's cheery, refreshingly low deficit 
means that at best, the Federal Government will spend $400 million more 
each day than it takes in. This farm bill will keep the tab on that 
credit card rolling along with respect to agricultural spending for the 
next 7 years.
  During the initial Senate debate on the 1996 farm bill, I was 
optimistic that the freedom to farm concept of decoupling farmers from 
bureaucratic crop controls would be a ground-breaking, cost-effective 
reform. It has not turned out that way. With this conference report, 
farmers do get a freedom to farm, but lurking just below its surface is 
the same, dusty maze of permanent price subsidies that the Congress 
purportedly wanted to move away from.
  Let me point out several other areas where this conference report has 
stumbled badly away from the Senate bill I supported. First, it has 
several dairy provisions which boggle the mind of anyone interested in 
cost-efficient, pro-market farm policies. The Northeast Dairy Compact--
a price control consortium reminiscent of the very best of Soviet block 
agricultural policies--is given new life despite being previously 
rejected by the Senate. Furthermore, this conference report will allow 
dairy interests in the State of California to impose a new trade 
barrier on out-of-state milk. California's price-enhancing dairy 
regulations jack up milk prices for its nearly 30 million consumers, 
and they will now be codified in Federal law to shield California's 
dairy industry from fair and open competition. The California solids-
added provision is incontestably anti-competitive, anti-market, and 
definitely anti-consumer. However, even in 1996, those dubious 
attributes are not enough to exclude them from being tucked into a farm 
bill.

  There are many more areas of great concern for me in this measure. A 
new, $300 million-a-year rural development program--added at the behest 
of the administration--was the subject of some thirty seconds of debate 
in the Senate; There is a $360 million grant program for private 
grazing lands; a $600 million grant program for livestock activities; 
$360 million for a new twist on the Market Promotion Program. And, of 
course, cherished, old standbys like the sugar and peanut programs.
  Let me emphasize, Mr. President, I support providing a credible level 
of truly-needed assistance to farmers in America. I would oppose 
pulling the rug out from under them with a complete elimination of farm 
programs. Many agricultural producers in Arizona have relied on price 
support programs, and dozens of rural communities in my State have 
greatly benefitted from important rural development initiatives. We 
should continue meritorious farm programs that work, and that also 
comply with the fiscal discipline necessary to balance the budget.
  I want to express my gratitude to Senator Lugar for preserving an 
amendment that will assist Native American community colleges. Indeed, 
I recognize that if Senator Lugar was able to fully develop all of his 
ideas for federal agricultural policies, our country would be in much 
better shape. I regret that his best efforts have been dissipated by 
interests unwilling to yield in their defense of a status quo we can no 
longer afford.
  I cannot support a massive package of $70 billion in agricultural 
spending at a time when the administration and the Congress has been 
unwilling to stem the tide of deficit spending. It represents too 
little real reform, not enough relief for taxpayers, and too much 
toleration of business as usual.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report on the the farm bill. While I strongly favor some 
aspects of the bill, I have serious reservation about the 7-year 
contract and the dairy provisions.
  This bill ends the system of giving subsidies to farmers when market 
prices drop. Instead farmers sign a 7-year contract to get annual 
market transition payments regardless of market conditions. I support 
moving to a market oriented farm policy. However, I think it is wrong 
to pay farmers regardless of market conditions and I strongly oppose 
paying farmers when they do not plant a crop. In times when commodity 
prices are high, such as now, farmers will receive big checks they do 
not need, in bad years farmers will receive little or no support.
  I also oppose giving the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to 
implement the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. This provision allows 
six States more leeway in setting their own prices. I think we need to 
take a good look at our current system of dairy price supports and move 
dairy along with the other commodities into a realistic market oriented 
system.
  I support the conservation provisions put forward in this bill which 
emphasize land management options for farmers and livestock producers, 
not simply land retirement, to reduce the harmful environmental and 
economic impacts of agriculture activities. For example, the bill 
authorizes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] which 
combines the functions of several current conservation programs into 
one voluntary incentive and cost-share program for crop and livestock 
producers. I am pleased that the bill channels additional needed funds 
to rural development and agricultural research programs through the 
Fund for Rural America.
  I do not believe this bill is good public policy. I am concerned it 
will cost us more to phase into the new program than to maintain 
current law. And finally, I also feel that the Congress will be forced 
to return to this issue as soon as less favorable market conditions 
return for farmers.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my opposition to 
the 1996 farm bill. Although the conferees have worked hard on this 
legislation and have obtained many good things for rural America, 
overall the bill is a bad bill, it is bad policy, and it is bad for the 
small family farmer in South Carolina. With this bill, Congress isn't 
the goose that laid the golden egg. It's the goose that is laying the 
rotten egg. And like rotten eggs, this bill stinks.
  As I said, this farm bill does have some positive aspects. We 
establish the Fund for Rural America to infuse $300 million into 
research and rural development--something that South Carolina and other 
rural States can definitely use. We create a new Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program that will help smaller farms with conservation 
projects.
  We also reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program, a program which 
is extremely popular among farmers and which improves millions of 
highly erodible acres across the country. Finally, we reauthorize 
several nutrition programs for 7 years. I am disappointed that the 
conference committee chose to reauthorize food stamps for only 2 years, 
but I hope we will revisit this issue soon.
  Despite the few good portions in this farm bill, it remains bad farm 
policy. Here's how absurd the bill is. Instead of the current price 
support system in which we help farmers recover their losses with 
deficiency payments, this bill allows the Government to pay farmers in 
each of the next 7 years--regardless of whether they have a good or bad 
year, regardless of whether they plant anything at all or regardless of 
market prices. Do you know what that means to the budget? It means 
we'll

[[Page S3078]]

have to spend a lot more money than we currently spend on farm 
programs. It is estimated that this farm bill will cost the taxpayers 
an additional $4 billion over the next 2 years compared to current law. 
The current system works--why fix it? Current law provides that farmers 
do not receive Government subsidies in good years. But under this bill, 
we'll essentially give farmers a bonus in good years--like this year. 
That makes no sense to me in this environment of fiscal responsibility 
in which everybody and his brother is trying to find ways to save 
money.
  The small family farmer--especially the South Carolina farmer--comes 
under attack in this wrong-minded legislation. Through this bill, 
payments to farmers will decline over the next 7 years. But farming, 
like history, occurs in cycles. This bill doesn't take the cyclical 
nature of farming into account. Over the next 7 years, prices almost 
certainly will decrease from the high prices we now enjoy. But, at the 
end of this 7-year farm bill, prices likely will be low at the same 
time that payments are low. In other words, farmers who might be living 
high on the hog now will be scraping to make ends meet later on. I am 
worried that this will have catastrophic effects on the small farmer in 
my State and that many small farmers will have no choice but to harvest 
their fields for the last time.
  And that, in turn, could lead to the expansion of corporate farming. 
While I do believe there is a place for corporate farming, I don't 
believe that their successes should come at the detriment of small 
family farms. These folks, including many of my friends in Mullins, 
Dillon, Manning, Kingstree, Bamberg, Hampton, Orangeburg, and 
Charleston, have faithfully cultivated their land for many years. I 
believe they should be able to continue their profession, not be forced 
out of it by ill-conceived legislation. This bill is shortsighted. Down 
the road, it will hurt farmers.

  Mr. President, we should have passed a farm bill last year and farm 
policy should never have been considered as part of the budget package. 
The hour, however, is late. Farmers need to know where they stand for 
the coming crop year. For this reason, I understand that the Secretary 
of Agriculture has reluctantly recommended that the President sign this 
legislation, and that the President has agreed to sign it with serious 
hesitation. The President, however, also has indicated that he will 
continue to work with Democrats in the Congress to propose more farmer 
friendly legislation next year. I look forward to working with the 
President on this issue because, as sure as I stand here today, I 
guarantee that this farm bill won't be around for the 7 years it 
stipulates.
  The so-called freedom to farm concept has been flawed from the start. 
This piece of legislation, although it may have a different name, 
follows in the same disastrous direction. I refuse to turn my back on 
the family farmers of South Carolina and I believe it is wrong for us 
to pay money to farmers when they do not need it. As a result, I will 
vote against the farm bill this afternoon. I look forward to revisiting 
this issue again next year.
  I thank the chair.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, In many important ways, this farm bill is a 
good bill for Illinois. While it is not a perfect bill, I'm pleased to 
see that some of the most meaningful programs were protected. The bill 
offers farmers limited certainty in the area of income protection and 
provides a safety net for farmers in future years. In addition, it 
improves conservation efforts and reauthorizes important nutrition 
programs, as well as trade and research titles.
  Illinois is second only 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 
export, in terms of value, in U.S. agriculture.
  This bill raises the marketing loan rate for soybeans to 85 percent 
of an Olympic 5-year average, with a ceiling 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 here at home, which helps our trade 
balance.
  The bill also retains permanent law for farm programs. Agriculture 
policy should protect 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. Through the leadership of 
Senator Daschle, Democratic Members of the Senate were able to 
guarantee a safety net for farmers in year 7.
  I strongly object to language in the bill giving the Secretary of 
Agriculture authority to implement the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact and will work to see that it is not implemented. Dairy farmers 
in the Midwest cannot compete against this kind of regional price 
fixing. It is bad policy, legally questionable and the Senate voted to 
remove it from the Senate bill.
  In addition, we are making a big mistake authorizing the safe meat 
and poultry inspection panel. The role of the panel is to delay 
implementation of proposed meat inspection regulations. We need to 
modernize our meat and poultry inspection system and speed up efforts 
to implement the proposed hazard analysis and critical control point 
system, not set up road blocks to improving the system. Meat and 
poultry inspection is a human health issue. At a time when the world is 
facing serious food safety problems, such as the British beef crisis, 
the rejection of United States poultry imports to Russia due to 
Salmonella contamination and the E. coli disaster in the United States, 
it is simply irresponsible and shortsighted to be stalling efforts to 
improve the system. I will work with my Democratic colleagues to 
prevent funds from being appropriated for the panel.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will vote against the farm bill 
conference report. I believe that the farm bill, in its present form, 
goes against the true purpose of a farm bill--to help America's 
farmers. While I support the reauthorization of the Conservation 
Reserve Program and other conservation and nutrition programs, I do not 
believe this bill is in Maryland's interests.
  I realize that spring planting is fast approaching, but that is no 
reason to be forced into accepting a bill that will hurt Maryland 
farmers and the Maryland industries that depend on our farmers. This 
bill does just that.
  I believe that the Freedom to Farm Act, included in this bill, will 
have harmful long-term effects on the family farmer in Maryland. This 
bill puts the family farm up for sale. The bill does not provide a 
strong enough safety net for farmers. Setting a flat subsidy rate, then 
removing it in 7 years, without allowing flexibility during extreme 
economic conditions or natural disasters, is dangerous for farmers in 
Maryland and across the country. Under this conference agreement, 
producers will be paid even when prices are high, but will not receive 
necessary protection when prices are low.
  I am particularly concerned that this bill continues and expands the 
Sugar Price Support Program to the detriment of cane refiners such as 
Domino in my hometown of Baltimore. This sugar program jeopardizes the 
future of the cane refining industry. It provides additional protection 
to domestic growers that would increase the price of raw cane sugar and 
put Domino and its 600 employees out of business. This is totally 
unacceptable. Sugar cane refining is one of the few manufacturing 
industries still left in our inner cities. The farm bill conference 
report threatens Domino's future. I see no reason why a farm bill must 
threaten an entire industry.
  Also of deep concern to me is the fact that this bill reauthorizes 
the Food Stamp Program for only 2 years. What happens to Maryland's 
poor after that? To add insult to injury, while it provides a helping 
hand to the most impoverished in our communities for only 2 years, this 
bill guarantees corporate welfare to huge agribusiness for 7 years.
  During this Congress, we have debated the issue of a balanced budget. 
We need a balanced budget, and I regret that we have not succeeded this 
year in finding consensus and the sensible center on a plan to 
eliminate the deficit. This bill will make this task even more 
difficult. Originally designed to save billions of dollars, this 
conference report will end up costing

