[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4664-S4680]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 1998--
                           CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:15 
having arrived, the Senator from Texas is recognized to move to 
recommit the conference report accompanying S. 1150.
  Mr. ROBERTS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mikki 
Holmes, an intern, be allowed on the floor for the duration of this 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S4665]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized under the previous order.


                           Motion To Recommit

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration. I will have it read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] moves to recommit the 
     conference report on S. 1150, the Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 to the committee 
     on conference with instructions to the managers on the part 
     of the Senate to insist that the expansion of Food Stamp 
     eligibility in Title V, Subtitle A, section 503 shall only 
     apply to refugees and asylees who were lawfully residing in 
     the United States on August 22, 1996.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is clear to me, from the debate we had 
earlier, that it is going to be somewhat difficult to get people to 
debate this issue. However, let me try by being frank and yet fair to 
everybody. I would like to outline what happened to this bill in 
conference, and why I believe it is important that this motion pass.
  First of all, let me remind my colleagues that the Senate adopted a 
bill to promote ag research. It is a bill that I would assume 100 
Members of the Senate support.
  My State is a very substantial beneficiary of ag research. The 
institution which I love more than anything, other than my family, 
Texas A&M, is a major ag research institution. Needless to say, no one 
should be surprised that I am in favor of ag research. In addition, I 
am a supporter of research in general.
  In 1965, we were spending 5.7 cents out of every dollar we spent in 
the budget on general research. That is now down to 1.9 percent of the 
budget on research, because rather than investing money in new 
technology, new products, and new science for the next generation, we 
are being driven by politics to invest in the next election by spending 
money on programs that have big constituencies in the next election 
rather than beneficiaries in the next generation. Again, I support 
agriculture research. The Senate bill went to conference on a unanimous 
vote, and the House passed a bill that was an ag research bill. 
However, the nature of the bill changed in conference, and it changed 
dramatically. Many other provisions were added to the conference report 
that were never voted on in the Senate and never voted on in the House.

  The major provision that I want to address in this motion to recommit 
with instruction is the provision having to do with food stamps. My 
colleagues will remember that while we had a contentious debate on 
welfare reform, when it came time to call the roll on August 22, 1996, 
we passed a comprehensive welfare reform bill on an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote. Part of that welfare reform process was setting much 
higher standards on food stamps and eliminating the attractiveness of 
welfare in general, and food stamps in particular. We were trying to 
change the law to eliminate a situation where, over the last 25 years, 
we had seen a change in the welfare law. People were actually being 
attracted to America not with their sleeves rolled up, but with their 
hands held out seeking benefits paid for by someone else's labor.
  This bill, unfortunately, takes a major step backward. This bill re-
institutes $818 million worth of food stamps that were eliminated in 
the welfare reform bill. I remind my colleagues that the Senate did not 
vote on the food stamp provisions in this bill. In addition, the bill, 
as it was voted on in the House, did not contain these food stamp 
provisions. Yet, in conference, as part of the age-old logrolling 
process of putting a bill together to be a grab bag for everybody, a 
provision was added that provided $818 million worth of food stamps for 
immigrants. The President was a major supporter of this provision. In 
fact, yesterday, our distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, 
called this provision a major step toward fulfilling a promise that was 
made by our President.
  Well, our President was not for welfare reform when it was debated 
and basically was shamed into signing it. What he said at the time was 
that he intended to go back and undue major parts of it. This 
provision, in fact, fulfills part of that commitment.
  This motion is drafted very, very narrowly. It simply says to not 
touch the welfare benefits added back for people that were already here 
on August 22, 1996. Go ahead and take those provisions, but don't set 
out a provision in law that is giving new food stamps to people who 
might choose to come in the future.
  There is a provision in this bill that would give 7 years of 
eligibility for food stamps to people who come and who declare 
themselves refugees in the future. Under the provision in the bill, 
whether they come next year or 20 years from now, they can come and 
declare themselves refugees and qualify for 7 years of food stamps. Mr. 
President, I think that is providing the wrong incentive for people to 
come to America.
  Let me also say that I am a strong supporter of legal immigration. I 
don't want to tear down the Statue of Liberty. I don't want to build a 
wall around America. There is still room for hard-working, dedicated 
people with big dreams to come to America. But I want the dream to be 
of working and succeeding, not getting on welfare and food stamps.
  What my amendment simply says is that the one provision of this bill 
that is prospective whereby providing food stamps into the future for 
seven years would be stricken. However, the refugees and asylees who 
are already here on August 22, 1996, would be able to receive food 
stamps for seven years.
  Our colleagues are going to say that the world is coming to an end if 
we go back to conference and that somehow this bill will die. Everybody 
in the Senate and everybody in the House knows that ag research is not 
going to die. Everybody in the House and everybody in the Senate knows 
that crop insurance is not going to die.
  If we send the bill back to conference, we have an opportunity to 
begin to correct problems with the bill. Both the Speaker and the 
majority leader of the House have said, in one forum or another, that 
they are not in favor of this bill being considered in the House. By 
sending it back to conference, we have an opportunity to begin the 
system of inducing moderation into the bill, which I believe can speed 
up the day we obtain funding for agriculture research and crop 
insurance.

