[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8583-S8593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
        RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

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

       A bill (H.R. 3603) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1997, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Bryan amendment No. 4977, to establish funding limitations 
     for the market access program.
       Kerrey amendment No. 4978, to increase funding for the 
     Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration and 
     the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
       Leahy amendment No. 4987, to implement the recommendations 
     of the Northern Forest Lands Council.
       Santorum amendment No. 4995, to prohibit the use of funds 
     to provide a total amount of nonrecourse loans to producers 
     for peanuts in excess of $125,000.
       Santorum amendment No. 4967, to prohibit the use of funds 
     to carry out a peanut program that is operated by a marketing 
     association if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that a 
     member of the board of directors of the association has a 
     conflict of interest with respect to the program.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The able Senator from Mississippi is 
recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we made good progress yesterday afternoon 
and last evening in the debate of several amendments. We resolved some 
of the issues that were presented to us in the form of amendments. We 
have votes ordered on amendments which will begin at 11 a.m. We have 
pending other amendments that have been debated on which the yeas and 
nays have not been ordered but which may require rollcall votes.

[[Page S8584]]

  There are also some on the list of amendments that are in order that 
are yet to be offered. We hope that Senators who are planning to offer 
those amendments will please come to the floor as soon as possible so 
we can begin consideration of those amendments.
  Let me say this in addition to comments that have already been made 
about one pending amendment. I think the first amendment that was 
offered that has not been resolved and on which the yeas and nays have 
not yet been ordered is an amendment offered by the Senator from 
Nevada, [Mr. Bryan], to limit the funds available to the Department for 
the Market Access Program in the next fiscal year to $70 million. I 
think that is what the amendment seeks to do. I feel constrained to 
point out that since this bill was considered by the Senate last year, 
in last year's appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture, 
we enacted a farm bill which has been signed by the President which is 
now the law. The 1996 farm bill reduced the authorized mandatory 
funding level from $110 million to $90 million annually. It also 
prohibits funding for non-U.S. for-profit corporations, and for 
foreign-produced products. Funding for the Market Access Program is 
limited to small businesses, nonprofit trade associations, and 
cooperatives. I was not excited about the reduction in the 
authorization level that was made by the legislative committee. But, 
nonetheless, it is a fact.
  The way the law is written now, there will be spent--there ``shall'' 
be spent--the sum of $90 million annually on market access promotion. 
So that leaves the Senate with a new set of facts.
  The argument has been made that we cut funding in the previous years, 
and the Senate did approve reductions in funding. But the Senate also 
was a party to the writing of that farm bill. There were amendments 
offered on the subject of the funding level. The conference report 
contained the funding level of $90 million, and that was signed by the 
President. That ought to be considered and understood by the Senate 
before we vote on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Nevada.
  I am not suggesting that it is inappropriate for him to offer that 
amendment. I am just pointing out that the Senate has already decided 
that issue. They decided the issue when the farm bill was written and 
that provision was included in the farm bill.
  I put in the Record a copy of a letter that was written to me as 
chairman of the subcommittee by a coalition of groups and associations 
who are interested in export promotion and who know how important funds 
of this kind are to our efforts to deal with unfair trade practices and 
efforts by foreign competitors to keep us out of markets, to deny us 
market share.
  It is a tough competitive environment out there. The global economy 
has been made more competitive because of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade and the Uruguay Round Agreement that has broken down 
barriers to trade and prohibited a number of trading practices that in 
the past had made it impossible for us to compete in some markets. But 
now that the playing field has been made more level and access has been 
made more available, we are seeing other countries increase the amount 
of funding and activity in this kind of effort to enlarge market share 
and to create market access for their agriculture commodities and 
foodstuff.
  Some countries spend as much on promoting just one kind of foodstuff 
as we have to appropriate and make available for the Foreign 
Agriculture Service to go around to all commodities and foodstuffs that 
are exported by the United States. But in spite of that, we are doing 
well. We are increasing our dollar volume of export sales. This year it 
is estimated that we will sell 60 billion dollars worth of U.S. 
agriculture commodities and foodstuffs in the international 
marketplace. That is a tremendous amount of volume. It means jobs here 
in America. It means better pay. It means a healthier economy for the 
United States. This is the only program of its type that makes funds 
available to promote specific commodities or brand-name items in the 
international market.

  I have talked in our Embassies in other countries to those who have 
had experience with the use of these funds in special situations, and 
they tell me that it is very effective and without this program we 
would end up losing out to other competitors from other countries that 
are competing in those markets.
  So it seems to me, Mr. President, we ought not limit the funding for 
this program with the adoption of the Bryan amendment. I hope that the 
additional information that I have been able to give the Senate on that 
subject is helpful. Senators have voted on this issue time and time 
again in various forms.
  My good friend from Arkansas is one of the most eloquent and 
persuasive Senators who take the other side of the issue, and so it is 
with some trepidation and the knowledge that I am going to have a 
rebuttal here on my hands that I rose this morning to give that 
additional information. But it is important for the Senate to 
understand the difference between the state of the funding question and 
the issue this year as compared to last year when we voted on a number 
of different amendments designed to change this program and reform it. 
It has been reformed. It has been changed. There are limitations now on 
the eligibility for funds from the Foreign Agriculture Service for 
these purposes.
  Associations are still eligible for these funds. Small businesses can 
get funds to promote their products in overseas trade. But a major 
complaint and the thing that made this program controversial has been 
reformed by law with the enactment of the farm bill earlier this year.
  I am hopeful that we will not keep beating on this program and 
slandering it and causing Senators to have to vote to cut the program. 
It is mandated by law that it will be funded at $90 million a year, and 
the changes have been made that reform the program and take care of 
some of the complaints that had been levied against it in the past.
  At some point I will move to table that amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays, but I do not want to do that and cut off the right of 
any other Senator to speak on the issue, particularly the Senator from 
Nevada [Mr. Bryan], who is the author of the amendment. He did not know 
I was going to say these things this morning. I did not know that I was 
going to say them either, but it occurred to me that this has not been 
the subject of any discussion except the few minutes of debate we had 
when he first proposed the amendment. And it was the first amendment, 
one of the first amendments proposed to the bill, and it seems like 
that has been a long time ago. I think it was a long time ago. We need 
to wrap this bill up. We are going to start voting at 11, and I am not 
sure how many votes we are going to have. We have, I know, two peanut 
amendments that Senator Santorum offered last night. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered on those. Senator Kerrey has an amendment on which 
the yeas and nays have been ordered. We approved two of his amendments. 
Maybe he will withdraw this one. Two-thirds--that is pretty good--of 
what he wanted he has gotten.
  So I hope Senators will come to the floor. I see the Senator from 
Colorado here, and I am prepared to yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I do not want to shock my colleague too 
much, but I am not going to offer a rebuttal to the arguments he just 
made on the Market Promotion Program. I think I first offered an 
amendment to strike those funds 5 years ago, and the Senate has heard 
that debate many, many times and so I will not belabor it again. But I 
did want to point out to my colleagues that there was a very 
interesting op-ed piece in the Post this morning by Daniel Greenberg 
who is editor and publisher of Science & Government Report, a 
Washington newsletter.
  Yesterday, in the Chamber, I pointed out that last year is the first 
year in modern history that yields per acre on a same-crop basis did 
not increase. Every year in the lifetime of every single person in the 
Senate soybean yields have gone up, wheat yields have gone up, cotton 
yields have gone up, and

[[Page S8585]]

particularly food yields have gone up to feed an ever-expanding 
population in the world. As you know, one of the reasons corn and wheat 
are as high as they are right now is because there was a genuine 
concern that we were going to run out of wheat and corn in this 
country.
  I will not bore the Senate by reading it to them, but there are a 
couple of paragraphs I think ought to be emphasized.