[[Page S3079]]

the American people an extra $1.3 billion.
  It is for these reasons that I must vote against the farm bill. I 
acknowledge that this bill will likely pass and be signed into law by 
the President. But I also believe that the flaws in this conference 
report are so severe that Congress will need to revisit these issues 
next year. I hope at that time we will be able to produce a workable 
farm bill, one that addresses the best interests of farmers, business, 
and families.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to compliment my friend from 
Indiana, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and all of my 
colleagues involved in the farm bill debate for their hard work in 
crafting legislation which reforms our Nation's agriculture policies. 
The conference report on the Federal Agricultural Improvement and 
Reform Act represents a long-term plan to get the Government out of the 
farming business--an idea I strongly support. The final agreement 
offers farmers flexibility, simplicity, certainty, opportunity and 
growth and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
  Under the provisions of this bill, farmers will have the flexibility 
to plant the crop or crops that best suit their climate, conditions and 
market opportunities. 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.
  Current agriculture programs will be simplified by allowing farmers 
to enter into 7-year contracts. After the initial sign-up, many farmers 
will never need to visit USDA again. I strongly support provisions in 
the bill which eliminate the countless rules and costly regulations 
that accompany today's farm programs.
  The conference agreement provides certainty to farmers by ensuring 
they will know all program parameters and payment rates for the next 7 
years. Under current programs, payment rates often change after program 
sign-up and payments in future years are unknown. A fixed stream of 
payments bolsters confidence in farm lending and all areas of farm 
business decisions.
  I believe in the opportunity this legislation provides to farmers. 
Decades-old planting patterns that limit profits are eliminated and 
replaced with flexibility and fixed market transition payments. Farm 
income will grow as farmers are no longer limited to planting stagnant, 
low-value, market crops.
  With respect to haying and grazing provisions included in the 
conference agreement, I want to thank both the House and Senate 
Committees for their commitment to allowing farmers to hay and graze 
their lands. I was involved in amending the original bill, which 
restricted haying and grazing, and I thank my colleagues for their 
continued interest in providing the utmost flexibility to those who 
earn their living in agriculture.
  Finally, as many of you know, Oklahoma and other Western States have 
suffered a severe drought during the past 6 months. Farmers tell me 
that if Congress doesn't enact this farm bill many will be forced out 
of business. Frankly, I do not want to see that happen.
  Congress has a responsibility to farmers in Oklahoma and every other 
agricultural State to enact a farm bill this week. I support the 
conference report before the Senate and urge my colleagues to vote for 
its adoption.


             applicability of the congressional review act

  Mr. LUGAR. I would ask the sponsor of the just-passed Congressional 
Review Act of 1996, the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, whether the 
bill, if signed by the President this week, will apply to the 
Department of Agriculture's rules that will be promulgated under the 
Agricultural Reform and Improvement Act.
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes, I will inform the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee that all Federal agency rules will be subject to 
congressional review upon enactment of the Congressional Review Act.
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma if the Department of 
Agriculture were to issue major rules under the Agricultural Reform and 
Improvement Act, that is rules that would have a large economic impact 
on the agricultural community might be held up for 60 calendar days by 
the Congressional Review Act?
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes, my colleague is correct. If any Federal agency 
issues what the Congressional Review Act defines as ``major'' rules, 
those rules would not be allowed to go into effect for at least 60 
calendar days. However, I advise my colleague that the President, by 
Executive order, may declare a health, safety, or other emergency, and 
that particular major rule would be exempt from the 60-day delay. I 
would add, that the President's determination of whether there is an 
emergency is not subject to judicial review.
  Mr. LUGAR. As the Senator from Oklahoma may know, we in the 
conference on H.R. 2854 did not contemplate such prompt enactment of 
the congressional review bill. I would inform the chairman that H.R. 
2854 requires that the Secretary of Agriculture, within 45 days of 
enactment, offer market transition contracts available to eligible 
producers. These contracts must not be further delayed, or they will 
not be effective for the 1996 planting season. Moreover, these 
contracts are worth billions of dollars, and are certainly going to 
qualify as major rules under the Congressional Review Act. Would the 
chairman agree that these major rules are the type that are 
contemplated by his committee as qualifying for the emergency exception 
available to the President?
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes, I agree with the chairman of the committee that the 
other emergency exception from the 60-day delay of major rules was 
included for this kind of circumstance. Certainly, it would be totally 
appropriate for the President to determine by Executive order that the 
market transition contract rules promulgated this spring under the 
Agricultural Reform and Improvement Act are emergency rules that would 
not be subject to the automatic 60-day delay.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator for that clarification.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the 
conference report on the farm bill. I had hoped that the conference 
would produce a bill that would be more fiscally responsible than 
either its House or Senate predecessors. However, I regret that in my 
view it does not achieve that fiscal reform. I voted against final 
passage of the Senate's farm bill, S. 1541, when the Senate acted on it 
last month because, while it was improved considerably in some key 
respects from the bill that the Republican leadership originally 
introduced, ultimately, it was not the reform package that I believe 
our Nation needed and had the right to expect. Unfortunately, neither 
does this conference report provide the improvements that would be 
needed to secure my support.
  I understand that the President, with some reservation, is expected 
to sign into law the conference report now before us. I know that 
farmers, as they head into the spring planting season, need to know the 
conditions under which they must operate. And I acknowledge that this 
bill is probably the best package that could be expected to emerge from 
a conference with the House in the contentious, partisan environment 
which pervades Capitol Hill. Indeed, the conference package is far 
better than the House bill, which, in fact, was not complete 
legislation because it did not reauthorize important conservation and 
nutrition programs that have traditionally been addressed in omnibus 
farm legislation.
  It is imperative that I congratulate and sincerely compliment the 
Senators who worked diligently to secure an agreement at least as good 
as the one before us today. Agriculture Committee Ranking Democrat Pat 
Leahy deserves our commendation for his successful struggle to insist 
that adequate conservation and nutrition provisions be included. 
Chairman Lugar again on this bill demonstrated his well-known and 
respected ability to place the Nation's interests as his first 
objective instead of partisan scoring and ideological rigidity. The way 
in which Senators Lugar and Leahy worked together in pursuit of 
responsible legislation that could pass both houses and receive the 
President's signature is a model that others in this body would do well 
to emulate.
  I compliment Senator Leahy, also, for his instrumental role in 
including in this conference agreement a provision important to me and 
my New England colleagues allowing the Northeast

[[Page S3080]]

Interstate Dairy Compact to go into effect upon the approval of the 
Secretary of Agriculture. As a cosponsor of the compact legislation, I 
am very pleased that it will be included in a bill that apparently will 
become law.
  This conference agreement includes important rural development 
programs that are important to farmers in my State of Massachusetts as 
well as to farmers across the country. The bill retains new development 
initiatives such as the multimillion-dollar Fund for Rural America and 
the new structure for delivery for rural development programs, the 
Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP]. RCAP provides important 
flexibility to States to allow them to develop innovative approaches to 
their unique rural development problems by permitting each State 
director to tailor assistance to local needs. This is a vast 
improvement over the previous Republican proposal for block grants to 
the States.
  But on the central question of the way it deals with farm incomes, I 
reluctantly must conclude this conference report fails to make the 
grade. While it eliminates the current price support structure for many 
commodities programs, it replaces it with an extremely costly fixed 
direct payment to farmers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 
that for the first 2 years under this new proposal--fiscal years 1996 
and 1997--the Treasury will pay out $5 billion more to farmers than 
would be paid under a continuation of the current price support 
programs.
  While some claim that this 7-year direct payment program is necessary 
to wean farmers off Federal support, that argument is significantly 
weakened by the provision in the bill that retains the outdated 1949 
Agricultural Act as the permanent law governing Federal commodity 
programs. According to the United States 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 remain convinced that we need a new approach to farm policy. We 
need to transition to a situation where we permit the free market to 
function with much less interference, regardless of how well-
intentioned it may be. When this issue first came before the Senate, I 
supported cloture on the Leahy-Dole reform package--although it was far 
from ideal in my mind--because it would have replaced the 1949 statute 
and the financial support provided by the current price support 
programs with a 7-year phase-out plan. Also, importantly, that package 
would have reauthorized critical conservation and nutrition programs, 
including food stamps, through 2002. The conference agreement 
reauthorizes food stamps for only 2 years.
  Today we must vote yes or no on the conference package in its 
entirety. While it contains many important and acceptable nutrition, 
conservation and rural development provisions, it falls well short of 
the kind of bill we ought to be passing. While I accept the explanation 
of Senators Lugar and Leahy that this is the best bill they could get 
their House counterparts to approve, it falls too far short of what our 
Nation needs and there will be too little to show for too great an 
expenditure of tax dollars for me to be able to vote affirmatively.
  Mr. President, for these reasons, I will cast my vote in opposition 
to this conference report.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this Farm Bill Conference Report 
represents a bold new direction for the future of this Nation's 
agricultural policy. A direction I do not support. The removal of the 
safety net for our farmers will prove itself to be a mistake, I think. 
Undermining the safety net is easy now since prices are relatively 
high, but when prices drop, and we all know they will, I fear this farm 
bill may come back to haunt us. In fact, it may well come back 
regardless of prices. It may come back because of the so-called market-
transition payments: guaranteed payments to farmers regardless of 
market conditions or production. I am truly afraid that the American 
public will not view these payments as a safety net to maintain a safe 
and stable food supply. They will view the payments as a give-away. 
Those of us who understand the importance of farm programs know better 
than to undermine farm support structures in this way. That is why we 
think the payments should continue to be tied to production and the 
marketplace.
  Many have expressed the sentiment that after the 7 years of Freedom 
to Farm, we will continue to maintain some kind of farm program. While 
the preservation of permanent agricultural law in the conference report 
provides some assurance that this will be the case, I am not so 
confident. The proponents of ``Freedom to Farm'' have made it 
explicitly clear that they view the market transition payments as a 
transition to nothing. Moreover, I am also concerned that public outcry 
over these direct payments will force us to revisit the farm bill 
sooner than 7 years. If this occurs, I am not at all convinced that 
Congress will seek to rectify the situation by reinstating a more 
traditional safety net, they may well decide just to end the payments, 
period.
  Which just goes to the point: we had the opportunity to appropriately 
address national agricultural policy and we failed. Instead, we chose 
to let budget priorities drive farm policy. By putting forward policies 
that could not even make it out of committee, we undermined the process 
and the result is far from satisfactory. Congress has let our farmers 
down. The farm bill has traditionally been bipartisan with considerable 
time provided for debate and discussion. Congress sought to provide all 
parties a chance to provide their input. That tradition has ended with 
this bill. Take the dairy provisions for example. There is still a 
considerable amount of disagreement over these provisions, a compromise 
has not been achieved.
  Despite all this, our farmers do need certainty for the 1996 season. 
I spoke with the wheat growers in my State of Washington yesterday. 
While they share many of my concerns with this farm bill, they told me 
they need something for this season. It would be unfair to hold the 
farmers of America hostage to our disagreements. While in the long 
term, I have serious concerns about the future of our farms under this 
bill, in the short term, they need to know what to plant for. I 
therefore will support this conference report, with serious 
reservations, in order for my farmers to have the certainty they need 
this season. I am committed to protecting the ability of our farmers to 
continue producing a safe and stable food supply for this Nation and 
the world. I will be watching the impacts of ``Freedom to Farm'' on our 
Nation's farms closely as the program, or lack of program, moves 
forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on the procedure we have, we have been 
going back and forth. I know the distinguished Senator from Iowa was 
seeking recognition.
  I yield, from the time of the Democratic leader, time to the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there are really two parts to this farm 
bill. One component was in general put together in a very bipartisan 
and cooperative manner. That process has produced a number of sound 
provisions that deserve broad support.
  There are many good features in the titles of this bill dealing with 
conservation, for example, the continuation of the Conservation Reserve 
Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program and improvements in the wetlands conservation rules. 
The wetlands rules are something that has concerned me greatly. They 
have been very confusing and frustrating to many farmers in Iowa, but 
there some positive changes in this bill that should make wetlands 
conservation rules more reasonable and workable for farmers.
  One of the wetlands changes involves farmland that has been converted 
in the past and drainage tiles have been put in, but for one reason or 
another, such as tile plugging up, the land has returned to wetland 
again. Farmers in this situation have had problems with the rules in 
trying to reopen their drainage systems. This bill will allow farmers 
to go in and unplug their tiles and go ahead and drain those fields, if 
they have already been previously converted. That is very important.
  This bill also provides that farmers can take a wet spot, a small 
spot in the