  Let me say again that I support agriculture research, and crop 
insurance. I don't think we should have to pay tribute every time we 
put together a program to try to promote job creation and economic 
growth in America. I don't think that every time we have an 
agricultural bill that tries to move us toward a more competitive 
agricultural system, we should have to pay tribute to people who always 
want an add-on such as the food stamp provisions in this bill. The 
provision adding food stamps was little more than a tribute for 
allowing this bill to move forward.
  We can pass this bill without the food stamp provisions, but I am 
suggesting that we deal with one narrow part of the bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support this provision, because in this provision we 
don't take any benefits away from the restoration contained in the bill 
for immigrants who were here when we passed the welfare bill in 1996. 
Certain legal immigrants who were here when the welfare bill passed 
will have benefits restored by this provision. This motion, if 
defeated, would send the signal that we want to create new benefits in 
the future that would allow you to come to America and can obtain food 
stamps.
  That, I think, is the wrong signal. It is not a signal I want to 
send. It is a signal that I think is destructive for those of us who 
believe in legal immigration.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit with 
instructions. I remind my colleagues that the conference has not been 
discharged. We can go back to conference this afternoon, and this 
provision can be voted

[[Page S4666]]

on. If it is adopted in conference, it can come back to the Senate, and 
it would probably pass unanimously. If it is rejected in conference, we 
at least know there has been a vote in conference.
  The point is, this bill is not going to die if we adopt this motion. 
I want people to look at this provision and vote on it on its merits. 
If they will do that, I will be satisfied.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will try to do this in 3 minutes. 
First of all, I say to my colleague from Texas, what he is now willing 
to do is hold up, delay, and potentially kill, crop insurance, which is 
extremely important to farmers in Minnesota and across the country, and 
research on alternative uses for agriculture products, crop disease, 
and research on scab disease in northwest Minnesota.
  He is willing to do this because he thinks there is some terrible 
wrong in this bill. I think it is a right. I think we are doing 
something that lives up to the very best in America. I say to my 
colleague and to people in the country, my colleague from Texas wants 
to hold this bill up because he finds it to be an offensive proposition 
that we should say that for legal immigrants we will make sure there is 
some assistance for those people who are elderly, disabled, and for 
small children.
  The Physicians for Human Rights released a report this past week 
finding an alarming amount of hunger and malnutrition among these legal 
immigrants. Food stuff use is on the rise. In the United States of 
America today at the peak of our economic performance we have people 
who are hungry and in jeopardy. What we ought to do here is restore 
some assistance for these legal immigrants. These asylees and refugees 
are people who have fled oppression in countries like Indonesia, China, 
you name it. They come to our country in the hope that we would be 
willing to extend a helping hand.
  My colleague from Texas talks about that as if it is a bad thing to 
do. I thought that is what we were about--people who fled persecution, 
people who were legal immigrants. Many of them were parents. My dad 
fled persecution from Russia. For the U.S. Senate to say, ``Look, we 
want to correct the harshness. We want to make sure there is some 
assistance for you to make sure you don't go hungry if you are elderly, 
if you are disabled, if you are a small child, if you fled persecution 
from a country.'' That is the right thing to do. Certainly we ought not 
to be holding up the agriculture research bill, which is so important 
to agriculture in our country and so important to farmers in Minnesota.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROBERTS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LUGAR. Let me inquire of the distinguished Senator from Kansas. 
Does the Senator require time at this moment?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I tell my distinguished chairman, if he could yield to 
me maybe 5 minutes.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suppose that some of what I am going to 
say is repetitive in that most of this was discussed during the general 
debate. But I feel compelled to speak again because of the strong 
personal interest in this in behalf of myself and many of my colleagues 
who served on the House Agriculture Committee, and for that matter the 
Senate Agriculture Committee back in 1996.
  There has been a real success story in regards to the Food Stamp 
Program and reforms that have been initiated. In 1996, with all due 
respect to that program and others who supported it, it was a program 
out of control. It couldn't even be audited. The inspector general came 
in, an inspector general from New York--a tough cop, by the way, named 
Roger Viadero, who has done an outstanding job, basically said that the 
Food Stamp Program could not even be audited due to the fraud, abuse, 
and organized crime involvement. As a matter of fact, he had a tape 
that we showed during the Committee hearings which ended up on 60 
Minutes. And we know all the stories about the Food Stamp Program, 
about the waiting in line, people with food stamps exchanging them for 
cash and then buying things that obviously did not represent a 
nutritious market basket of food.
  They got a new inspector general. We exposed the fraud and abuse on 
60 Minutes and saved $3 billion to $5 billion in regard to the fraud 
and abuse. Then we instituted major reforms. I am talking about the 
Senate Agriculture Committee and the House Agriculture Committee--$24 
billion, as the distinguished chairman has pointed out. I just do not 
think that is a success story that can be equaled.
  As a matter of fact, as to the person in charge of the Food Stamp 
Program there were many allegations made in regard to the performance 
of duty. She resigned. It is in better hands. Then we gave these 
reforms to the States. The States have come back with administrative 
savings. That is where the $1.7 billion comes in that has been referred 
to in terms of entitlement. And that money, I think, should be used for 
agriculture research, and I believe it also should be used for crop 
insurance and risk management. And, yes, there is some limited 
assistance in regard to food stamps.