       Pre-harvest stocks of grain--

  That means the carryover; preharvest stocks are what we have on hand 
when we start harvesting the next crop.

       Pre-harvest stocks of grain have declined for the third 
     straight year and now are at the lowest levels on record, 
     according to Worldwatch Institute. To satisfy its growing 
     appetite for meat, China has shifted from a net exporter to a 
     net importer of grain, even as urban growth takes over 
     farmlands.

  Another big problem, Mr. President.

       In the United States and elsewhere, increases in per-acre 
     yields have leveled off from the fabulous gains from the past 
     three decades. Throughout the world, food prices have risen 
     substantially as supply fails to keep pace with population 
     growth and upscale tastes.
       Worrisome? Yes. But history records the capacity of science 
     to mock Malthusian gloom with miracles of productivity. 
     Surely it will deliver a late-century encore for the Green 
     Revolution and other science-based breakthroughs in 
     agriculture.
       It can, but don't count on it.

  He goes on to point out--we had an amendment offered here which may 
be withdrawn or voted on a voice vote to cut research money in this 
bill, agricultural research. And here is what he says. These are 
statistics that maybe Senator Cochran and I are not as familiar with as 
we should have been.

       At about $1.2 billion this year, the research budget of the 
     United States Department of Agriculture accounts for a mere 2 
     percent of all Federal research and is lower in purchasing 
     power than it was 5 years ago. In Washington politics, 
     agricultural research is barely noticed among such giants of 
     Federal research as defense ($35 billion),--

  That is pure research in defense.

     Space ($14 billion) and health ($12 billion).

  That is a combined total of $61 billion in those areas compared to 
$1.2 billion for agriculture research, and the population of the world 
is now calculated to be 5\1/2\ billion people and growing at 100 
million per year.

  The fishermen all around the world, particularly in littoral nations 
that depend almost exclusively on the oceans, are draining the oceans. 
When I was a child, I can remember one of my elementary school teachers 
saying: Do not worry about it. The oceans will always supply enough 
food to feed the world. No matter how many droughts we have, no matter 
how many other devastating things happen to our crops--hail, flood, 
whatever--the oceans will feed us.
  Right here at our back door, the New England fisheries have had to 
virtually shut down in order to give the fisheries there a chance to 
replenish themselves, which they have not yet done. Yesterday morning 
the front page of the Metro section of the Washington Post pointed out 
that the crab supply in the Chesapeake Bay is down dramatically, 500 
people out of work, and a few crab-picking operations working 3 days a 
week.
  Mr. President, I always have a tendency to get a little too dramatic 
about these things, but you cannot overdramatize a problem like this. 
My complaint, in the 22 years I have been in the Senate, is that we 
have a serious misplacement of priorities. We deal with the politics of 
issues instead of what the real issue is.
  Senator Cochran and I were talking early yesterday afternoon. He told 
me he had been reading ``The Adams Family,'' the chronicle of the John 
Adams and John Quincy Adams family, all of whom were brilliant. They 
believed, about public service, it was a place to do good, just like 
the ministry. In the old days, people went into public service, 
politics, because it was a place where they could serve their fellow 
man. They did not worry about the politics of the issues they debated. 
I said on welfare, it is a tragedy it has to be passed in such a highly 
volatile, political climate.
  But my father, as I have said many times, was probably the last man 
who ever lived who encouraged his sons to go into politics. He did not 
encourage my sister, because in those days it was unthinkable for a 
woman to go into politics. But he urged my brothers and me to go into 
politics because he considered politics a noble calling. He considered 
it a noble calling because he studied Edmund Burke, he studied John 
Adams, he had studied all the Founding Fathers who went to Philadelphia 
and crafted a Constitution to give this country guidance for 200-plus 
years and who were not worrying about somebody accosting them on the 
street when they got home about some uncrossed t or undotted i.
  So we have come a very long way in politics in this country. While 
most of it has been good, an awful lot of it has not been. We have put 
our priorities on things that have been politically popular. Nobody 
wants to curb the $35 billion expenditure on defense because nobody 
wants to see a 30-second attack ad when they run again that they are 
soft on defense. Nobody wants to vote against welfare reform because 
welfare is very unpopular. If you ask the ordinary man on the street--
80 percent of them say they hate welfare. Yes, it ought to be reformed; 
yes, it ought to be changed. So it is not easy for me to be one of 24 
Senators who voted no yesterday. I am not saying I am all right. I am 
saying the bill could have been an awful lot better.
  One of the things that disturbed me was the total lack of compassion 
during the entire debate. People love to go to church on Sunday morning 
and read the Sermon on the Mount on ``blessed are the poor,'' but when 
it comes to worrying about children and people who are kicked off 
welfare, we could not seem to be punitive enough around here. So I 
still believe those old Methodist Sunday school stories I learned as a 
child. I also did not like the formula which I thought discriminated 
against my State tragically--tragically.

  Back to the point I was going to make a moment ago on misplaced 
priorities. Science can only do so much--and it can do a lot more. But 
we are not going to solve the world's food problem, which is developing 
right as I speak, by putting $1.2 billion in agriculture research and 
$35 billion into making something explode and $14 billion on sending a 
space station up which has absolutely no merit whatever.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the Daniel S. 
Greenberg article, to which I referred, printed in the Record, and I 
yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       A Drought We Can't Afford

                        (By Daniel S. Greenberg)

       Science will provide. That's the confident assurance of the 
     optimists in response to worrisome indications that demand is 
     en route to outpacing food production.
       Pre-harvest stocks of grain have declined for the third 
     straight year and now are at the lowest level on record, 
     according to Worldwatch Institute. To satisfy its growing 
     appetite for meat, China has shifted from a net exporter to a 
     net importer of grain, even as urban growth takes over 
     farmlands. In the United States and elsewhere, increases in 
     per-acre yield have leveled off from the fabulous gains of 
     the past three decades. Throughout the world, food prices 
     have risen substantially as supply fails to keep pace with 
     population growth and upscale tastes.
       Worrisome? Yes. But history records the capacity of science 
     to mock Malthusian gloom with miracles of productivity. 
     Surely it will deliver a late-century encore for the Green 
     Revolution and other science-based breakthroughs in 
     agriculture.
       It can, but don't count on it.
       The scientific enterprise that revolutionized American 
     agriculture is decaying from political and fiscal neglect, 
     though alarms have been sounding all across the political 
     spectrum and in independent think tanks for at least a 
     decade. Nonetheless, agricultural science consistently ranks 
     near the bottom in government research priorities, and that's 
     what hurts, since Washington provides the bankroll for the 
     fundamental science that ignites agricultural revolutions.
       At about $1.2 billion this year, the research budget of the 
     U.S. Department of Agriculture accounts for a mere 2 percent 
     of all federal research spending and is lower in purchasing 
     power than it was five years ago. In Washington politics, 
     agricultural research is barely noticed among such giants of 
     federal research as defense ($35 billion), space ($14 
     billion) and health ($12 billion).
       One reason for the absence of broad interest is that the 
     economics of agriculture research is dominated by entrenched 
     insiders. The system for distributing research money to 
     universities is largely preordained by ancient formulas that 
     guarantee shares for each of 76 land-grant colleges and 
     universities, regardless of the scientific quality or 
     relevance of their research.