[[Page S3081]]

field, and go ahead and convert it and farm it if they mitigate the 
loss through improving, restoring or creating wetlands in the area. 
Sometimes that is the best thing to do, because there may be a better 
area for a wetland than where it is existing right now in the middle of 
a field. And the bill also calls for clarifying the rules on the types 
of wetlands that are so insignificant that they are not subject to 
wetlands rules. So these are very good changes for our farmers.
  Although there are a number of positive features in the bill, there 
is one aspect of the bill that outweighs everything else, and for that 
reason I cannot support this farm bill. I am speaking about the 
commodity program provisions in this bill. They are the most 
substantial part of the bill: $35.6 billion in direct payments alone. 
Commodity programs involve by far the largest amount of Federal 
agricultural outlays, and they will have, naturally, the largest effect 
on the agricultural economy of my State of Iowa. So, if the commodity 
programs in the farm bill will not be good for the farm families in my 
State, I simply cannot support the bill. Regrettably, that is the case 
with this bill.
  It is true it is late in the season. This farm bill is at least 6 
months late--more like 9 months late. Farmers, at least in my area, are 
starting in their fields. They are wondering why the leadership of this 
Congress could not get its work done to pass the farm bill on time. I 
will not be forced into voting for a farm bill simply because the 
Republicans could not get their act together and get it done last year.
  I have here the Congressional Record from July 26, 1990. I was here. 
I was working on the farm bill at that time, the 1990 farm bill to take 
effect with the 1991 crop. Here is what the minority leader, Senator 
Dole, said at that time, July 1990:

       Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching the August 
     recess, and back in my home State of Kansas farmers are 
     preparing for the seeding of the winter wheat crop. Even as 
     they reflect upon the record Kansas wheat crop recently 
     harvested, uncertainty lies ahead. That is because Congress 
     again has been unable to finish the farm bill in a timely 
     manner so that producers of fall crops will know their 
     program in advance.

  Here is the Senator from Kansas, Senator Dole, complaining in July 
1990, that we do not have the farm bill done in July 1990 to cover 1991 
crops. Here it is March 1996 and we do not have the 1995 farm bill done 
to cover 1996 crops.
  Again, it was the other side that was in charge. We could have had a 
farm bill out here on the floor last fall. We passed commodity 
provisions out of our committee last September. We could have had a 
farm bill on the floor in October or November or December. We sat here 
and twiddled our thumbs, waiting to try to get some kind of budget deal 
that was never agreed upon. We could have had the farm bill done at 
that time, but the leadership did not bring it up. So now we have a gun 
held to our heads, saying we have to pass it now, it is awfully late. I 
do not like to operate in that atmosphere, and I will not vote for it 
on that basis--just on that basis.
  I cannot support the bill because it sets up a farm program with 
payments that have no relationship to commodity prices, crop 
production, or farm income levels. This bill has it exactly backward. 
It will provide far less protection against low farm income than 
previous farm bills. But then it turns around and makes substantial 
payments to farmers in good times, when there are good prices and high 
incomes. What this is going to mean is it will hurt agriculture's image 
and undermine support for any sound farm policy in the future.
  A sound farm policy is one that promotes good farm income from the 
market, but helps farm families survive circumstances beyond their 
control, when the market goes down or they have a disaster. The farmers 
I know want to farm for the market and not the mailbox. This bill says 
no matter what the market does, no matter how good your income, you are 
going to get a check in that mailbox. Most farmers I know do not want 
to farm like that.
  I want to make it clear that I want reform in farm programs with full 
planning flexibility, less paperwork, less redtape, less hassle. We can 
do that. There was general agreement on both sides of the aisle, in a 
bipartisan fashion, to make those reforms. We can provide that planting 
flexibility without adopting the payment scheme in this bill that will 
send checks to farmers, even when they have a good income from the 
market.
  I want farm programs that work better for farmers, but this bill goes 
far beyond reasonable reforms to destroy the farm income safety net. It 
is absolutely unnecessary to take the radical approach in this bill in 
order to achieve the commonsense reforms that farmers have told me they 
want.
  The proponents of this farm bill are not really telling farmers the 
whole story. The payments may look good now, but if commodity prices 
and farm incomes fall--and past cycles in the farm economy show how 
quickly and devastatingly that can happen--this bill sets farmers up 
for a big fall. By the time we get to the later years in this farm 
bill, the maximum payment for corn is about 28 cents a bushel--no 
matter how low the price may fall, 28 cents a bushel.
  Have no doubt about it, what this bill does is it shifts risk. It is 
a tremendous shift of risk onto farmers. They are being told to produce 
all they can so that grain companies will have plenty of grain to 
trade, but if surpluses and low prices develop, as they most certainly 
have many times before, it will be the farmers who get the short end of 
the stick.
  They will have much less help in working out of that low-price 
situation than we have had in the past. There will be no farmer owned 
reserve, for example, because this bill specifically takes it out, and 
the bill also raises the CCC interest rate by a full percentage point 
above the cost of money to CCC. I offered amendments here on the Senate 
floor to put the farmer owned reserve back in and take out the CCC 
interest rate hike. Only two Republican Senators voted for those 
amendments and neither was approved.
  To see how the farm income safety net is slashed in this bill, let us 
take, for example, an Iowa farmer with a 350-acre corn base. If the 
price of corn, let us say, is $1.90 in 2002, that farm will have about 
$23,000 less income protection under this bill than it would have under 
the 1990 farm bill. That is because this bill will not respond to low 
prices.
  I suppose some of you might say, ``Well, $1.90 a bushel, we won't get 
to that price.'' I have been around long enough to remember when Earl 
Butz in the 1970's said that American farmers should plant ``fence row 
to fence row'' to meet burgeoning world demand for U.S. agricultural 
exports. In my State of Iowa, we plowed up a very large share of the 
hills in southern Iowa, planted soybeans and planted corn. I tell you, 
we had a ride. There was a boom. Farmers had a good ride and a lot of 
them went deeply into debt. Why shouldn't they? There was supposed to 
be no end to it. Land prices skyrocketed. A lot of big new tractors and 
combines were bought. Many young farmers, in particular, took on a lot 
of debt to get started or to expand. Then in a few short years the 
crash came and out went the young farmers. We had a devastating time in 
the 1980's. I am very concerned this bill is setting farmers up for 
that same kind of situation again, because it does not have enough 
protection against low prices and farm incomes.
  This bill also imposes a new cap on loan rates for wheat and feed 
grains, which is another weakening of the farm income safety net. The 
loan rate for corn cannot go above $1.89 a bushel, but it can go below 
$1.89. I offered an amendment in conference, backed by the National 
Corn Growers and the National Association of Wheat Growers, to lift the 
cap on loan rates for wheat and feed grains, but, again, I could not 
get one vote from the Republican side of the aisle.
  To illustrate the lack of farm income protection in this bill, I did 
some rough calculations and determined that if this bill had been in 
effect in Iowa for the last 5 years of the 1980's, Iowa's farm families 
would have had about $2 billion less in farm income than they had under 
the farm bill in effect at that time. That would have been devastating 
for Iowa's farm families and rural communities. That kind of situation 
could develop again, and if it does this bill will be woefully 
inadequate.
  I am convinced this bill will hasten the trend to larger farms and 
the decline of the family farm. The largest

[[Page S3082]]

share of these contract payments will go to the larger farms, and there 
will be much less income protection for the smaller farms against low 
prices and incomes. Do not take my word. Here is an article that 
appeared in the March 24, 1996 Sunday New York Times:

       The new approach, called Freedom to Farm by its supporters, 
     would accelerate the ongoing consolidation of smaller less 
     profitable farms into larger, more efficient corporate farms. 
     That has serious implications, not only for the face of 
     farming in America but also for the livelihoods of rural 
     communities.

  That is from the New York Times. I might also point out, Mr. 
President, that the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall 
Street Journal have all editorially endorsed this so-called freedom-to-
farm type of program. I tell farmers in Iowa, any time the New York 
Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post all editorially 
endorse a farm program, I get worried, I get really worried.
  Let us talk about fiscal responsibility. Here we are trying to reduce 
the deficit. We want to get a balanced budget. I support that. We ought 
to be as tight as we possibly can with taxpayers' dollars. If someone 
needs help, yes, that is when you come in with some assistance. But if 
you do not need help, why spend taxpayers' dollars?
  This bill will spend $35.6 billion on direct payments to farmers, 
even if prices are high and farm incomes are high. Those payments, made 
whether they are needed or not, hold huge potential for embarrassing 
farmers and those who support sound farm policy. We should save that 
money for farmers when and if they need it.
  Going back to the example of the Iowa farm with the 350-acre corn 
base, that farmer would get a payment of about $13,000 in 1997, even if 
corn is $3 a bushel and yields are good. No matter what that farmer 
makes from the market, the Government will send out a check for 
$13,000. I just do not see how that is fiscally responsible when we are 
trying to balance the Federal budget.
  Here is another example: a large Kansas wheat and grain sorghum farm, 
with 1,800 acres of wheat and 600 acres of grain sorghum. Let us assume 
wheat is selling for $5 and grain sorghum for $3 in 1998. That farm 
would have a net income of about $195,000 after costs. That is net farm 
income. On top of that, Uncle Sam will write a check to that farmer for 
just under $40,000. Furthermore, if a farmer arranges his or her 
business carefully to take full advantage of the programs and maneuver 
around the payment limitation, that one individual farmer could receive 
as much as $80,000 in a year in direct cash payments from Uncle Sam, 
even if the farmer makes a net income of over $195,000, as in the 
example, or more. That money will be paid out regardless of how much 
money that farmer makes in the market.
  I want someone to explain to me why the taxpayers--especially 
taxpayers living in rural communities across this Nation trying to make 
ends meet in small businesses or working at low wages--should be asked 
to pay for a farm program that makes sizable payments to farmers, even 
if they are making a good income from the market?
  Where is the fairness in a system of income transfers from taxpayers 
who are struggling to make a living if that money will be spent in 
providing payments to other people when they do not need the help?
  And the impact of this bill on taxpayers could be substantial. The 
Congressional Budget Office has estimated this bill will send out over 
$5 billion more in direct farm payments during fiscal 1996 and 1997 
than would be the case under the 1990 farm bill. USDA estimates that 
this bill will result in direct income support payments of about $25 
billion more over the 7-year period than would have been the case if we 
had just continued the 1990 farm bill.
  Mr. President, here is the conference report on the farm bill. I know 
not too many people read these documents. I just want to read one 
sentence out of section 113. It is titled ``Section 113. Amounts 
Available for Contract Payments,'' and it spells out for every fiscal 
year how much money would be available. It amounts to about $35.6 
billion. But listen to this:

       The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     expend the following amounts to satisfy the obligations of 
     the Secretary under all contracts.