  But let me refer to the comments made by the distinguished Senator 
from Texas whose concern I share. I certainly don't want any social 
welfare program, food stamps or otherwise, to be a beacon for people to 
come to this country when they wouldn't otherwise.
  But we are talking about refugees, and a refugee is defined as 
follows: A person who is fleeing because of persecution, or well-
founded fear of persecution, on account of race, religion, nationality, 
membership in a particular social group or political opinion, and who 
is of special humanitarian concern to the United States.
  I don't think people choose to be a refugee. That is just not the 
case. People are not fleeing their country to come to the U.S. with a 
beacon held out there saying ``I am coming because of food stamps.'' 
And we have a cap on the number of refugees. It will be 75,000 
admissions for the fiscal year as of 1999. Who are these people? The 
European numbers are used largely for Soviet religious minorities and 
Bosnians. East Asian numbers are for former Vietnamese, reeducation, 
camp detainees, and Laotians. I could keep on going down here. 
Basically, refugee admissions have fallen significantly from over 
100,000 per year during fiscal year 1989. Now they are down to 75,000, 
and they are headed further downward.
  Here is the difference. The agriculture research bill's food stamp 
provisions mirror the SSI provisions of last year's Balanced Both 
Houses have approved that.
  Let's go back to the original food stamp reform that was passed in 
1996 that I just talked about. These welfare reforms eliminated the 
benefits for anywhere from 800,000 to 950,000 noncitizens. This bill 
extends those benefits back to the children, the elderly, and the 
disabled who were in the country before August 22. That is the day of 
enactment of the bill. And, yes, it does also extend the benefits to 
refugees and asylees who may have entered after the August 22, 1996, 
debate. That means the total of the benefits will be restored to 
250,000 people, not 900,000. I do not think this represents a step back 
from the far-reaching food stamp reforms that were passed back in 1996.
  I think if you take a hard look at these people, I don't think the 
Food Stamp Program represents a beacon in regard to any kind of a 
reason that they would come to the United States. I have already read 
the definition.
  I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank especially the 
chairman of our committee.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the research bill that we 
have before us. It has the title of ``agricultural research.'' I think 
that is really somewhat misleading because this bill has a lot more in 
it than agricultural