[[Page S8586]]

       Decades of efforts to enliven agricultural research with 
     the competitive requirements built into medical research have 
     produced grudgingly small funds from Congress. Whereas 
     university scientists must scramble to get research money 
     from the National Institutes of Health, the bulk of 
     agriculture's academic research money simply comes in the 
     mail for just being there. Agricultural research was years 
     behind in joining the biotechnology revolution.
       Continuing a White House tradition, the Clinton 
     administration has devoted little attention to agricultural 
     research. The top research post in the Department of 
     Agriculture has been filled on an acting basis by one or 
     another temporary appointee throughout most of the Clinton 
     administration. The only full-fledged occupant left recently 
     after less than a year on the job. Given the logjam of 
     nominees on Capitol Hill, the post is not likely to be filled 
     before Election Day.
       What's striking about the many recent studies of 
     agricultural research is their unanimity of dismay about the 
     inadequacy of government support. A review of agricultural 
     research published late last year by the conservative 
     American Enterprise Institute concludes that a ``significant 
     increase in federal funding, or federal government action to 
     stimulate increased funding by state government or industry, 
     seems to be warranted.'' The study also sounded the customary 
     reformist call for more competition for research funds.
       Similar recommendations are contained in a report soon to 
     be published by the nonpartisan, scholarly National Academy 
     of Sciences.
       No one disagrees with these findings--except the dug-in 
     beneficiaries of our antiquated system of agricultural 
     research.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, what is the current business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The current business of the Senate is the 
Santorum amendment No. 4967.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may proceed 
with an amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5002

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

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5002.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC.   . INTERIM MORATORIUM ON BYPASS FLOWS.

       ``(a) Moratorium.--Section 389(a) of Public Law 104-127 is 
     amended by striking ``an 18-month'' after the word ``be'' and 
     inserting ``a 20-month''.
       ``(b) Report.--Section 389(d)(4) of Public Law 104-127 is 
     amended by striking ``1 year'' after the word ``than'' and 
     inserting ``14 months''.
       ``(c) Extension for Delay.--Section 389 of Public Law 104-
     127 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection--
       ``(e) Extension for Delay.--There shall be a day-for-day 
     extension to the 20-month moratorium required by subsection 
     (a) and a day-for-day extension to the report required by 
     subsection (d)(4)--
       (1) for every day of delay in implementing or establishing 
     the Water Rights Task Force caused by a failure to nominate 
     Task Force members by the Administration or by the Congress; 
     or
       (2) for every day of delay caused by a failure by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to identify adequate resources to 
     carry out this section.' ''

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the Senate has been most indulgent with a 
problem that is extremely serious to Colorado and, I believe, to many 
other States. On the Agriculture appropriations bill last year, the 
ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee were kind enough to 
help us with an amendment that was urgently needed. It related to a 
policy that the Agriculture Department calls ``bypass flows.'' What 
that has meant is Colorado has asked for a renewal of easements which 
cross Federal grounds. The Forest Service has informed the State, ``You 
will have to forfeit a third of your water in order to achieve a 
renewal of an easement.''
  The concept of someone being landlocked is recognized in most State 
laws and those State laws provide a way out of that. Whereas, if 
someone absolutely needs a way out across that ground, there are 
provisions under State law where fair compensation can be paid and they 
achieve that easement. What we are dealing with here is cities that 
have their reservoirs in the mountains surrounded by Federal ground and 
have no choice but to cross Federal ground to get that drinking water 
to those citizens. Colorado is a very dry State. Without reservoirs and 
without that water supply, literally, people do not have water to 
drink. It is not just a question of water to maintain the beautiful 
environments of the homes and lawns and parks. It is literally drinking 
water we are talking about.
  What the Forest Service has said is we will not renew your permit to 
cross Federal ground in order to deliver the drinking water to your 
homes unless you agree to forfeit a third of your drinking water. As I 
think every Senator can imagine, this is devastating. It is devastating 
to the environment of the State. It is devastating to the people and to 
the cities. It has already cost our cities some millions of dollars in 
attorney's fees to litigate this. And the Forest Service continues on 
with this practice.
  When we drew this problem to the attention of Secretary Madigan, 
Secretary Madigan acted immediately. He put forth a directive and a 
policy that this would no longer be the policy of the Department of 
Agriculture. It is clearly not authorized by law. If it were litigated 
to the Supreme Court, I think it would be one of those things that 
would be found to be out of compliance with the authorization of the 
Forest Service itself. But the problem of appealing this to the Supreme 
Court is not just the tens of millions of dollars in attorney's fees it 
would take. The problem is the cutoff of water in the meantime if the 
permits are not renewed. It is an absolutely devastating problem. This 
Chamber was kind enough to help us out last year with a moratorium.
  That policy of Secretary Madigan, though, would have solved the 
problem. He set forth, in a letter on October 6, 1992, a clear policy 
that this was not to be the course of the Forest Service. It was not to 
be followed and they were not to condition the renewal of permits on 
the forfeiture of waters.
  No one complains about paying rent. But let me point out, these are 
not necessarily new easements. Many of these easements in Colorado 
predate the very existence of the Forest Service. These are easements 
that have been in use for over 100 years, in some cases. They are 
talking about cutting off a pipeline that has been in existence longer 
than the very Forest Service has been in existence.
  That policy, the Madigan policy, remained the law of the land, at 
least in terms of the policy of the Forest Service. On February 15, 
1995, almost 3 years later, Under Secretary Jim Lyons testified before 
the House Agriculture Committee and was asked if the Madigan policy was 
still in effect. Under Secretary Lyons was the one who had the 
responsibility for that area. He indicated flatly that that policy 
still was in effect.
  Shortly thereafter, in March 1995, Secretary Glickman also testified 
that the Madigan policy was still in effect. What is unusual about that 
is that the Madigan policy was not in effect.
  In August 1994, they had revoked it, and yet the leaders of the 
Agriculture Department had testified publicly to Congress that it was 
still in effect.
  Mr. President, I want to make it very clear that Secretary Glickman 
is an honorable person. I know him well. I respect him a great deal. 
And I am convinced that he merely repeated what his staff had advised 
him when he checked with them on the question.
  We have already dealt extensively with Under Secretary Lyons and some 
of the concerns this Chamber has had about him. I don't think that 
bears reopening. The point is, we ought to be setting out trying to 
solve this problem.
  That resulted, though, in an action last year on this very bill where 
we enacted a 1-year moratorium. That measure passed in October of last 
year, a moratorium on the activity of requiring people to forfeit their 
water in order to renew an easement or permit for an easement.
  In the meantime, we tried to enact permanent legislation, and did 
enact compromise legislation, on the farm bill. That farm bill 
compromise was not what I wanted, because what I