  ``The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable'' make these 
payments. Wait a minute. I thought we were trying to save money for the 
taxpayers. I thought we were trying to reduce the deficit and balance 
the budget. Here is a bill that says USDA has to pay it out no matter 
what happens, no matter how much money farmers make; to the maximum 
extent practicable, it has to make those payments.
  I would like someone to show me one other bill passed by this Senate 
or House that says, for example, that the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services has to pay out, to the maximum extent practicable, a sum of 
money for welfare payments. Or let me see a bill stating that the 
Secretary of Education has to pay out, to the maximum extent 
practicable, money for title I. I do not believe you will find such a 
provision anywhere.
  I certainly have never seen anything like this in an agriculture bill 
in all the time I have been here. I just do not see how anyone who 
claims to be a conservative can be in favor of mandating that the 
Secretary shall make the maximum payments possible no matter what 
commodity prices or farm incomes are.
  I offered an amendment on this very point. My amendment said that 
payments under this bill could not be any higher than they would have 
been under the 1990 farm bill, except in the case of a farmer with a 
disaster loss. Farmers with disaster losses would receive the whole 
contract payment. Any money saved in a fiscal year through my amendment 
would be rolled over and reserved for payments to farmers in later 
years when they may have a greater need for them.

  Here is an article from the front page of the Iowa Farm Bureau 
Spokesman dated November 18, 1995, quoting Dean Kleckner, the president 
of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Mr. Kleckner is not a member of 
my political party, and we have disagreed on issues in the past. But 
here he is, quoted just a few months ago, expressing opposition to the 
payment mechanism that is in this bill, just as I have:

       ``In order to provide a long-term safety net, the 
     conference committee should develop a program that maintains 
     a price-payment linkage and allows budgeted funds not 
     expended in years of high prices to be available in years 
     when farm income is low,'' the Rudd, Ia., farmer said in a 
     letter to House and Senate budget conferees last week.
       ``Failure to resolve this issue will render farm programs 
     either an ineffective income support mechanism or subject 
     them to being an irresistible political target,'' Kleckner 
     said.

  Mr. President, I offered an amendment in the conference committee to 
do just that. It would have kept the money in reserve in times of high 
prices; USDA would not have paid out any more than under the 1990 farm 
bill unless the farmer had a disaster. Any money that was not paid out 
would have been rolled over for use in making payments in future years 
when the need may be greater because of lower prices or disaster 
losses. Again, my amendment was rejected along strict party lines. 
Every Republican voted against it.
  Some people get pretty edgy and touchy when they hear it said that 
this farm bill makes farmers vulnerable to criticism that they are 
receiving welfare payments. If this bill becomes law, I can only say, 
get used to it; get used to it. The national press, who have never been 
friendly to agriculture, will have plenty of new material. There will 
be television stories and the same editorial writers at the New York 
Times, the Washington Post, and others will go to work. You mark my 
words. There will be editorials about USDA making large payments to 
large farmers no matter how much money they are making from the market.
  The editorial writers do not understand what is going on in 
agriculture anyway, but what I am concerned about is the damage this 
bill threatens to do to the public's image of farmers and of 
agriculture programs. Farmers do not want to be perceived as receiving 
something for nothing, regardless of whether they need it. I do not 
believe farmers receive welfare, or that farm programs are welfare. 
Farmers work very hard for their money. They are proud people. They 
want to get their income from the market and not

[[Page S3083]]

from the mailbox. There is real potential for this bill to contribute 
to an impression among the public that farm programs are welfare.
  What I am saying is that I firmly believe and most sincerely believe 
that those who support this program are doing a great disservice to 
farmers because it sets up farmers for this kind of attack, that they 
are receiving welfare, getting payments even though they are making 
good money from the marketplace. It is setting up farmers, I think, for 
a big fall.
  Not only are farmers going to have a greatly reduced farm income 
safety net under this bill, they are also likely to suffer damage to 
their public image because of the payment scheme in this bill. We 
should not pass a bill that gives critics of farmers and sound farm 
policies more ammunition to fire away in the national press. It can 
only be damaging to hard-working farmers in Iowa and across our land. 
It is hard enough sometimes to explain to our urban counterparts why we 
need a decent farm policy, without having to overcome the image created 
by this bill.
  Mr. President, farm programs should be there as a safety net to 
provide adequate protection when times are hard, not to pay out over 
$35 billion to the maximum extent practicable even when commodity 
prices and farm incomes are high. This bill slashes the farm income 
safety net, and it is not fiscally responsible. For those reasons, I 
cannot in good faith support this farm bill. I hope we can come back 
next year, perhaps, and readjust this bill so that we will have enough 
money available for farm programs in the years when it is really 
needed.
  I hope and pray this radical so-called freedom-to-farm approach will 
not devastate our farm families. I am very concerned that the payments 
made in the next year or so will create a political liability. When we 
do have a downturn in the farm economy and there is a real need for an 
adequate farm income safety net, the political capital required to pass 
the necessary legislation will have been used up. Those of us who care 
very deeply about family farms and about rural America will not be able 
to get anything through here to help them through their tough times.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, I cannot support this farm bill. I 
see the train is on the track expect this bill will pass. I understand 
the President has indicated he will sign it reluctantly. I must say, in 
all candor, I am disappointed that the President did not rely upon his 
authority under the existing law to carry out a decent farm program and 
avoid being cornered into signing a bill as objectionable as this one. 
Farmers should not be in the position of having an entirely new farm 
bill enacted at this late date. We should not have been in a position 
of writing a farm bill with a gun held to our head, instead of working 
together in a bipartisan fashion to hammer out a really good, sensible 
farm bill for farmers. I am just sorry the President did not use his 
authority to avoid this situation. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished Senator 
from Iowa for his excellent statement. I do not know that anyone could 
say it any better. He has capsulized very well what many of us feel 
about this legislation. He has been in the trenches and has fought the 
fight and has led the effort in many cases. I applaud him for his 
statement and for the contribution he has made to this debate again 
this morning.
  As I consider the contributions made by many of our colleagues, let 
me also call attention to the fact that this is the last farm bill that 
the Senator from Alabama, Senator Heflin, and the Senator from 
Arkansas, Senator Pryor, will probably be involved in. Over the years 
they have been remarkable advocates of sound farm policy and leaders in 
their own right in so many ways. The people of Alabama and the people 
of Arkansas could do no better than to have the representation that 
they have had in Senators Heflin and Pryor. They will certainly be 
missed as we consider farm legislation in the future.
  Let me commend as well our distinguished ranking member and the 
chairman for their work in bringing us to this point. We may not agree 
entirely on many of the issues involved in farm policy or ultimately on 
what we should do with this legislation, but no two people have worked 
harder and in a more bipartisan manner to bring us what we have been 
able to achieve today. So I again publicly thank them for their 
leadership.
  As I said last night, Mr. President, this bill is long overdue. I do 
not have an explanation as to why, as late as it is, we are dealing 
with the 1995 farm bill in 1996, but we do know this, we know that 
farmers need certainty. We do know that it is too late to start over. 
We know that the winter crop will soon be harvested. We know that 
southern crops are already in the ground. We know that midwestern 
farmers are ready to begin planting.
  In fact, just recently a farmer from Volga, SD, called me from a 
supply store trying to decide what kind of seed to buy for spring 
planting because the seed was going to be determined in part by what 
the ground rules are for the farm bill. How much planting time he had 
available to him, what the planting year was going to be like was going 
to be determined by what we decided. He simply said, ``We can't wait 
any longer. Get it done. Get it done.''
  So we are here with that realization. We know we need to get it done. 
We received hundreds of calls to do something, to provide certainty, to 
take what we can now and to fix the rest later. That is exactly what we 
are doing. I do not know what the farm programs eventually will be, but 
I do know this, that the time for action is long overdue. I know and 
farmers know that we cannot wait any longer.
  As a result, the President is going to be forced to sign this 
legislation, forced to sign a bad bill because of a late date. He 
shares our concern about the safety net and the decoupling in this 
legislation. But with our ranking member and with others, we intend to 
fight another day, to come back, to do even more to ensure that farmers 
will have the kind of certainty, the kind of assurances that they have 
had in past farm legislation.
  There are some good provisions in this bill. No one should be misled 
in that regard. The continuation of the Conservation Reserve Program is 
a good thing. The incorporation of many of the conservation programs 
and the adequate funding for those programs is a good thing and would 
not have happened without the effort made by the ranking member.
  The Fund for Rural America is a good thing. That it guarantees 
spending on rural development and research, that it addresses the needs 
of rural America, especially in creating new value-added markets all 
over the country, is a good thing. We provide assistance for value-
added processing facilities through the Fund for Rural America. I must 
tell you, it is one of the best features of this farm legislation.
  The increased flexibility for some producers also is a good thing. 
Simplification is a good thing. Perhaps most importantly of all, the 
guarantee that we will have permanent law, with the expiration of this 
legislation, is perhaps the most important thing of all. Ensuring that 
permanent law will be there, regardless of circumstances, regardless of 
our inability to find some consensus about what to do after this 
legislation expires, in my view, is perhaps the best thing.
  In spite of all of that, and that does represent a significant amount 
of bipartisan consensus, there are at least six serious flaws, Mr. 
President, that in my view, bring me to the same conclusion that the 
Senator from Iowa has just expressed. I cannot support this bill in 
large measure because, simply, it fails to provide the safety net that 
we believe is so essential in any piece of farm legislation.
  Loan rates are capped in this bill. They can go down. They can never 
go up. The farmer owned reserve is eliminated. There is no possibility 
for farmers to truly have the freedom to farm if they do not have the 
freedom of access to the tools necessary to farm. The farmer owned 
reserve is one of the best tools farmers ever had. It is no longer 
there. It is not freedom to farm when you take the tools, financially 
and otherwise, away from the same farmers that ostensibly have such 
freedom today. The Emergency Livestock Feed Program is gone, another 
tool that undermines a real opportunity to provide

[[Page S3084]]

the freedom that we all say we want for farmers today.
  Not long ago, three South Dakota farmers met with the President. If 
they expressed anything in the short time they had with the President 
of the United States, it was this: ``Mr. President, we need that safety 
net. Mr. President, we know we will face national disasters. We will 
face natural calamities in South Dakota and throughout the Midwest, and 
for that matter in all parts of the country that will require we have a 
safety net, an insurance program. Do not be a part of taking that 
away.''
  The second and perhaps equally as significant a problem I see with 
this bill is it pays producers, regardless of price. It requires 
guaranteed payments, as the Senator from Iowa has indicated today, 
probably in an unprecedented fashion. It requires the Government to pay 
producers, regardless of their circumstances. As the Senator so ably 
said, where else in law today are people required to get a payment, 
regardless of need, regardless of circumstance? I must say, Mr. 
President, of all the things in this bill, that is the one that 
troubles me the most.
  Third, while we do have some degree of flexibility, some degree of 
new-found simplicity in this legislation, no one should be misled about 
the fact that there are some who have less flexibility. Vegetable 
producers are treated differently than grain producers. A potato 
producer in South Dakota is not given the freedom to farm, is not given 
the flexibility he may need to be able to compete effectively in the 
marketplace. Why? Because we are protecting other potato producers in 
other areas of the country.
  That kind of freedom to farm is not articulated very well by 
proponents of this bill. Instead of getting signals from the market, 
some producers are receiving stronger signals from the Government for 
certain products, such as potatoes.
  Fourth, the research program, in my view, Mr. President, is one of 
the greatest concerns as I look to the long-term future of farm 
legislation. What happens in 2 years to research? How do we assure 
those who are involved in research today in our colleges and 
universities across this country, in agricultural clinics and 
laboratories all over the country, what we are going to do with regard 
to basic and applied research 2 years from now? We do not have the 
luxury of turning the spigot on and off. We do not have the luxury of 
telling a researcher out there, ``Go ahead and do it, but we cannot 
give you any guarantees 2 years from now you will have any assurance 
that money will continue.'' What kind of a vote of confidence is this? 
Researchers want to know that when it comes to new production or new 
markets, we are going to stand, ready in partnership, with research to 
make sure that agriculture continues to be what it is today.