[[Page S4667]]

research, although agricultural research is critically important. Some 
who are not in agriculture may wonder: ``Why is it so important?'' Let 
me just give them an example from my home State of North Dakota, one of 
the most agricultural States in the Nation, traditionally one of the 
largest wheat producers, one of the largest barley producers, one of 
the largest sunflower and sugar beet-producing States in the Nation, 
and the State that produces the vast majority of the durum wheat that 
goes to make pasta which is enjoyed by all of America.
  Last year, we lost a third of the crop in North Dakota to a disease. 
That disease is called scab. Scab is a fungus. In North Dakota we have 
had 5 years of extremely wet conditions. People may recall that last 
year we had an extraordinary set of disasters in North Dakota. That is 
just the continuation of a very severe weather pattern. Because of 
those overly wet conditions this fungus is growing in the crops of 
North Dakota; this scab. It destroyed a third of the crop last year. 
That is stunning. That is a loss of $1.1 billion just in my little 
State of North Dakota in 1 year.
  In this bill there is a provision to provide $26 million over 5 years 
on scab research so we can attack this problem. That is a reason that 
this bill is important. That is not the only reason.
  There are many other important agricultural research priorities to 
keep America on the cutting edge and on the leading edge of production 
agriculture. It is very important for our people to understand that our 
chief competitors are spending far more supporting their producers than 
we are spending supporting ours. In Europe they are spending about $47 
billion a year to support their producers. We are spending about $5 
billion.
  So we are asking our farmers to go out and compete against their 
farmers with their farmers having a substantial competitive edge.
  It is critically important that we not take everything away that our 
farmers are using to try to stay ahead of the competition.
  In addition, in this bill is the money to shore up the crop insurance 
system, also critically important to those areas that are experiencing 
losses as a result of these unusual weather patterns we are 
experiencing. Here on the east coast we have had, I think it is now, 13 
days of rain. We have already had 50 percent more rain at this time of 
the year than is normal. And that is affecting crops as well, because 
just like overly dry conditions have an adverse effect, so do overly 
wet conditions. That is what we are seeing, a very odd weather pattern 
across America this year. The crop insurance system needs to be 
strengthened and preserved. The funds to do it are in this bill.
  Now, our colleague from Texas comes along and he tells all of us, ``I 
want to send this bill back to committee. I want to get some changes 
made. It won't really endanger the legislation at all.''
  That is not true. Those of us who are on the Budget Committee 
understand what is at stake here. We understand that there is a budget 
resolution that has already passed this Chamber and is over in the 
other Chamber, and it takes a big chunk of the savings that are from 
the Agriculture Committee and uses them for another purpose. If this 
bill does not get passed and get passed quickly, we may lose these 
funds from agriculture altogether, and that would be a tragedy.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the 
Conference Report on S. 1150, the Agricultural, Research, Extension, 
and Education Reform Act of 1998. Certainly, there are a number of 
important issues addressed in this bill, but none more critical than 
the provisions that would restore food stamp benefits to many elderly, 
children, and disabled legal immigrants.
  While I am pleased that over 70 Senators joined the effort to bring 
this Conference Report to the floor, I am disappointed that action on 
such an important and bipartisan bill has been needlessly delayed. My 
colleagues have demonstrated overwhelming support for this Conference 
Report.
  Like many of my colleagues, I was deeply concerned about provisions 
of the 1996 welfare reform law which denied benefits to legal 
immigrants, particularly children, the disabled, and the elderly. The 
welfare reform law was necessary to help people move from dependency to 
work, but it was not perfect. That is why we worked to restore 
Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid to legal immigrants in last 
year's balanced budget agreement.
  With the Agricultural Research Conference Report, we take another 
important step to address the needs of our most vulnerable legal 
immigrants. Some states, including my home state of Rhode Island, have 
provided temporary benefits to fill the void created by the welfare 
reform law, but a permanent and uniform federal solution is needed for 
this group of immigrants.
  Under the Conference Report, food stamp benefits would be restored to 
those legal immigrants who were in the United States when the welfare 
reform law went into effect on August 22, 1996, if they met certain 
conditions such as: (1) they are or become disabled; (2) they are 
children; or (3) they were over 65 years old at the time the welfare 
reform law was enacted. In addition, the Conference Report restores 
food stamp eligibility to Hmong immigrants. While this Conference 
Report does not restore benefits to all legal immigrants, it is a 
positive and essential first step.
  Mr. President, our nation has prospered from the tremendous 
contributions of immigrants who have strengthened our economy and 
brought vitality to our communities. Today, we have the opportunity to 
restore benefits to children, elderly, and disabled legal immigrants--
many of whom have worked and paid U.S. taxes. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the motion to recommit and support the Conference Report on S. 
1150.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the conference 
report to accompany S. 1150, the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Education Reform Act of 1998. This legislation contains very important 
provisions that will help improve the delivery of safe, healthy, and 
value-added agricultural products to the American and world 
marketplace, and keep rural America strong.
  The conference report contains a provision very similar to one in S. 
1597, a measure I introduced as a companion to a bill introduced in the 
House by Congresswoman Stabenow. This provision directs the Department 
of Agriculture to assemble FEMA-like Crisis Management Teams to respond 
to emergencies, like threats to human health from food-borne pathogens. 
And, USDA must work with other agencies to ensure coordinated 
information and actions in the event of such a crisis. This is a very 
important and non-regulatory way for the Federal government to 
identify, correct, and prevent future food supply contamination.
  S. 1150 contains a host of other important provisions, not the least 
of which is a funding mechanism to ensure that these new authorizations 
are paid for. USDA will be the site of a new Food Safety Research 
Information Office that will centralize and make public research and 
scientific data on food safety issues. Wheat scab, which has been a 
multi-billion problem in Michigan and in other barley and wheat 
producing states in the North Central region, will be the subject of a 
new research initiative. The crop insurance system will be made 
solvent. Precision agriculture, which uses high technology to reduce 
inputs like fertilizer and pesticides, will get new emphasis. And, USDA 
will conduct focused research to help diversify the crops that make up 
our main food supply, so that it will be less vulnerable to disruptions 
due to weather, pests or disease.
  Mr. President, this is an important bill and I hope my colleagues 
will not vote to recommit the conference report. That would send the 
wrong message to a major sector of our economy and call into question 
Congress' commitment to a safe and abundant food supply.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the report with regard to the conferees on 
agriculture reform is supported by 17 out of the 18 members of our 
committee. I make that point because the 17 have written to our leader 
asking him for this debate. They are grateful for that opportunity. The 
18th was predictably our colleague and a very valued