[[Page S8587]]

wanted was a flat prohibition in law against extorting water from 
people as payment for renewing their easements.
  What we did get, though, at the request of the Secretary, is a 
compromise, and that compromise allows for the appointment of a seven-
member water rights task force to study the problem and report back. 
That report will be a year following the date of the enactment of the 
act, and the moratorium will run out in 18 months.
  The danger with agreeing to that on my part is that if they simply 
stalled on appointing the task force, the moratorium would run out and 
the Forest Service would then be in the position of cutting off 
people's water, and they would have no further protection. But I 
believed in the good faith of the parties involved, and we went ahead 
with that compromise.
  Now what has happened is the administration has failed to appoint 
their member to the task force. Moreover, in violation of the law, they 
have failed to allocate resources to the task force to do their job. 
Certainly, some modest travel fees are important and other fees are 
vital to have that task force act. In other words, what is happening, 
even though the act was passed on April 4 and all the task force 
members were supposed to be appointed by June 4, the administration has 
not acted to even appoint the members of their task force, nor have 
they acted to allocate funds for the task force.
  Obviously, this is of enormous concern. Going on the background of 
the Under Secretary misleading Congress in testimony about the problem, 
it is even of greater concern. The concern is flatly that instead of 
dealing with this problem and developing a compromise, they will simply 
stonewall it, allow the moratorium to run out and wreak havoc upon 
people's drinking water.
  Let me be clear about this. The primary people impacted by this 
action are not private developers, they are not agriculture, because 
they have a separate provision of law that flatly prohibits this kind 
of activity in agriculture that was instituted years ago. Those 
impacted by this are the cities and the towns and the taxpayers of the 
State, and, I might say, Mr. President, in cities and States across the 
Nation as well. The precedent this establishes is devastating.
  Let me say that the forfeiture required is a forfeiture of a third of 
your water--at least that is what they have asked for in some cases--a 
third of your water just for the temporary renewal of the permit. This 
is not a permanent easement. This is simply for its temporary renewal. 
Presumably when it comes up in 5 years or 20 years, they can again ask 
for additional water.
  This is a problem that is not going to go away and cannot be ignored 
by either Democrats or Republicans in the State of Colorado or other 
States where the impact is felt.
  As Members may recall, the senior Senator from Nebraska and I had 
worked hard to find a compromise on this. His first inclination was not 
to support this measure. I had drafted and intended to offer this 
morning an extension of that moratorium for 5 years. A 5-year extension 
of the moratorium would give us plenty of time to work on it and plenty 
of time for Congress to act on it.

  The senior Senator from Nebraska has indicated to me that he felt 
very strongly that 5 years was inappropriate. I must say, I think what 
is appropriate is for the task force to settle down and find an answer. 
I believe personally there is an answer. We ought to do more to 
encourage and support minimum stream flow in our streams and rivers.
  I have been a strong advocate of minimum stream flow all of my 
political life. I was a prime sponsor of Colorado's minimum stream flow 
bill that addresses this problem specifically. I believe there are a 
number of things the task force can recommend for Congress that will 
help.
  One of the things is to buy water rights and to use the water rights 
that are owned for that purpose when dry seasons come along. It is 
worth exploring. It is worth developing. It does have a positive 
impact.
  But one of the ironies of all of this is that the forfeiture of water 
rights that the Forest Service has called for in this case would 
destroy minimum stream flow, not help it. Our stream flow comes in the 
spring when there are floods. The function of the reservoirs and 
storage projects is to save that spring flood flow so it is usable year 
round. Increasing the flood flow will not only cause damage to 
property, but the Forest Service policy will mean there is less water 
in the river to mitigate the dry periods in the year.
  Mr. President, in the interest of saving the Senate time and of 
reaching a fair compromise on this, I have tried to work with the 
Senators from Nebraska. The amendment that is before the Senate this 
morning is one that is a compromise. Instead of the 5 years I had asked 
for, it is only an extension of 2 months. So we have gone from 5 years 
to 2 months in the way of an extension. But there is an added 
provision.
  That added provision addresses additional delays. If there are any 
delays beyond the time set forth in the original bill, that is 2 months 
to appoint people and the time required to submit the report, there 
will be a day-for-day extension of the 20-month moratorium that is in 
the legislation.
  So while this is not as strong an amendment as I hoped for, it at 
least attempts to make up for the parts that are lost.
  Having said that, let me add this thought. This is a terribly 
important issue, and it is one that cannot be swept under the rug. It 
is one that needs the full cooperation of all parties if we are going 
to find an answer. It has gotten off on a bad foot by the 
administration refusing even to appoint their member to the task force 
and refusing to allocate the money that the law required them to 
allocate.
  My hope is not only that the amendment is adopted, which I believe 
has the support of Senator Kerrey, the junior Senator from Nebraska, 
but that it is a sign of a new attitude in the Department of 
Agriculture and the administration. Dan Glickman is an honorable person 
who knows how to work problems out and solve problems. This is not his 
style. He is a problem solver, not a problem maker. My hope is that the 
Glickman attitude, the Glickman approach to these problems will prevail 
in the Department of Agriculture in the months and the years ahead, or, 
I should say, at least the months ahead.
  Mr. President, I do not know if the compromise amendment has any 
opposition. I had been assured by Senator Kerrey's office that he 
supports it. At least I don't know of further opposition to it. Our 
office is trying to check with Senator Exon's office, but pending 
hearing from Senator Exon, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I hope we can accept the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Colorado. He has made a substantial change 
in the proposal that he is making to accommodate concerns of others, 
including the administration and other Senators who expressed concerns 
earlier. We are trying to clear the amendment. We are not able at this 
time to announce whether or not we will be able to take it on a voice 
vote.
  I hope other Senators will come to the floor and offer their 
amendments. We have a number of amendments that should be offered and 
resolved. We would appreciate very much the cooperation of the Senators 
in that regard. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in an effort to clarify the situation we 
have two amendments that had been offered and debated last night by the 
Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum]. And to advise Senators of a 
specific time when they can expect a vote to occur under the order 
there was to be no vote this morning before the hour of 11 a.m. But it 
will be my intention to have votes on motions to table the Santorum 
amendments beginning at 11 a.m. Under the order entered last night by 
the majority leader there was to be 4 minutes of time available for 
debate on those peanut amendments before the votes would occur.

