Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)

[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.

____________________