[[Page S4668]]

member of the committee, the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, who objects 
to the conference report and has offered this recommittal motion as a 
way, in my judgment, of defeating the conference report.
  Let me just offer a word of clarification. As the chairman of the 
conference and one of the conferees, along with Senator Cochran and 
Senator Coverdell on the Republican side, we supported the conference 
report after meeting with House colleagues who had very considerable 
enthusiasms of their own. This is not the first time that the Senate 
and House have met in a conference and have had to wrestle with issues 
that were distinctly different in the bills and have come to a 
compromise which, in my judgment, is a sound one, which was supported 
immediately by all the conferees in the House and the Senate in both 
parties and by 74 United States Senators who have written to the 
majority leader supporting this conference report. They do so because 
it is extremely timely. There are farmers in the field now dependent 
upon the crop insurance provisions.
  If we are not successful today, of course, we will return to the 
conference, but I have already turned to the conferees and they are 
unanimous that we should proceed with the same bill and we will be back 
in the Chamber delayed by days or weeks as the case may be. The Senate 
may then pass the conference report. Perhaps the distinguished Senator 
from Texas is correct that this is going to pass by a very large 
majority. But is it any more certain that this same conference report 
will pass days and weeks hence, if we can get floor time, than today? I 
doubt it.
  Now, the reason why conferees will not change the conference report 
is that the distinguished Senator from Texas has asked for a very 
narrow change that does not make a lot of sense. Let me review, Mr. 
President, respectfully, why I make that comment.
  Before welfare reform, all legal aliens were eligible for food 
stamps, for SSI, the Social Security income payments, and for Medicaid. 
Before welfare reform, all of these persons were eligible. With the 
passage of welfare reform, most legal aliens became ineligible until 
such time as they became citizens.
  But, Mr. President, follow carefully if you will. Refugees and 
asylees continued under welfare reform to be eligible for SSI, for food 
stamps, and for Medicaid. No new entitlement here. Welfare reform 
simply continued their eligibility from the pre-welfare reform days.
  Now, the balanced budget amendment restored Social Security to some 
of the legal aliens; namely, to children, elderly, the disabled who 
were in this country on August 22, 1996, when we passed welfare reform. 
And it made asylees and refugees who already had benefits, who retained 
those, eligible now for 7 years of Social Security income and Medicaid.
  Mr. President, you might ask, while we were at it we all passed this 
bill, the balanced budget amendment with enthusiasm. Why did we not 
change the food stamp provision from 5 years, which the refugees and 
asylees had, to 7 years to conform with what we were doing on income 
and the rest? Well, we did not because the Finance Committee had 
jurisdiction over that particular money. The Agriculture Committee has 
jurisdiction over food stamps. We were not in the picture. We are 
today. The intent of the motion of the Senator from Texas is in essence 
over the idea that the 5 years the refugees and asylees already had 
should not go to 7 years, and we should go back to conference to 
apparently knock back the 7 to 5. It is something which most Members 
find incomprehensible.
  The distinguished Senator has a larger point, I believe, in his 
motion. He believes that however you phrase the food stamp situation, 
it is a beacon of hope for persons to come to our country, as he says, 
for years, for decades. Well, perhaps, but the asylees and the refugees 
are not swarming across our borders. They are people one by one who 
must present themselves and say and affirm: I am a potential victim of 
persecution, well-founded, and they have to prove that. If they do not 
prove it, they do not get in. And frequently people who had not gotten 
in went back and were killed. There are consequences to those 
decisions.
  The people presenting themselves are Evangelical Christians; they are 
Jews from the former Soviet Union; they are Cubans who have tried to 
escape Castro; they are people who have fled from Somalia and from 
racial persecution in Bosnia recently. These are tough cases, and we 
recognized that in the welfare reform bill. We said keep them with a 
safety net because they do not have sponsors. They come with the shirts 
on their backs. And we have done so because we are a humane people. 
What sort of people are we to think about denying persons who have come 
in these circumstances to our shores? This is not a neon sign 
advertisement. It is simply a fact of the kind of country we are.
  To send all of this back to conference over the fact that 5 years of 
eligibility these people now have should be changed to 7 seems to me to 
be an item the Senate should reject and do so decisively.
  Finally, let me just simply say that Larry Craig, the distinguished 
Senator from Idaho, has said:

       This is more than just a reauthorization bill. Legislation 
     before the Senate today is an investment in the future and 
     represents our commitment to America's farm families. By 
     providing the technical assistance and extension activities 
     that help expand farm income, improve resource management, 
     and develop new crop varieties, federally funded agricultural 
     research assures that our Nation will continue to lead the 
     world in farm production and help bolster the stability of 
     our rural areas.

  I concur with that. This is not a question of an entitlement. It is 
the question of our commitment in the farm bill.
  We committed to America's farmers, for a 7-year period of time, a 
proposition--freedom to farm, the idea to manage your own land and 
plant for the future. And American farmers have responded to that. They 
have planted over 10 million more acres. They have raised their income. 
They have raised exports for America. But we said there will be a 
safety net in this transition from the old days of supply management. 
It includes payments to farmers that decrease over the next 5 years. It 
includes the CRP, the Conservation Reserve Program, that tries to 
protect the environment for a 5-year period of time. We believe it 
needs to include farm research during this same period of the next 5 
years, and crop insurance with those guarantees. The argument is, it 
could be done year by year, but this is not of great assurance to our 
farmers.
  So, for all these reasons, I ask the Gramm amendment be defeated and 
we move on, then, to prompt passage of the conference report. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me explain why the amendment does make 
sense. And let me do it by going back to our welfare reform bill. I 
would like to remind my colleagues, not that public popularity is the 
be-all and end-all--it can often be misleading in the short term--but I 
am sure many of my colleagues are aware that when asked what action by 
Congress in the last 4 years they most approved of, the American 
people, in a set of polls taken last month, said ``welfare reform.'' 
What we did in welfare reform is, we set higher standards for welfare 
and we defined work as the norm, and we defined welfare programs as 
temporary programs to help people help themselves.
  When we wrote the welfare reform bill in 1996, and I was active in it 
and was a conferee, this provision with regard to refugees was a hard-
fought provision. Prior to the 1996 bill, there was no limit on the 
amount of time that a refugee could get food stamps. Many people, 
including myself, wanted to set a strict limit on it, again with the 
idea that we were talking about transitional help, but we wanted people 
to come to America, as millions have come--and millions of Americans 
have come as refugees; millions of Americans have come as refugees 
since World War II.
  We know that many of these refugees are really economic refugees but 
they claim to be political refugees, and often it is very difficult to 
tell the difference because countries that have bad political systems 
normally have bad economic systems.
  So, after a real battle in conference, endless days of negotiations, 
we settled