[[Page S8588]]

  So, hoping to clarify when these votes will occur, I am going to 
propound a unanimous-consent agreement which has been cleared.
  I ask unanimous consent that time between now and 11 a.m. be equally 
divided on Santorum amendments Nos. 4995 and 4967, and at 11 a.m. I be 
recognized to move to table amendment No. 4995, as under the previous 
order, to be followed immediately by a motion to table amendment No. 
4967.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair.
  This means that there is opportunity for further debate on these 
amendments between now and 11 a.m. So it protects that right. If other 
Senators want to talk about other amendments they can certainly do that 
as well.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEFLIN. 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. HEFLIN. Mr. President, last evening, Senator Santorum laid down 
two amendments that were to be voted on, as I understand, around 11, 
but because of some problems with some of the Senators, it probably 
will be delayed for a while. But as I understand it, unanimous consent 
has been granted for us to debate between now and that time the peanut 
amendments that have been laid down. So I want to take advantage of it. 
I understand that the author and proponent of the amendments knows of 
the unanimous consent, and I will be glad to divide time if he wants 
it. But whatever it is, we can accommodate Senators equally with the 
time.
  There are two amendments. The first amendment, I understand, that 
will be called up is one in which he alleges there is a conflict of 
interest in regard to the peanut program by the fact that co-ops and 
marketing associations which are run by farmers are involved in the 
administration of the peanut program. We understand there has been 
filed with the Department of Agriculture various letters by a law firm 
or law firms here in Washington in which it is anticipated there would 
possibly be some lawsuit pertaining to this matter. We feel that is an 
issue which ought to be determined by the courts.
  We have contacted the Department of Agriculture. The Department of 
Agriculture tells us they have authority and they constantly monitor 
it. They have a responsibility that is carried out to see that there 
are no conflicts of interest. The idea that farmers participate in 
carrying out the program is universal. You have committees composed of 
farmers that are elected at the county level to carry out the program. 
There are State committees composed of farmers that carry out the 
program. It is a matter that farmers participate in, the theory here 
being that at the local level they know the local problems and that 
they are better equipped than Washington.
  This seems to me to be a program that has been carried out for years 
to allow for those who are closest to the farmers to understand the 
individual problems of farmers and to work them out. Therefore, the 
concept of contracting out, the concept of local government, the 
concept of no big Government in Washington is carried out in regard to 
the present program if there is any problem that is involved.
  The Department says this is entirely unnecessary. They administer the 
program. There is no conflict of interest. They audit. They monitor. 
They carry on in a very proper and businesslike manner if there is a 
matter that ought to be determined, such as a court case that may arise 
in regard to this program.
  Certainly, right now we have a situation where we are in the middle 
of a growing season. We saw that the peanut program was reformed. There 
was some matter pertaining to a substantial cut, some cut that amounts 
to about 30 percent of the revenues that go to the peanut farmers, and 
we ought to allow it to work.
  So I think this is a matter that is unnecessary. If it is, then it is 
across the board in every commodity because the farmers are on 
committees. The conservation committees have local participants in 
every county.
  I see that Senator Santorum is here, and if he wants some time--and I 
see also Senator Coverdell is here--I will be glad to yield the floor 
at this time. I will reserve my 2 minutes before the vote is taken as 
we had in the previous unanimous-consent agreement.

  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I want to share my feelings on this 
amendment with those of my distinguished colleague from Alabama. The 
Senator has made an eloquent case against the amendment which he began 
last night and has echoed again this morning.
  I am going to be reasonably brief. I understand that the chairman, 
the Senator from Mississippi, will move to table this amendment, and I 
will support that motion. I think it is entirely appropriate. These 
issues were fought extensively in the early part of this year when we 
dealt with the farm bill. Farm policy was settled by the passage of 
that landmark bill.
  At the time we were debating that bill, Mr. President, we were 
hearing from the farm community not only from my State and the State of 
the Senator from Alabama but across the Nation that we had to get the 
farm policy settled so that people could get into the fields, so that 
they could make their financial transactions and deal with the planting 
season and the farm season. We were already late. We passed this in 
early April, but that was late into the spring. Nevertheless, we got it 
done. In the ensuing 4 months, the entire farm community, including 
those who deal with peanuts extensively in my State and the State of 
the Senator from Alabama and others, everybody has been to the bank. 
Everybody has made their financial transactions. Everybody made their 
plans according to what the Congress of the United States and the 
President said the rules of the road would be for the next 7 years. 
Here we are 3 to 4 months later and we are talking about, through these 
amendments, changing the rules of the road. I have argued that this 
Congress, this Government does that in far too many ways every time it 
engages in retroactivity--retroactivity on the minimum wage, 
retroactivity on taxes, and now retroactivity on farm policy.
  So, I would argue that policy should be set in the farm bill. It was 
debated and passed in early April and the farming community, no matter 
what their goals or products, engaged their financial decisions, made 
their family decisions, made their business decisions, and this is 
neither the appropriate place nor the appropriate time to alter that 
policy.
  I thank the Chair for allowing me a few moments to express my 
agreement with this motion, to come and to share my remarks with the 
Senator from Alabama.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, time has 
expired. The hour of 11 o'clock having arrived, the Senator from 
Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the distinguished 
Senator from Pennsylvania be recognized for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4967

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the second amendment we will be voting 
on today is not a peanut amendment. It is an ethics amendment. It has 
nothing to do with the peanut program. It does not change the peanut 
program. It does not retroactively or prospectively alter anything in 
the peanut program. This is an ethics amendment. This amendment is very 
simple. It says the people who are the quota holders, the people who 
benefit from the program, should not also be the people who manage the 
program, who operate the program, who help promulgate regulations to 
oversee the program, who also do the enforcement for the program. That 
is virtually unprecedented in ag policy.
  I am not changing anything in the peanut program with this amendment, 
not one thing. All I am saying is the

[[Page S8589]]

Secretary of Agriculture--this is what the amendment says--the 
Secretary of Agriculture shall determine whether these co-ops who 
oversee the program, who also are the beneficiaries of the program, 
violate the Federal ethics law. That is all this amendment says. That 
is not a change in the peanut program. That is just saying we should 
have some ethics in dealing with this issue.
  There have already been letters filed, to the Secretary 
of Agriculture, back on June 5 requesting the Secretary to take action. 
The Secretary has not responded. What we are suggesting is the 
Secretary should respond. They should make a determination whether 
these co-ops, that--again I remind my colleagues--they oversee the 
program, they enforce the program, they help promulgate regulations on 
the program, and they are also the beneficiaries of the program. That 
is apparent, to me, a conflict of interest. But I am not suggesting 
that. I am not saying that it is. I am saying the Secretary should 
determine it. That is all this amendment does.