  Mr. President, I am also concerned about the deficit consequences of 
this legislation. No one denies this bill increases the deficit in the 
first 2 years by more than $4 billion. In rooms just down the hall we 
are trying to figure out how to cut billions of dollars from education, 
the environment, national service, programs that directly affect people 
in virtually every walk of life. We are cutting billions there and 
adding billions on the floor as we speak--$4 billion in the next 2 
years, largely in payments given to farmers who will tell you privately 
this is not the year they need them. You do not need farm payments when 
prices are as high as they are in grain today, but we are going to 
provide them. We are going to mandate them. We are going to tell 
farmers you go out and do whatever you want, get as much money as you 
can from the marketplace, God bless you, we will still give you 
$50,000, $100,000, $200,000 in some cases.
  Mr. President, the nutrition program, as well, troubles me a good 
deal. How we can reauthorize farm program benefits and these payments 
to farmers for 7 years, but payments to nutrition for children for only 
2 years, is troubling in many ways.
  Having said all of that, we recognize the good things. We wish we 
could improve those that are not good. We recognize that we will fight 
another day. We recognize that there are a lot of people out there 
struggling who want certainty. Bob Ode, a farmer near Brandon, SD, who 
was just in my office the day before yesterday. He is concerned about 
the lack of a safety net. He has told me that grain farmers and 
livestock producers in our State 2 years ago lost 13 percent of their 
income. Last year, they lost 18 percent of their income. In the last 2 
years, many farmers have lost over 30 percent of their income, and our 
response today is to say we are going to take away your safety net. It 
is no longer there. You are on your own.
  Are we really prepared to do that? Do we want to tell Bob Ode and 
farmers across this country that is the best we can do? Mr. President, 
we can do better. We must do better. We must come back, whether it is 
next year or at some time in the not-too-distant future. We must 
address these deficiencies. We cannot conscientiously allow this to 
happen.
  I am very pleased that the President has promised to join forces with 
us, next year, to make that happen. We can do better. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. I understand the Senator wishes to speak in opposition to 
the bill?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 5 minutes, from the distinguished Democratic 
leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the distinguished ranking member, my good friend 
from Vermont.
  First, I want to express my profound gratitude to my colleague, 
Senator Pryor, for the very laudatory and kind words he delivered on 
the floor a moment ago when he referred to a provision in the bill to 
name the U.S. Department of Agriculture Small Farmer Research Center in 
Arkansas after me.
  As I sat there in my office watching Senator Pryor deliver those 
accolades I couldn't but help question if it was really me he was 
describing. He laid it on pretty thick.
  The thing that makes Senator Pryor easily the most popular politician 
in Arkansas is because he is one of the most generous to a fault and 
one of the hardest working people I have ever known. You never see his 
name mentioned in the Arkansas press that it does not say, ``Senator 
Pryor, the most popular politician in Arkansas,'' as the lead to 
whatever story they are reporting.
  I have been deeply honored to have him as a colleague, and deeply 
distressed to know that he will depart this body at the end of this 
session of Congress. We have had what I think is probably as fine a 
working relationship as any two Senators in the U.S. Senate have ever 
had. But I want to publicly express my gratitude to Senator Pryor for 
all the kind things he did say about me.
  He gave me much too much credit. Of course, that is one of the things 
that makes him so popular back home. He gives other people credit for 
everything that happens, no matter what his role was in it.
  In this particular case I can honestly say the Senate would have been 
justified in naming that after an aide, my agriculture assistant back 
in those days, Rhona Weaver. It was essentially Rhona's idea. She 
worked with the State leaders and the leaders of the community. I would 
be remiss if I did not pay tribute to her. We politicians take credit 
for everything, but the truth of the matter is most of it originates 
with our staff, and this is a classic case in point.

  I am deeply honored, Mr. President. And now, because I detest this 
bill so much, I am in the very ambivalent position of having to vote 
against a bill that places a great honor on me. Nevertheless, I have no 
choice but to vote no.
  Let me just say, in these few remarks, that I personally thought the 
bill before us, which will probably be always remembered as the 
freedom-to-farm bill, was fatally flawed in concept. Senator Conrad of 
North Dakota said it more appropriately several times, and it bears 
repeating. This bill is like the people who followed Jim Jones down to 
Guyana, and he told them, when they were committing mass suicide, to 
drink the Kool-Aid, it tastes good, and the children drank the Kool-
Aid. It was after they got it down that the problems began. And so it 
is with this bill. It is going to taste good to the farmers, initially, 
because they

[[Page S3085]]

are going to be paid a handsome bonus on top of record commodity 
prices. They do not even necessarily have to farm to get the bonus. The 
conference report did make one improvement from the earlier Senate 
version. To get the bonus, they at least have to engage in some sort of 
agricultural activity. But I can think of all kinds of activities that 
I can argue are ``agricultural'' in nature but do not resemble farming 
as farmers in my State would recognize it. You are going to see ``60 
Minutes'' stories of farmers who are maybe getting 80 cents or a dollar 
a pound for cotton, plus a very handsome, generous payment from ``Uncle 
Sugar.'' To make matters worse, depending on how they finally define 
``agricultural activity,'' you might see farm payments being paid to 
people who no longer plant a seed or turn a clod of dirt.
  That is not what farmers want. They do not want welfare. That is what 
this is, pure and simple. Actually, I suppose you could argue that 
welfare is what you give to people who need it, which may not be the 
case with these freedom-to-farm handouts. But the problem is going to 
be just like drinking the Kool-Aid. Seven years from now, or sooner, 
when these payments have been terminated or have dwindled to nearly 
nothing, if commodity prices are back where they were 2 years ago, I do 
not know what is going to happen. We either go back to the drawing 
board and draft a bill similar to the one we are abandoning, or we just 
say ``adios'' to the farmers of America. I might remind my colleagues 
that in 1987 when the farm credit crisis was at its worst, the Congress 
did not abandon America's farmers. We stood by them in bad times as 
well as good and helped many of them make a substantial come-back. But 
with this bill, we are virtually saying ``don't let the door hit you on 
the way out.''
  The tragedy of this is that many aspects of current law--the 
marketing loan in particular--that we have used all of these years is 
working. And they are working as they were intended. According to the 
CBO baseline estimates--one of our more esoteric exercises--USDA will 
show a $4 billion reduction in spending of farm programs in 1995 below 
what we anticipated less than a year ago. While terms like ``baseline'' 
do not mean anything to laymen, we all understand that we spent $4 
billion less last year than we anticipated because wheat, cotton, and 
corn are well above the target price. Rice is really the only major 
commodity that is below the target price, and under current law, rice 
farmers would benefit. If commodity prices in the next 7 years stay as 
high as they are right now, the freedom-to-farm bill will cost $21 
billion more than current law. In fact, if prices stayed at current 
prices, and rice improved a little, then every penny paid out as 
freedom-to-farm welfare is money we have no business spending this way. 
I can think of lots of better uses of this money for rural America. We 
are cutting conservation, we are cutting research, we are cutting rural 
water and sewer programs, we are cutting rural housing, and the list 
goes on and on. If you will give these billions of dollars that you are 
willing to give farmers already making record profits to us on the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for discretionary spending, I 
will show you how we can put it to use in a way that can really make a 
difference in farming communities in every State of this Nation.

  Finally, Mr. President, let me speak about the Market Promotion 
Program, which Senator Bryan and I have tried to kill as religiously as 
I have tried to kill anything in my life. On a very handsome vote in 
the U.S. Senate, we cut the Market Promotion Program--the program that 
subsidizes Tyson, McDonald's, Hiram Walker, Gallo Brothers, and many 
other of the biggest corporations in America These subsidies were paid 
to them for advertising they ought to be, and perhaps would be, doing 
on their own, according to the GAO. Finally, we got that program cut 
back to $70 million less than 2 months ago on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. What do you think? Here it is reincarnated in this bill at $90 
million.
  Senator Bryan has already spoken on some of the ways the reforms he 
and I successfully brought to this program were dismantled one by one. 
Defenders of this program may have tried to hide their changes by 
changing the name of the program or by using language that appeared to 
be making reforms but were actually just a restatement of current law. 
MPP may have become MAP--and I won't begin here to describe the fun the 
press can have with this new name when you consider some of the former 
program beneficiaries--but it is really nothing new. Fortune 500 
companies will still find ways to taxpayer-finance their already huge 
advertising budgets and foreign companies can still get the federal 
government to advertise in a way that might be adverse to similar U.S. 
companies. And so, is the only reform a provision to prohibit giving 
federal assistance to foreign companies for the purpose of promoting 
foreign agricultural production? And they call this bill the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act [FAIR]? This measure is hardly 
an improvement or a reform, and it certainly isn't fair.
  So MPP, MAP, or whatever it ultimately gets called, lives on. I guess 
that is one of the unique things about the U.S. Senate. Nothing ever 
really dies. Rasputin finally died, but it seems that the Market 
Promotion Program, or whatever you call it, never will. So while there 
may be some things in the bill that have some redeeming value, they 
seem to have miraculously escaped my attention under the glare of such 
unbelievable policies as those I have just described.
  So, Mr. President, when the roll is called, I will have no choice but 
to vote ``no'' on this. That is not to say that I do not admire the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member for their endless hours of 
trying to craft something that this body could agree on and that the 
House could agree on. Maybe it is the very best anybody could do. I do 
not know. But those best efforts do not require me to vote ``aye.'' 
Therefore, I will vote ``no.''
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will speak on my own time. I always enjoy 
hearing the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. I told him before that 
one of the joys of coming here is that we came in the same class. He is 
one of the best friends I have had for 22 years here. I almost hate to 
go into this speech and muddy the water with facts, but one that I 
point out is on the Market Promotion Program, which I voted to cut and 
change over the years. There are significant changes. We made 
significant reforms to this program in 1993, and we gave a great deal 
of flexibility to the Secretary to carry out the reforms we had. I 
agree that participation in this program should be limited. This 
program is designed to help those who do not have large marketing 
organizations or deep pockets. It is designed for the small dairy co-
ops in Vermont that use it now to promote exports to Canada, and other 
places, or the small rice dealers in Arkansas, who might use it. And 
bit by bit, this supertanker is being turned around, I tell my friend 
from Arkansas. We are improving it and will continue to do so.
  I also tell my friend from Arkansas--and he knows this, as I do--that 
nobody ever brought to the floor a farm bill where they liked every 
single page of it. There is no legislation that comes before this 
Congress that is more a product of having the balanced interests of 
regions, individuals, of commodities, and balance of the needs of 
people who are not directly involved with farming, but have an actual 
interest--people who see the legislation in here to protect the 
Everglades and to help rehabilitate the Everglades, and those who see a 
Conservation Reserve Program continued and strengthened, those who see 
permanent law maintained, those who see improvements in some of our 
nutrition programs, as well as several new environmental initiatives 
like the EQUIP program, added here. These are things that effect every 
one of us, whether we are farmers or not. There are those throughout 
the country, farmers or not, who applaud these initiatives in this 
bill.
  I would like to take this time, Mr. President, to thank several of my 
colleagues for their work on behalf of agricultural interests, who will 
not be here in the next farm bill. One, of course, is the distinguished 
ranking Member of the House Agriculture Committee, Representative Kika 
de la Garza. He went out of his way to be not only bipartisan in his 
own body, but in this body, as we have tried to bring together 
competing interests of