[[Page S4669]]

on a 5-year limit. Now, in this bill, in a bill that, when it was 
considered in the Senate where it was amendable, there was no food 
stamp provision, there was no debate on this issue. When it was 
considered in the House, there was no provision expanding food stamps, 
no debate, no ability to amend it. Now we have a conference agreement 
that adds $818 million back in food stamps that were denied as part of 
welfare reform. This bill is a major step toward overturning the 
welfare reform bill.
  I have singled out this provision because I think it is critically 
important. Whenever proponents of the provision in the bill debate it, 
they always like to talk about children, disabled, and elderly--and 
don't we all?--because, obviously, that is where we can focus our 
concern. But the provision that I am trying to deal with here has 
nothing to do with children, disabled, elderly, who were in the country 
on the day we passed the welfare reform bill. The provision that I am 
trying to deal with is the prospective provision which simply tries to 
draw a line and says that we passed a welfare reform bill, we 
negotiated this out, and here we are, 2 years after it went into 
effect, raising the number of years that you can be on food stamps 
under the new welfare bill as an immigrant by an additional 2 years.
  Why are we doing it? To quote one of the proponents, ``It provides 
seamless protections so people can come, get food stamps, become 
citizens, and continue to get food stamps.''
  I want people to come to America to go to work. I want our assistance 
program not to be a way of life. We debated this issue 3 years ago, and 
those who believe that welfare should not be a way of life won on an 
overwhelming vote. Yet, over and over and over again, in little parts 
and parcels, we are undoing one of the major legislative activities 
that we have undertaken in this decade. This bill is such an activity.

  So, I am not for the food stamp provision, but I am not asking my 
colleagues to strike it out. I am asking my colleagues to ask the 
conference to reconvene and to remove the prospective provision which 
says that anyone coming in the future can qualify as a refugee and get 
7 years of food stamps. I believe that we are, through this provision, 
taking a step to go back to the days, which we have recently put behind 
us, where we were asking people to come to America, not with their 
sleeves rolled up ready to go to work, but with their hand held out 
ready to go on welfare.
  This is a little issue. We are not talking about big amounts of 
money, but we are talking about a big principle: What do you want the 
beacon drawing people to America to be? Do you want the beacon to be 
welfare and food stamps? Or do you want the beacon to be the 
opportunity to live and work in the greatest country in the history of 
the world?
  So, to some people this may look like a small issue. We are not 
talking about much money, because this bill is a 5-year bill. 
Obviously, there are very few people--since you can get food stamps now 
for 5 years, extending it to 7 will affect only a few people in the 
last year of the bill. But the principle is a big principle, and the 
principle is, ``what kind of America do you want, and what kind of 
American do you want?'' I want people from all over the world, from all 
kinds of backgrounds, who share one thing--a dream of having the 
opportunity to come to America and work and build their dream and the 
American dream. That is what I am for. That is what this provision is 
about.
  I would like now, Mr. President, to yield 5 minutes to the Senator 
from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer will inform Senators 
that the Senator from Texas has 12 minutes 10 seconds remaining on his 
time. The Senator from Indiana has 8 minutes.
  The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I have few superlatives that I can 
claim as a Member of the Senate, but one of them is that I have spent 
52 years in active agriculture, farming, and in all phases of it. I 
would be hard pressed to find the crop or the livestock interest that I 
have not, at one time or another, been involved in.
  North Carolina is home to some of the most productive and largest 
farms in the Nation and the finest agricultural research universities, 
by far, in the Nation. I don't think that I play second fiddle to any 
Senator in support for reauthorization of the agricultural extension 
bill. It is critical to the farmers of this country and to the 
universities and the ag research universities. But the bill also makes 
important reforms to the Crop Insurance Program that will benefit 
farmers and taxpayers. Planting season is here, and we need to get it 
settled, and I am ready and anxious to do it.
  However, despite what I have just said, let me add, I don't play 
second fiddle to any Senator in my support of real welfare reform. 
Workfare, not welfare, was the platform I ran on for the Senate in 
1992. The 1996 welfare reform bill, although watered down, was a real 
accomplishment for the 104th Congress. I preferred the first two bills 
that were vetoed by the President, but the third was still a good bill. 
That is why I am so disturbed that we are gutting the welfare reform 
and doing it in an agricultural research bill.
  This bill restores food stamps for 250,000 immigrants. We sit here 
and say very nicely, ``But it doesn't amount to much; it is only 2 
years on to 5, so let the 2 years go.'' Will next year be at 10? In the 
following session of Congress, do we go to infinity? That is the reason 
we have a $5.5 trillion debt today, because 2 years wasn't very much, 
but 3 would be fine, and we kept going.
  In effect, it says,

       Welcome to America. Come on, you don't have to be 
     productive. You know when you leave where you are and come to 
     this country that you are going to be eligible for food 
     stamps for 7 years, and by the time you get settled in, we 
     will change the law where you will be eligible and you won't 
     ever have to work because we will feed you.