  So we can have all this debate, as I am sure you will hear from 
others that this is an amendment that hurts the peanut program, that 
changes the rules of the game halfway through--it is just not the case. 
The case is this is an ethics amendment about how the Federal 
Government should run its ag programs and I hope we could get very 
strong support for something that is, I think, a relatively simple 
amendment that I was hoping we could have agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4995

  The first amendment I am going to talk about is another equity 
amendment. This is an amendment that simply says that peanut quota 
holders, unlike any other ag commodity, should be limited as to the 
amount of Government largess that they receive. Historically, all of 
the other crop programs, and now in the future all the other payments 
to farmers under the new freedom to farm bill, are limited to $40,000 
per person. There is no limit in the peanut program. There are peanut 
farmers who can put their peanuts on loan and collect $6 million from 
the Federal Government. And we are saying they should be limited to 
$125,000.
  The limit on the subsidy payments to all other crops is up to 
$40,000. I am saying $125,000. That affects less than 2,000 quota 
holders. Mr. President, 2,000 quota holders are affected by this, the 
wealthiest, the biggest. If you hear the argument, as you will from the 
other side: Wait a minute, this program is designed to help these 
small- to medium-size peanut growers who are really struggling, who are 
in poor areas--fine. We do not touch them. All we say is those who are 
the big quota holders, many of whom do not even farm their own land, 
they rent their quota to someone else to do the work for them--what we 
are saying is they can only avail themselves of the largess of getting 
twice what the world pays for peanuts for their peanuts up to $125,000.
  I think that is, again, a very minor adjustment to the program. I 
will admit that is an adjustment to who benefits from the program. But 
we do not fundamentally restructure the peanut program here. All we are 
doing is redefining how much people can benefit from it. We do not 
change the program. We just change how much people benefit from it. I 
think $125,000 of guaranteed income from the Federal Government at 
twice the rate of what people will get paid everyplace else in the 
world for peanuts, is a pretty good deal for most of these quota 
holders and they should be happy with that limitation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the order, I now move to table 
amendment No. 4995.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4967

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the previous order I now move to 
table amendment No. 4967.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4995

  Mr. HEFLIN. Do I get my 4 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There now is 4 minutes debate equally divided 
on the first motion to table, on amendment 4995. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HEFLIN. Does the proponent seek to go first with his 2 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, there is a little confusion as to which 
vote will be held, but I have to call this Santorum amendment the 
confusion amendment. We have, of course, argued in the past that we 
reformed it. And we have reformed it, the peanut program. But now we 
are having here, where the Senator from Pennsylvania argues that, since 
other commodities have a payment limitation, therefore peanuts ought 
to.
  First, the confusion is that peanuts have never had a payment. They 
have not had a payment. The confusion here is that he is confusing a 
loan program with a payment program. You had deficiency payments, which 
were based upon a target price in all the commodities. But peanuts 
never had that. And that is where the limitation was on, was on the 
payments. Now you have, under the new farm bill, direct payments. You 
do not even have to plant in order to get your payment. You preserve 
your history. But the limit there is on the direct payment, the money 
that comes to you, the mailbox money, regardless of whether you plant 
or not plant. And there is a confusion there.
  The loan program is a program which has been designed over the years 
to help temporarily. When a farmer says, ``All right, I need the money, 
I have to pay my bills, I put it in loan and therefore I take the 
chance. If the price goes up, I will sell it at the time I think is the 
most appropriate time in order to sell.'' That is a loan basis.
  In regards to this, we show over the years----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 2 minutes of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered. The Senator is recognized for 30 
additional seconds.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, this chart shows the loan rate in blue 
over here. Throughout the years, the farmer's price, the market price 
has always been above the loan rate. So it is a matter being confused 
relative to this matter. Therefore, I urge that we vote against this 
matter and not be confused.
  New farmers are coming into the program all of the time, which shows 
that 10,000 have come into the program over the last 10 years.
  I thank the Chair for giving me the extra 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the reason the market price is always 
above the quota price is because the peanut program is not just a price 
program, it is also a quota program. It limits the supply.
  So, of course, the Secretary tells peanut growers how much they can 
plant, and they tell them to make sure that the demand is always higher 
than the supply. Therefore, the price, yes, is always higher than the 
quota price because the program makes it that way. That is No. 1.
  With respect to these deficiency payments, I would be happy to meet 
in the back with the Senator from Alabama and would be very willing to 
get rid of the loan program that peanuts have and turn it into a target 
pricing scheme. I would love to do that. In fact, it has been offered 
many times to the peanut growers to do that, but they don't do that. 
Why? Because the system they have right now is so ridiculously 
lucrative, they would never opt for something like that.
  Peanut quota holders get twice--twice--per ton for their peanuts than 
what the world market price is. They get almost $700 a ton for their 
peanuts, and the world price is $350 a ton. No wonder they don't want 
to go to a target pricing scheme or some other scheme. They have the 
best deal in town.
  What we want to do is say, ``OK, you've got the best deal in town.'' 
I can't beat him. The Senator from Alabama, bless his heart, whops me 
every

[[Page S8590]]

time I come to the floor on this amendment. I say, if we are going to 
have this program, at least limit the benefits to the folks who deserve 
the benefits, and that is the small- and medium-size farmers. Quit 
subsidizing, to the tune of--and there is a farm out there that gets $6 
million of guaranteed prices, twice what the world market is for 
peanuts.
  Now, is that what we want to do? Is that what this program is all 
about? It certainly is not what the arguments of the folks who support 
the peanut program are all about. What they say it is all about is 
helping these small farmers, these poor dirt farmers in rural areas 
that really need this to make ends meet.
  Fine, this is not going to bother them. Mr. President, $125,000 is 
not a small dirt farmer. That is about 150 to 200 acres. What we are 
talking about here are the big guys, less than 2,000. I remind Senators 
that 22 percent of the quota holders in peanuts own 80 percent of the 
quotas--22 percent, a little over 6,000 quota holders own 80 percent of 
the poundage for peanuts. The big guys are what drive this program, who 
lobby here, who contribute the money.
  What I am saying is let's get these big guys out of the picture and 
let them divest from some of these quotas they hold and spread it 
around a little bit, give it to some of these additional growers who 
are dirt farmers who don't get a lot of money for their peanuts, let 
them have a little bit of it.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent for my additional 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, let these little guys get a little piece 
of the pie here. If you are really for the small- and medium-size 
peanut farmer in Alabama or Georgia, then what you want to do is you 
want these folks to divest from these big quotas and start spreading it 
around a little bit for the little guys to have a bite of the Federal 
largess.
  If we are going to have a Federal largess, at least let more people 
benefit from it, let the little guy benefit. That is what this 
amendment does, this is a vote for the little guy. It actually will 
expand your base of support for the program and more will benefit from 
it.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, needless to say, I oppose both Senator 
Santorum's amendments, which are renewed assaults on the livelihoods of 
America's family farmers who produce peanuts. I should reiterate that 
there are more than 20,000 North Carolinians involved in various 
aspects of the peanut industry.
  We've been down this road time and time again, Mr. President. 
However, this time, even the fiercest critics of the peanut program 
should acknowledge the extensive changes made by Congress in the 1996 
farm bill. The most important change was the conversion of the peanut 
program into a no-net cost commodity program.
  Mr. President, the burden of these changes is being borne by 
America's peanut farmers who understood the necessity of revamping the 
program in order for it to survive. The support price was cut by 10 
percent, from $678 per ton to $610 and because of many other changes, 
peanut farmers anticipate that their incomes will decline by more than 
20 percent.
  So clearly, Mr. President, America's peanut farmers have agreed to--
indeed, participated in reforming the program that has served the 
consumers of America so well. And, by the way, in North Carolina alone, 
the peanut industry generates more than $100 million in revenue. 
Moreover, Mr. President, the American taxpayers will save more than 
$434 million as a result of the reforms in the program.
  It is discouraging that opponents of the program, not satisfied with 
the farm bill's reforms, now seek to go further in hindering peanut 
farmers in making their livings.
  As for the Santorum amendments, they will not--and cannot --guarantee 
lower prices to consumers. Instead, they will disrupt the work of 
Congress which constructed a farm program to produce a reasonable 
price, an abundant supply, and the highest quality of peanuts in the 
world.
  Mr. President, it was clearly established during the Agriculture 
Committee's debates on the 1996 farm bill that even if the peanut 
program were to be abolished, candymakers would not reduce the price of 
a candy bar, nor would the price of peanut butter be reduced by one red 
cent.
  The pending after-the-fact amendments do not deserve serious 
consideration. The Senate should reject them unhesitatingly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Mississippi to table amendment No. 4995. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