[[Page S3086]]

farm bills. His most recent success was accomplished while chairman of 
the House Agriculture Committee, with a reorganization of the USDA and 
overhaul of the Federal Crop Insurance Program.
  Then, in our body, let me speak of two Members I will miss greatly, 
both in serving with them on the Agriculture Committee and serving with 
them in the Senate.
  One is my colleague from Alabama, Senator Heflin. I am proud to say I 
have served for 15 years on the Agriculture Committee with Judge 
Heflin. I served with him also on the Judiciary Committee. But I think 
in many ways I have relied on his expertise and his good humor. His 
ability to help forage consensus and coalition has been on the 
Agriculture Committee. His expertise and his judgment is going to be 
sorely missed. He has been the spokesman for southern agriculture. 
Certainly nobody ever discussed peanuts without Judge Heflin being 
there, and so much else of southern agriculture.
  I think of the times when I traveled to his State of Alabama with 
him, with he and his wife, Mike, and on occasion when my wife was able 
to join us. I remember going to one function--a dinner in a school--
where there were several hundred people there. I am positive that the 
judge called every one by name and asked about members of their family 
by name. I was then chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. I was 
nothing but a spear carrier on that trip to Alabama. I can assure the 
Chair, they were there to see Senator Heflin and this Eastern Senator 
who came with him, and who talked funny as far as they were concerned.
  So I want to thank Senator Heflin for all he has done to further 
agriculture programs and, in particular, the rural development 
programs--the rural development programs that helped Alabama but also 
helped rural Vermont, and have helped rural areas throughout our 
country.
  Another person I want to recognize from that committee is Senator 
David Pryor. I never have known any Member of the Senate, Republican or 
Democrat, who did not have great affection for Dave Pryor. I know I 
have been proud to serve on the Committee with him and proud that he 
has been one of my close friends in the Senate over the years.
  Again, David Pryor is one who has time and again helped us bring 
coalitions together--his quiet dedication, his obvious knowledge of the 
facts, but also his knowledge that, as a Senator, there are certain 
prerogatives, especially debate prerogatives, that are available to all 
of us, and my memory of that goes back to the 1985 farm bill.
  Senator Pryor and his colleague Senator Bumpers were concerned that 
the bill would cut Federal price supports for the rice industry. They 
came to the Senate floor and they delayed action by reading their 
favorite rice recipes into the Congressional Record. The opposition 
finally gave in to these Southern gentleman when Senator Pryor 
announced that he knew of 1,000 rice recipes. I checked that figure 
with Senator Pryor this morning, and the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas told me that not only did he know them but that he kept copies 
of them in his desk should the need arise to add to our education in 
the Senate. Should he suddenly be called upon to give us time for 
reflection, he is prepared to talk about rice recipes.
  That kind of dedication is going to be sorely missed. But these are 
people--Senator Heflin and Senator Pryor--who have improved the Senate 
Agriculture Committee by their presence and have left a great legacy 
for all of us.
  Mr. President, I have sometimes joked that Senators are merely 
constitutional impediments to their staffers, or constitutional 
necessities for their staffs. But I must say that this bill was made 
possible by the hard work of staff. And I think of those on my side of 
the aisle that I was able to appoint who have worked tirelessly in 1995 
and 1996 on this farm bill.
  I am particularly indebted to my staff director, Ed Barron. He joined 
me in 1987, and he has been a great fountain of education, 
encouragement, and tireless work. He is a good friend. He is a good 
adviser.
  In the past he was the lead staff person who handled nutritional and 
rural development programs. The continuation of the nutrition programs 
in this bill is a tribute to his commitment to these issues. Ed also 
had a critical role in getting the dairy compact included in the final 
bill. His attitude on the compact reflected mine: ``Never give up.'' 
And he never did.
  Ed worked tirelessly in a bipartisan manner demonstrating superb 
political judgment and negotiating skills.
  I thank him for his hard work. And, I believe his sons, James and 
Stephen, and his wife, Bonnie, will be delighted to know that they 
finally are going to see him again. They will have him back this 
weekend.
  Jim Cubie, my chief counsel, has been with me over a decade on both 
appropriations matters and agriculture matters. His commitment to 
conservation and environmental issues has helped make this the most 
environmentally progressive farm bill in history. Without his 
dedication, there would not have been such a strong connection between 
farm policy and conservation initiatives.
  Working alongside Jim was Brooks Preston whose commitment to the 
environment was forged during a childhood spent outdoors. Brooks 
provided invaluable legislative support for both my personal office and 
the committee on environmental and forestry issues.
  Pat Westhoff, my chief economist, poured endless amounts of energy 
providing economic analysis for the committee on commodity program and 
budgetary issues. I felt confident knowing that Pat was leading the 
complex negotiations needed to fine tune the intricate details of the 
bill. Pat, your dedication and service to this committee is recognized 
and commended.
  Thanks, as well, to Pat's wife Elena and to his children Christina, 
Ben, and Maria for letting us borrow Pat for what seemed to them to be 
about 50 years.
  Kate Howard, my counsel for international trade, joined the staff for 
the 1994 GATT deliberations. Since then, Kate has continued to play a 
lead role in the trade, international food aid, and agricultural credit 
programs. Kate's efforts to build a bipartisan consensus for the 
international programs in this bill, and her support for the 
international food assistance programs, is especially appreciated.
  Tom Cosgrove played a leading role in the passage of the dairy 
compact and other dairy reforms. On my committee for the past 5 years, 
Tom has worked endless hours on behalf of dairy farmers in Vermont and 
across America. Born on a dairy farm himself, Tom connected with the 
dairy community and understood their concerns, enabling him to 
effectively translate their needs into legislation.
  David Grahn spent countless hours drafting the bill and deserves a 
special mention. Without him, the drafting of this legislation would 
not have been as successful. David would be here now--except that he 
and his wife just had a baby during the last 2 weeks of the farm bill. 
Congratulations, David and Jill, on your baby girl, Carolyn Elizabeth 
Grahn.
  Bob Paquin has worked tirelessly for me on agriculture issues in 
Vermont. I appreciate that he flew down to Washington to help out on 
the compact at the critical moment. His talents are greatly 
appreciated.
  Diane Coates, who started in my Vermont office and has been working 
on the committee for 2 years, provided invaluable support to Ed Barron. 
Her work on nutrition programs was particularly helpful.
  Kevin Flynn, who started with me in the Washington office and joined 
the committee last fall, provides excellent support for everyone on the 
committee.
  I was also very fortunate to have on staff several people as fellows 
or from the Department of Agriculture. Rob Hedgerg provided invaluable 
expertise in the areas of conservation, research, and rural 
development. Kate DeRemer's efforts ensured that the final bill 
included a research title that prepares our farmers for the next 
century.
  Ron Williams, who arrived right in the thick of things, provided 
critical assistance. His patience and unflappable personality are 
invaluable.
  There are a number of people who are no longer on the committee but 
worked very hard to help get us to the point we have reached today. 
Nick Johnson did

[[Page S3087]]