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

                                NAYS--34

     Ashcroft
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Feingold
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Grams
     Gregg
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kassebaum
     Stevens
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4995) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4967

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By previous agreement, there are 2 minutes per 
side on amendment number 4967.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment that has 
nothing to do with the peanut program. This does not change the peanut 
program at all. This actually does not change anything in law. All this 
amendment does is ask the Secretary of Agriculture to determine whether 
the regulatory body that oversees the peanut program is in violation of 
the Government ethics statute. That is all this amendment does.
  Why do I ask the Secretary to do that? The reason I ask the Secretary 
to do that is, unlike virtually any other agriculture commodity 
program, the folks who oversee the program, who manage the loan 
policies, who help promulgate the regulations, the very same people who 
regulate this program, who enforce the program, who actually impose 
penalties on the quota holders are, themselves, the quota holders. The 
people who benefit from the program run the program. That is unlike any 
other program, with the exception of one, in this country.
  What we want to do is simply ask the Secretary of Agriculture to 
examine the applicable Federal statutes to determine whether there is a 
conflict of interest here, and then take action. Frankly, the reason I 
am here on the floor with this amendment, some additional growers out 
West in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and a lot of other places, had 
asked the Secretary to make this determination 2 months ago. They asked 
him in a letter. He has not responded to that letter. So what we are 
trying to do is say, Mr. Secretary,

[[Page S8591]]

let us look and see if there is a conflict of interest. We do not 
prejudge it. We ask them to examine to see whether this is a proper 
setup for the regulation of this program. It does not change the 
program. It does not alter it in midstream. It simply asks the 
Secretary to take a look at a potential conflict of interest.

  I hope we can get very strong support for this.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the largest law firm in Washington, DC, is 
trying to have a lawsuit, and this is in connection with the lawsuit. 
If there is any problem, it ought to be determined in the lawsuit. The 
Department, for years, has had participation by farmers in every phase 
of the program. You elected farm committeemen to the old ASCS, which is 
now the Farmers' Service, and they carry out the program. They make 
decisions in regard to it. The Soil Conservation Agency has district 
commissioners that are elected, and they carry out the various 
programs. That is nothing different.
  The Department says this is unnecessary. They have, over the years, 
developed guidelines to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. 
This is just another attack on the peanut program with an effort to try 
to have a lawsuit, and these people have hired the biggest law firm in 
Washington to bring the lawsuit. They have filed a protest letter and 
involved that. The program is now in operation.
  The farmers have gone to the bank, they have made their plans, and 
they are moving forward. Now is not the time to change it. So I urge 
you to vote against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table amendment No. 4967 offered 
by the Senator from Pennsylvania is now before the body.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--37

     Abraham
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kassebaum
     Stevens
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4967) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4972

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, at this point we are prepared to move to 
table the amendment previously offered by the distinguished Senator 
from Nevada, [Mr. Bryan] on the Market Access program. My understanding 
would be that there would be 2 minutes available equally divided for 
discussion of that before we actually go to a vote on the motion to 
table.
  With that understanding, I move to table the Bryan amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's understanding is correct.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Thank you, very much, Mr. President. I reserve myself 1 
minute, and I will yield the remaining minute to the distinguished 
ranking member.
  Mr. President, this is an issue that has been before the Senate for a 
number of years. It deals with the program formerly known as the market 
promotion program, now referred to as market access program. This is a 
program in which taxpayer dollars are provided to some of the largest 
corporations in America to subsidize their advertising account under 
the dubious proposition that this is for export of American 
agricultural products abroad.
  In February of this year, the Senate, by a vote of 59 to 37, approved 
an amendment which this Senator, together with the distinguished 
Senator from Arkansas and others, offered that would limit the level of 
funding, previously at $110 million, to $70 million, and we did so on 
the basis that we were able to eliminate some $40 million that 
previously had gone to foreign companies.
  So the thrust of the Bryan-Bumpers amendment was to say that no 
longer could this money be allocated to foreign companies and by reason 
of the fact that we eliminated foreign company allocations $70 million 
kept the program constant.
  Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will support us as they did 
in February, and I simply say that this will keep the program level.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BRYAN. The proposal before us is $90 million. That is a 29 
percent increase.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is a motion that we have actually 
already debated. Let me point out that under the farm bill there is a 
prescribed mandate for $90 million of funds to be allocated for this 
program. So unlike previous years, this is not a discretionary program 
any longer. The reforms that were made sought to address the complaints 
that had been made about corporate welfare and all the other 
allegations in previous years, but those no longer lie against the 
program as it is operated now. Only trade associations and small 
businesses are entitled to funds under this program. They are allocated 
by the Foreign Agriculture Service. They help break down barriers to 
U.S. exports. They provide us access to markets that we would not have 
otherwise. They are good for American jobs, the American economy. They 
help us export more of what we produce on our farms and in our 
factories in foodstuffs and the like. All the testimony shows that this 
program is very helpful and needed, and I urge Senators to vote yea on 
the motion to table.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Market Access Program [MAP] is 
critical to the success of the 1996 farm bill and to continued 
agricultural growth. MAP is one of the few programs specifically 
allowed under the Uruguay Round agreement and not subject to any 
reduction. Many countries are increasingly pursuing policies to help 
their agricultural industries to maintain and expand their share of the 
world market. Now is not the time for the United States to continue to 
unilaterally eliminate or reduce MAP.
  MAP is a key to helping boost U.S. agricultural exports, 
strengthening farm income, promoting economic growth and creating jobs. 
I urge your support to ensure programs such as MAP be fully funded. 
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to table the 
Bryan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the body is on agreeing to 
the motion to table by the Senator from Mississippi. Those who are in 
favor of that motion should vote yea. Those who are opposed to that 
motion should vote nay. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.