 a superb job for Vermont and me on rural development and nutrition and 
I wish him all the best at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
  Craig Cox, who left my committee to join the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service at USDA, spent countless hours over the past 3 
years to help lay the foundation for the conservation title that we 
included in the farm bill.
  Bryant Farland, who left the committee last year to enter law school, 
provided excellent support to the committee. His professional attitude 
and cheerful approach to every assignment is sorely missed.
  Senate legislative counsel--especially Gary Endicott, Tom Cole, and 
Janine Johnson--deserve a lot of credit for their willingness to stay 
late and their excellent work.
  I must also thank Secretary Glickman, and his chief of staff, Greg 
Frazier, as well as the Secretary's dedicated staff at USDA for 
countless hours of support during this long process.
  But I have emphasized over and over again that this is bipartisan 
legislation. I compliment my good friend from Indiana, as I have 
before, Senator Lugar, who listened and worked so hard with me so that 
we could pass this bill. We agreed on some issues and disagreed on 
others. But, we know that we can always take each other's word.
  I think many times staff reflect the Members they work for. Chuck 
Connor deserves a great deal of credit for that. He works for one of 
the most honest, dedicated, hard-working Senators here. This is 
reflected in the type of person Chuck Connor is. He is someone I have 
respected in all of the years that I have worked with him. I consider 
him one of the finest staff in this body. I compliment him, and I thank 
him for his work and the direction he gave to Randy Green, Dave 
Johnson, and Michael Knipe, and others.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, our side will be represented ably by the 
majority leader in a moment as he will make a final statement.
  For several decades, the U.S. Department of Agriculture subsidized 
farmers with target prices and deficiency payments. Target prices for 
wheat, feed grains, cotton, and rice were set at levels believed to 
represent a fair price for the crops.
  Whenever the average market price was below the target price, the 
Federal Government paid farmers the difference. This was called a 
deficiency payment.
  Now Congress is considering a plan that would scrap deficiency 
payments and target prices and replace them with fixed payments. The 
farmer receives the same subsidy payment whether prices are high or 
low. Advocates for change believe this system provides the certainty 
farmers need with regard to payments and the predictability taxpayers 
demand with regard to balancing the target. Defenders of the status quo 
criticize this plan because farmers receive payment during periods of 
extremely high prices.
  While no one wants subsidies paid when they are not needed, the 
current system of deficiency payments and target prices fails even the 
most modest standards of targeting or means testing.
  Deficiency payments are a poor indicator of farm wealth. Price 
represents only one-half of the farm income picture. Cash receipts in 
farming are a product of price per bushel multiplied by the quantity 
produced.
  Recent history is a case in point: 1994 was a remarkable year for 
corn production. Total corn production for the country exceeded 10 
billion bushels--a feat most thought was impossible. In the Midwest, 
whole fields averaging over 200 bushel per acre were commonplace.
  Large supplies caused prices to fall. The average corn price for the 
year was $2.26 per bushel--almost 50 cents below the target price. 
According to our system of calculating farm wealth, 1994 was a terrible 
year because prices were lower. Taxpayers came to the rescue with 
substantial subsidies even though farmers harvesting 200 bushels per 
acre corn at $2.26 per bushel grossed a record breaking $450 per acre.
  As is often the case in farming, 1995 was different than 1994. 
Weather problems and pestilence plagued farmers throughout the year. 
Many farmers who harvested 200 bushels per acre in 1994 saw their 
production fall to 90 bushels or less in 1995. Some farmers lost their 
entire crop. With falling production and strong demand, prices were 
substantially above target price levels. Corn farmers received $3.00 
per bushel or more for their crop.
  1995, however, was a very difficult year for many farmers because 
they had little, if any, crop to sell at higher prices. Ninety bushels 
per acre at $3.00 per bushel represents a per acre gross of $270 per 
acre--40 percent below 1994. Yet the USDA declared 1995 as a good 
income year, and took away all subsidies for the 1995 crop. Generous 
subsidies were paid to 80 percent of the corn farmers in America in 
1994.
  Freedom to farm gets the Government out of the business of estimating 
good income years and poor income years. The 7-year baseline payment 
levels are distributed--on a declining basis--to farmers over the next 
7 years without regard to commodity prices.
  Will there be years in which farmers receive a subsidy even though 
their income was high? Perhaps. But this is no more the case than under 
present law. The current system has indeed failed to identify genuine 
need. Let's give the USDA something better to do with their time.
  In short, Mr. President, although it has been suggested that the 
freedom-to-farm bill would not be a good idea in the event that a bad 
year came along on the farm, the fact is the current program has not 
been particularly helpful. In those years in which we have had a great 
abundance of crops in and great revenue from the fields, we have also 
had target prices in addition or great deficiency payments. That is an 
important point to make, and I make it for the Record.
  Mr. President, I thank, once again, the distinguished ranking member, 
Senator Leahy, for an extraordinary opportunity to work with him and to 
create, I believe, a remarkable farm bill.
  Today, as we pass a farm bill that shapes the outlook of agriculture 
for the 21st century, it is time to recognize the tireless efforts of 
one of the finest staffs on Capitol Hill.
  I want to start by recognizing the efforts of the professional staff 
of the committee led by senior professional staff member, Robert 
(Randy) Green. Randy deserves special credit for his outstanding 
professional efforts in translating complex ideas into effective 
legislation. Often working through the night into the mornings and on 
countless weekends, Randy and his staff exemplified a dedication to the 
truth in the details of the committee conference process. While 
respecting the views of others, the professional staff crafted a bill 
in a manner that was fair. They have worked on endless proposals and 
through many very tough negotiating meetings to achieve the exciting 
new concepts about agriculture that were passed today. Katherine 
Brunett McGuire, David Stawick, Darrel Choat, Terri Nintemann, Terri 
Snow, Elizabeth Johnson, Douglass Leslie, Patrick Sweeney, and Bill 
Simms combined their extensive knowledge of agricultural issues to 
create this landmark revision of Agriculture policy. They are the 
unsung heroes who took the plight of the American farmers seriously and 
kept their shoulders to the task until we have arrived at the 
conclusion of this conference.
  Dave Johnson, chief counsel, Marcia Asquith and Michael Knipe, 
counsels, spend endless hours giving assiduous attention to the details 
in the drafting of legislation to forge compromises on the most 
difficult issues. They worked diligently to negotiate provisions that 
would be effective and yet pull together diverse interests. Patiently 
drafting and redrafting a great many ideas that ultimately were not 
part of this legislation, but necessary in arriving at the concluding 
language, they never gave up and determinedly made the resulting Farm 
Bill a strong one.
  Chief economist, any Morton, spent hours crunching numbers for the 
committee to ensure that the bill's cost fell within budgetary 
constraints. It is a tribute to his ability that this bill is scored so 
successfully by CBO and achieves the numbers that are required. Andy's 
knowledge of agricultural economics has proven to be a most valuable 
resource to the committee.
  Andy Fisher did a superb job of keeping the press informed of the 
bill's

[[Page S3088]]

progress and his ability to translate complex agricultural issues for 
the press and operate under severe time constraints ensured that the 
public was well informed.
  Chief clerk, Robert Sturm, along with Debbie Schwertner, Danny 
Spellacy, David Dayhoff, Mary Kinzer, Jill Clawson, Cathleen Harrington 
and Barbara Ward kept the office running smoothly throughout this 
process. In conducting many hearings, both here and in the field, 
responding to hundreds of letters, answering thousands of telephone 
calls, and tracking a very active staff they demonstrated their 
diligence and loyalty to the Committee.
  I also want to thank Gary Endicott, Janine Johnson and Thom Cole from 
the legislative counsel's office for their willingness to respond to 
the committee's requests and for lending their valuable expertise to 
the development of this bill.
  As well, I want to commend the minority staff of the committee who 
contributed greatly with their professionalism and cooperation. In 
particular, I want to thank minority staff director, Edward Barron and 
chief counsel, Jim Cubie. They led the way to agreement through many 
continuous issues.
  I would especially like to commend staff director, Chuck Conner for 
his tremendous contribution to the committee. Chuck's leadership and 
broad expertise in agricultural policy provided the committee with 
sound guidance on key issues. His resolute attitude and strong 
convictions kept the conference advancing when the process seemed mired 
in difficulty. Chuck molded a superb staff and prepared them with 
precision so that they could navigate a steady course to the passage of 
this legislation. The public rarely sees the work of the Senate staff 
but they give so much to our country. Their sacrifice and long hours 
are shared by their families and I applaud their efforts.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have had a number of farm bills discussed 
and passed since I have been in the Senate. Of course, the first 
question is, is it good for agriculture and good for the consumers and 
good for the American people generally? I think we can say that the 
answer is in the affirmative in each case.
  I certainly thank Senator Lugar, the chairman of the committee, and 
Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the committee. They have worked 
together, as we must, in agriculture. I have always found that if you 
bring a bill to the floor that is too partisan, either Democratic or 
Republican, it is not going to pass. And so, as has been the case in 
the past 20, 30 years, as far as I can recollect, this is a bipartisan 
piece of legislation. It should be bipartisan or nonpartisan. I do not 
believe that to the American farmer who is sitting out there making his 
decision on what is good or bad it depends on whether it has a D or an 
R behind it. But if it is worked out in Congress, as it has been, on a 
bipartisan basis, then I believe the American farmer, rancher, and, of 
course, the American taxpayer, too, is generally more satisfied.
  This bill is also a good environmental bill, as I will touch on 
later.
  I would like to also congratulate my friends and colleagues on the 
other side of the Capitol, Pat Roberts, and Congressman de la Garza. I 
have worked with them over the years. My friend, Pat Roberts, is my 
Congressman in western Kansas. He has done an outstanding job working 
with the Senate and working with the House and again in coming up with 
a very important piece of legislation. It is truly a bipartisan effort.
  I congratulate my colleagues, particularly those who were conferees. 
It has required a lot of patience and a lot of perseverance, qualities 
which farmers and ranchers have to have themselves. They have to have 
patience and persistence or they would not be in business very long.
  The legislation before us will transition America's farmers into the 
21st century without disrupting the farm economy or land values, and 
farmers, as other Members in the Chambers have said, finally are going 
to plant for the market and not for the Government.
  In addition, this legislation provides farmers with what they have 
asked for the most--certainty, simplicity, and flexibility. As I travel 
across America, farmers and ranchers tell me the same thing: Keep it 
simple. All Government programs, and especially all regulations, must 
be simpler and less intrusive. The farm program should pass the common 
sense test.
  As I said, another big winner in this bill is the American taxpayer. 
This legislation ensures reasonable and responsible spending through a 
capped entitlement. If we are to balance the budget--and we will--the 
American farmer will tell you that everyone must contribute including 
himself. Farmers often remind me that they are taxpayers, too. And as 
taxpayers, farmers want a balanced budget because they know under a 
balanced budget, spending on interest payments are projected to decline 
$15 billion over 7 years. And the farmers would be one of the greatest 
beneficiaries in that event.
  For family farmers who often struggle to make ends meet, the money 
saved through reduced interest payments could make the difference 
between success and failure.
  This is landmark legislation. The bill contains one of the most 
significant conservation packages ever enacted. Instead of mandates and 
the heavy hand of Government, this bill reflects a common sense 
approach. This historic farm bill is one that conservationists can be 
proud of.
  This legislation includes elements from the conservation bill 
authored last year by Senators Lugar, Craig, Grassley, and myself, also 
known as S. 1373, the Agricultural Resource Enhancement Act.
  For example, this farm bill continues the Conservation Reserve 
Program which, at 36.4 million acres, makes the program twice the size 
of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This program is the Nation's 
biggest and the most successful private lands conservation program.
  The bill streamlines cost-share incentive programs into one 
revitalized program, the Environmental Quality Incentive Program. The 
program will spend $200 million per year on cost-share assistance for 
crop and livestock farmers as they work to control pollution and 
erosion.
  For years, farmers have been planting the same crops year after year 
which leads to excessive use of fertilizer, chemicals, and tillage to 
control pests and maintain crop yields. This bill provides farmers with 
complete planting flexibility, allowing them to plant environmentally 
sensitive crops.
  The bill also ensures sound conservation practices on over 300 
million acres. This legislation continues the successful record of the 
1985 and 1990 farm bills by requiring participating producers to meet 
soil conservation and wetlands protection standards.
  In addition, the bill provides funding for the restoration of the 
Florida Everglades, balances conservation compliance regulations, 
expands mitigation options for wetlands, and authorizes new 
conservation and wildlife enhancement programs.

  Several national farm organizations have praised the conservation 
provisions as providing a more common sense balance between practical 
conservation methods and protection of natural resources and wildlife.
  As I see it, this bill is not the end but a beginning. It is a 
positive first step in a larger effort to ensure that rural America 
prospers. From here, we can address other issues. Tax and regulatory 
reform are a must. Property rights protection and health care reform 
are vital. I am committed to taking action on these issues, so that 
rural America can realize a brighter future.
  American agriculture is ready and waiting for policies that will help 
prepare it for a successful 21st century. This legislation lays a solid 
foundation for sustained growth.
  Like other members on the Ag Committee--and I have been proud to be a 
member of that committee for a long time--I certainly have had 
outstanding staff, headed by Mike Torrey, who has worked closely with 
Chuck Conner and others, along with Dave Spears, who is in my Kansas 
office but has been back here from time to time to help us on this 
legislation, and Bruce Knight, who helped us a great deal with the 
conservation title.
  I want to thank my three staff members, in addition to all the others 
that have been mentioned by Senator Leahy

[[Page S3089]]

and Senator Lugar. Without staff, I do not believe we could be here 
today, on the verge of voting for this historic legislation.
  This is historic legislation. This is a complete departure from the 
past when it comes to agricultural legislation.
  Again, I want to particularly commend our distinguished chairman, 
Senator Lugar, along with Senator Leahy and others, who have made it 
possible.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, do I have time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. LEAHY. Is the Senator from Montana speaking in favor of the bill?
  Mr. BURNS. In favor of the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time does the Senator wish?
  Mr. BURNS. Two minutes or less.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will yield to the Senator, not to exceed 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy, the ranking member 
of the Ag Committee, and of course Senator Lugar, who has displayed 
great leadership crafting this legislation.
  I rise today in support of the conference report of the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement Act of 1996, now known as FAIR. I see this as a 
positive move forward for agriculture and agricultural production in 
America. This is a bill--and an idea--that is overdue and now the time 
has come for the implementation.
  As I review this conference report, I see many components that I 
favor, and of course there are provisions that I think are softer than 
they should have been for the good of the producer and the good of the 
Nation and its economy. Positive steps have been taken in the Commodity 
programs and in the marketing and foreign trade provisions. However, I 
do believe that we could have provided greater flexibility for our 
producers in some of the conservation programs.
  I have listened to many of the Members of the Senate in the past day 
discuss that this will doom the future of agriculture, and that we are 
providing welfare for the American farmer. This is truly not the case. 
This act will provide for the future of the American farmer in a way 
that Congress has not had the nerve to address for almost 60 years. 
This bill will assist many young farmers to have access to the land and 
allow for the future development of agricultural production in this 
country.
  I have heard many times that we have not provided for a safety net 
for the small farmer. As I look at the programs that were enacted to 
protect the small family farmer in the past, they have not done a very 
good job at offering protection to these people that make their living 
of the land. In recent years, due to many circumstances, we have seen a 
decline in the number of small family farmers.
  What we have done is bring American agriculture into the future. Gone 
are the days that a producer can take grain to the elevator and figure 
that the job is done as they watch the grain drop through the grate. 
American producers are going to have to take an active role in 
marketing their own products, from the field to the final product.
  I suggest that with the passage of this bill our work has just begun. 
We now need to work on the improvements for the future of agriculture 
in our Nation. With the passage of this measure we will finally take a 
step toward getting Government out of the farming business. We need to 
set our sights on those areas of law and Government assistance that 
Government should work on. The role of Government in this new future 
will be those areas that the individual farmer has little or no real 
access to. The role of government in the future should be in the 
development and expansion of research assistance in the marketing in 
both domestic and foreign markets. This is how we can and should 
develop the future for our producers.
  As we place our producers in the world market, we need to provide 
them with the tools to compete in this market. To do this we need to 
offer to them the advancements that will keep American agriculture a 
lead player in the world. At a time when we see a trend in declining 
yields, we need to provide our producers with the best research in 
developing resistant crops. The market is there for them to be active 
in, but they need the tools available to them to see meaningful gains 
in the amounts that they can earn from their had labor. Just recently, 
we have found the presence of a fungus in grain that could, if it was 
not properly dealt with, permanently damage our access to foreign 
markets. I would like to commend the Department of Agriculture for the 
work that they have done with the recent discovery of karnal bunt 
within our country. With a meaningful and dedicated research effort, we 
can and should be able to find a way to develop a resistant seed to 
this and many of the diseases that target our crops in the United 
States.

  In addition, we need to offer to our producers the understanding and 
assistance in marketing their commodities. As I have previously stated, 
many producers think that their job is done when it reaches the 
elevator. As we move into this new program, our producers are going to 
need the knowledge and the access to information and opportunities to 
improve their ability to make a return on their investment. In my 
discussions around the State of Montana, many farmers, young and old, 
have stated that they are glad to have the Government out of their 
business. What they would like to see from Government now is a little 
assistance in learning what it takes to market their product. They do 
not want Government directly involved. They would like assistance in 
marketing their efforts, both here in the United States and on the 
world market. This was one of the major reasons that I worked hard to 
have this legislation include wording on the foreign market development 
cooperators program.
  Finally, but not least of all, we need to address a major concern in 
the agriculture community: tax reform. This Congress has been called 
upon by the people to institute tax reform to address the concerns of 
all Americans. Any progress that we make on this front will greatly 
benefit the American small family farmer. Provisions must include 
changes in the inheritance tax code, to allow more families to keep 
their operations in the family. For generation after generation, our 
farm families have worked to keep their operations within the family, 
yet current tax structure seeks to penalize those people who want to 
keep the operation in the family.
  Another of the Tax Codes that we need to address is the capital gains 
tax. There are a great number of Montanans who would like to sell their 
operation. However, with current structure and the price of land, they 
are not in a position to put their property on the market. Action in 
this tax will allow many new and younger farmers to move onto land that 
may now be out of production. This must be addressed, and we must do so 
soon.
  We have taken the first step to address the future of American 
agriculture. It is only the first step. The future is upon us and we 
must make the most of it for the family farmer in America. I support 
this first step and I hope the Senate will endorse it fully for the 
producers in the field.
  I want to make a further comment. I think there are some areas where 
we have to continue to work. I think the market development amendments 
we got put in there to develop markets abroad, our foreign trade--we 
know agricultural exports are one of the great, bright, and shining 
spots of our trade. But I think tax reform for agriculture still 
remains a very, very important part of our work to be done here on the 
floor of the Senate.
  We had a hearing this morning on agricultural appropriations and the 
work of the ARS. Of course, with the inspection service, we know we 
still have problems. Sometimes we look at the funding. Maybe it is not 
quite enough in our Agricultural Research Service. We have to continue 
to do research on how do we produce food and fiber for America, this 
great Nation, and also, over in the area of inspection, on how do we 
isolate these very disastrous things that can happen to us in 
agriculture.
  I will give you an example, karnal bunt now in wheat. They got it 
isolated. They knew what to do. But it is a situation that could have 
devastated the durum wheat industry in our part of the country. In 
Montana, it is karnal bunt. All we have to do is look

[[Page S3090]]

across the ocean and take a look and see how important APHIS is to us, 
the inspection service on plants and animals, when we take a look at 
England and the situation they are in with their ``mad cow'' situation.
  So I congratulate the leadership on this bill. We will be supporting 
this bill. It is a departure from even the carryover from the 1930's.
  I thank the leadership, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, my understanding is we will go to 
discussion on minimum wage at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time remains on the farm issue.
  Mr. SIMON. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is the minority leader 
has 12 minutes remaining. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me yield myself as much of that 12 
minutes as I shall use. I shall not use the entire 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Montana just a few 
moments ago spoke of something my colleague from North Dakota spoke 
about earlier this morning. Let me just make a comment about that 
topic. I also want to make a couple of final comments about the 
conference report that is on the floor before us.
  My colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, and my colleague, Senator 
Conrad, talked about actions Canada has taken in the last 24 hours with 
respect to the restriction of durum, durum wheat, moving into Canada 
because of a fungus called karnal bunt. I have in the last couple of 
hours talked to Chief of Staff at the White House, Leon Panetta, who is 
going to be contacting the agriculture secretary of the trade 
ambassador to talk about the actions Canada has taken. It has the 
possibility of causing some real chaos in our ability to export durum 
grain, because that durum goes through ports on the Saint Lawrence 
Seaway that are Canadian facilities. To suggest somehow American durum 
could not move through those facilities could have a devastating impact 
on our ability to export durum grain.
  The Canadians, I think, have created a circumstance that is 
fundamentally unfair. Karnal bunt does not survive above the 35th 
parallel, we are told by the scientists. The suggestion that they can 
use karnal bunt as some sort of an excuse to injure our ability to 
serve export markets is, I think, a transparent attempt to create 
advantage for themselves in international trade at our expense. I have 
asked the President to take some immediate action to respond to this 
issue.
  But the reason I make that point now is my colleague from Montana 
made the point about things like karnal bunt and the problem they pose 
in the marketplace. There are a whole series of things that can cause 
significant changes in grain prices. We had someone out here recently 
talking about, ``Well, we have a loan rate in this bill which provides 
a safety net. So there is, in fact, a safety net.'' However, the fact 
is that the loan rate in this piece of legislation creates a safety net 
that is so far below the market price that, for family farmers to make 
a living, it is not much of a safety net at all.

  The point I wanted to make finally in this discussion is one about 
market power. I brought to the floor a story that was written following 
the Senate passage of the farm bill. This news story says that the big 
grain trading firms won in the U.S. Senate, the meat companies won, the 
millers won, the grocery manufacturers won. The biggest economic 
interests got a full plate when the Senate passed this farm bill.
  The fact is, when the big grain trading firms win in farm policy it 
means family farmers lose. What happens is, you set people loose in a 
survival of the fittest circumstance and say, ``You just battle it out, 
out there in the marketplace,'' And what do you face in the 
marketplace? You face grain trading firms, one of which has more 
storage capacity in one firm than all of the wheat raised in my State, 
one grain trading firm can store all the wheat that is raised in North 
Dakota--that is market power.
  Now, if you put 8 or 9 grain trading firms at the choke neck of the 
bottle through which all that grain has to move and then you say to the 
30,000 North Dakota farmers, ``Each you should compete in these 
circumstances,'' guess who wins and guess who loses? It is not a 
surprise. The story I showed on the floor of the Senate describes it 
accurately.
  This bill is a major victory for the biggest grain trading firms, the 
biggest millers, grocery manufacturers and others, because they like 
lower grain prices in the long run. They are in the marketplace in 
order to nick grain prices back, to keep them down. What does that 
mean? Family farmers cannot survive. The deck is stacked against them. 
The odds are against them. The fact is, there will be fewer yard lights 
out there, fewer families able to live on the farm and make a decent 
living.
  When you see those yard lights, those economic blood vessels that 
serve small communities and create a rural life style, turn out, you 
lose something important. When those blood vessels shrink away, you 
devastate something I think is very important in our country.
  The reason I keep talking about family farmers is I care who farms 
this country. It makes a difference to me. It makes a big difference to 
me, whether an corporate agrifactory is farming America from California 
to Maine, or whether America is dotted with yard lights where families 
exist out on the land, trying to make a living.
  We had an world renowned author from North Dakota who died last year, 
whose name was Critchfield. He wrote several wonderful books about what 
this country gains from the rural parts of America. He talked about the 
nurturing of values that comes from the farms to the small towns and to 
the cities, as people move in our country.
  I think to suggest somehow that those values, which have always 
started at the family farm, are not important is a mistake. These 
values have moved their way through this country of ours--I'm talking 
about helping one another, shared sacrifices and so on--and to suggest 
that this is not important in our future is a regrettable oversight for 
this country.
  It does matter who farms in this country. If we do not have a farm 
bill that stands up for the interest of family farmers, let us not have 
a farm bill at all; we do not need it. And if we have a farm bill, let 
us have a farm bill that stands up and speaks for the economic 
interests of families out there trying to make a living. We need a farm 
bill for those trying to make a living in circumstances where, if they 
plant a seed, they may not get a crop, and if they get a crop, they may 
not get a price. Family farmers face twin risks that no one else in 
this country faces.
  Time after time when international prices drop--and they will and 
they do--family farmers go bankrupt. That is why we for years have 
decided we will provide a basic safety net to try to give family 
farmers a chance to survive over those price valleys.
  This bill, for all of the huffing and puffing of those who support 
it, basically pulls the safety net out from under family farmers. Yes, 
it is attractive in the first year. Yes, there will be money in the 
first year, the second year and people will like it. But that money is 
labeled ``transition money.''
  What is the transition from? The transition is to move farmers away 
from a safety net. If we do this we will be left one day with more 
expensive food produced by corporate agrifactories that farm all of 
this country. There will be precious few lights dotting America's 
prairies because this Congress says family farmers do not matter.
  I will make one final comment. This issue is over this year. We are a 
year late, we are pretty short on the correct policy initiatives, but 
this issue is not over for the long term.
  Next year there will be a different Senate, and those of us who 
believe that we ought to invest in the future of family farmers will be 
here. We will be here to give family farmers a chance to make it in a 
marketplace where there are a lot of larger interests that want lower 
prices and do not care whether family farmers survive. Those of us who 
believe in a different philosophy in a different approach will be back. 
We will be back to rewrite a farm bill

[[Page S3091]]

based on a policy approach that is more appropriate for the long-term 
economic interests of those families who today struggle against the 
odds.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I know of no one else who wishes to speak. 
I have been authorized by the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator 
Daschle, and the ranking member, Mr. Leahy--and I have exhausted my 
time--to yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.

                          ____________________