[[Page S8592]]

  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] 
and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Craig
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Robb
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Smith
     Thompson
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kassebaum
     Shelby
     Stevens
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4977) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         precision agriculture

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to stress the importance of ongoing 
research in the area of precision agriculture. Precision agriculture is 
also commonly referred to as site specific agriculture or intelligent 
farm systems. Precision agriculture is an exciting area of agriculture 
that enables farmers to produce in a manner that conserves fertilizer, 
energy, fuel and water while still producing a high quality and high 
yield crop.
  In a bill that Mr. McConnell recently introduced, precision 
agriculture is given additional attention. I commend Senator McConnell 
for his efforts and note for the Record that myself, Senator Kempthorne 
and Senator Cochran are all original cosponsors. I ask Senator Cochran, 
is this his understanding?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, I am very supportive of precision agriculture and 
Senator McConnell's legislation.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in addition, I would like to clarify 
the intentions of the Fund for Rural America [FRA] under the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act. The FRA specifically designated 
one-third of the funding go toward research, extension, and education 
grants that, among other goals, will increase international 
competitiveness, efficiency, and farm profitability, and conserve and 
enhance natural resources. Further, the FRA research section clearly 
encourages interdepartment and interagency cooperation by allowing 
Federal agencies and national laboratories to be eligible. This is a 
solid step toward making the most efficient use of limited Federal 
research resources, and will facilitate new and unique applications of 
technologies to the agriculture industries.
  I would like to clarify that research to develop precision 
agriculture, to apply remote sensing and information management 
technologies to agriculture, is an example of the type of research that 
the Secretary of Agriculture should support under the FRA. I ask the 
chairman, is that the case?
  Mr. LUGAR. It is, and I look forward to working with my colleagues 
from Idaho and Mississippi to find appropriate ways to support 
development of precision agriculture.


                          Value-Added Products

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, South Dakota farmers and ranchers are 
looking to value-added products as one way to better market their 
commodities and products. By adding value to the basic commodity, 
farmers and ranchers can realize higher prices and improved income. 
This is being witnessed for all of agriculture, from grain farmers to 
livestock producers.
  South Dakota is a leading State in finding innovative ways to add 
value to agricultural products. For example, South Dakota is a leader 
in the production of ethanol and more ethanol facilities are being 
planned to be built in South Dakota.
  By the end of the year a new soybean processing plant will begin 
production in a new facility in Volga, SD. Currently there are serious 
negotiations underway for a new beef packing plant which would service 
South Dakota and regional livestock producers.
  Another venture in western South Dakota is a plan for the Nation's 
first lamb packing facility that would combine slaughtering, breaking, 
packing, and shipping under one roof. The facility would provide fresh 
lamb products to wholesalers and distributors within the food industry. 
The facility would be called Monument Meats and be located in Belle 
Fourche, SD.
  This effort would be a producer cooperative where producers would be 
contracted to provide lambs. The facility, when completed, would 
include and incorporate the suppliers of lamb with the distributors of 
the final product into the overall process of the proposed facility.

  One area where Federal taxpayer dollars are efficiently spent is the 
Rural Business Enterprise Grants Program. These grants can be used to 
finance and facilitate development of small and emerging business 
enterprises. Promotion and support of a viable U.S. lamb industry by 
establishing the proposed facility would certainly meet the objectives 
of these grants.
  The proposed lamb processing facility for Belle Fourche, SD, 
certainly meets the test of a promising breakthrough in promoting U.S. 
lamb production. A key role of the Federal Government is to promote 
innovative and new business opportunities. A $50,000 grant for a 
feasibility study of the proposed lamb processing plant would be 
helpful to demonstrate to producers and distributors the benefits that 
could be accrued from such a facility.
  Supporters of this facility are only looking for assistance from the 
Federal Government just for the feasibility study. Once completed, 
there are no intentions of further requests for Federal funding. This 
seems to me to be a worthwhile investment.
  If I could, I would like to ask a few questions to my distinguished 
colleague from Mississippi, the chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Agriculture.
  I recognize that the bill currently under consideration does not 
contain funding for a feasibility study for the lamb processing plant 
conceived to be built in Belle Fourche, SD. However, is it the 
chairman's belief that this is the type of venture where rural business 
enterprise grants could come into play?

  Mr. COCHRAN. That is correct.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Is it also correct to say that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture could utilize this type of grant to establish value-added 
processing plants in the United States, like the one planned for in 
Belle Fourche, SD?
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is my understanding.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Finally, I would like to ask the chairman if he would 
work with me to secure future funding for a feasibility study to be 
done for a lamb processing facility in Belle Fourche, SD.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I will continue working with my colleague from South 
Dakota to find funding for projects like the proposed lamb processing 
facility in South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my colleague and friend.
  Again, Mr. President, the proposed lamb processing plant can bring 
higher prices to lamb producers. The facility can bring economic growth 
and jobs to the community of Belle Fourche, SD. Finally, the facility 
can go a long way to promote the entire U.S. lamb industry. I will 
continue working to secure $50,000 for a Federal feasibility study for 
this much needed project.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are working to accommodate Senators by

[[Page S8593]]

working on amendments that have been proposed that we hope can be 
resolved without rollcall votes. There are some which may require a 
rollcall vote if Senators insist on a vote.
  Senator Bumpers and I are here and available to discuss these 
proposals. We hope those who want to offer their amendments will come 
forward. We would like to complete action on this bill. I suggest this 
is a good time to resolve differences, if we can, and then proceed to 
vote on those we can't agree on and finish the bill. We are not going 
to stay in all afternoon sitting and waiting. For those who want to 
present amendments, we will offer them for you and vote on them, and 
then we can get to the end of the bill, if we can get the cooperation 
of Senators at an early time this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I don't have anything to add to what the 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi said. It is very frustrating, 
frankly, to sit here hoping somebody will show up with an amendment you 
know has an amendment and is going to come charging in at the last 
minute if you try to go to third reading.
  So we have about four amendments here, and I might just mention, 
there is a Mikulski amendment on crab meat study by FDA, which I think 
is agreeable; there is a Wellstone amendment on wild rice under the 
farm bill of last year, which I think has been agreed to; there is an 
emergency drought assistance and Hurricane Bertha assistance by Senator 
Domenici, which I think has been cleared on both sides; Senator Lugar 
on double cropping. I am told that is not quite worked out. The Brown 
amendment I think has about been worked out. A Hatfield amendment on 
rural development has been worked out.

  So we can offer those on behalf of those people if they do not want 
to offer them themselves. But I would like for those people to know 
that they need to get over here. If they have been cleared, they need 
to offer them unless they want to bring them to us and let us offer 
them for them.
  The amendments that are probably going to require rollcall votes are 
one by Senator Kennedy dealing with Medguide. I do not know if Senator 
Santorum has any more peanut amendments or not. I understand he had 
eight. He has offered two so far. But anyway, the Kennedy amendment, an 
amendment by Senator Simpson dealing with wetlands, an amendment by 
Senator Leahy on northeast forestry, and the barley amendment by the 
Senators from North Dakota. So that leaves us about four amendments 
that could possibly require rollcalls unless we get them worked out.
  But if we can get those we have agreed on passed, and which will just 
leave us those four that could require rollcall votes, we ought to be 
through here by close to the middle of the afternoon or late afternoon. 
So with that admonition and plea to our colleagues to get over here to 
offer their amendments, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________