  We already restored SI payments. Now we are throwing food stamps for 
another $80 million.
  We also said that the welfare reform bill ended welfare as we know 
it. Unfortunately, this agricultural research bill is welfare reform as 
we did it. These changes to the welfare reform law come at the 
insistence of President Clinton. He vetoed the first two welfare reform 
bills, and he has succeeded in rewriting the one that he signed. If he 
was going to start trying to rewrite it before the ink dried on it, he 
never should have signed it.
  I want the agricultural research bill without the food stamp 
provision to pass. Nobody is more in support of agricultural research 
and the whole agricultural bill than I am. It is critical to North 
Carolina, but the food stamp provision is a another step toward 
reversal of the welfare reform bill.
  Mr. President, the Statue of Liberty holds a torch of freedom, not a 
book of food stamps and a lifetime right to not to have to work. That 
is the flag we are waving to people coming into this country: ``Sit 
down, relax, you are home free.'' The Senator from Texas is doing the 
right thing, and I am proud to support him. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report and urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit. For 
those in agriculture, it is critical that we move this in a prompt and 
expedited fashion and avoid any additional delay. The time for passage 
is now.
  I congratulate Chairman Lugar, Senator Harkin and their staffs who 
have labored for months to bring this legislation before us. Simply 
put, agriculture needs this now. Included in it are urgent reforms and 
funding necessary to avoid a crisis which would undermine the viability 
of crop insurance--a safety net that farmers in my State and across the 
country cannot do without. This legislation is fully offset and paid 
for and is supported by a united agriculture industry. After months of 
careful and deliberate negotiations, a bipartisan agreement with the 
administration has been developed. It was an agreement with the 
administration and it takes into account the need to get the 
President's signature on it. I believe the work of the conferees should 
be applauded and endorsed with our support today.

[[Page S4670]]

  I am particularly interested in the research title. We expect to see 
the world's population double in the next 30 years. The demand for food 
is expected to triple in the next 50 years. The world's population 
wants more food, cheaper food, more nutritious food, safer food, food 
that is easier to prepare and they want it produced on less land with 
fewer chemicals and in a more environmentally sensitive manner.
  Those individuals who produce food and fiber for this world today--
encumbered with what otherwise would be conflicting mandates--have 
never faced a greater challenge. Technology is the answer.
  Remarkably, plant technology in this half-century has helped make it 
possible for the farmer, who in 1940 fed 19 people, to feed 129 people 
today.
  Nobel prize-winning chemist Robert F. Curl of Rice University 
proclaimed that: ``* * * it is clear that the 21st will be the century 
of biology.'' The March 27 article in Science Magazine entitled: ``A 
Third Technological Revolution,''--after the Industrial and Computer-
based revolutions--contends that: ``Ultimately, the world will obtain 
most of its food, fuel, fiber, chemicals and some of its 
pharmaceuticals from genetically altered vegetation and trees.''
  The possibilities are breathtaking and the U.S. is poised to lead the 
third technological revolution as we unlock the secrets plant-by-plant 
and now, genome-by-genome.
  Simply put, this research is about meeting the world's growing 
nutritional needs, protecting U.S. jobs and preserving the environment.
  The legislation before us looks ahead to the challenges of the 21st 
century by providing additional funding on what all of us back home say 
is a priority; research. It provides $600 million for the Initiative 
for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. This will augment our federal 
commitment to undertake cutting-edge research in priority areas such as 
genome studies, biotechnology, food safety, precision agriculture and 
new use development.
  I cite as an example, the University of Missouri has just tested a 
new hybrid corn which when fed to swine reduces phosphorous in manure 
by a whopping 37 percent. The Monsanto Company, in my State, is using 
biotechnology to produce cotton plants with genes that produce colors 
to reduce the need for chemical dyeing. From the corn plant, they have 
produced a human-like antibody that holds promise for allowing cancer 
patients to tolerate more frequent doses of a tumor-shrinking drug. The 
possibilities are breathtaking and the U.S. is leading the charge.
  Let me say one thing to those who represent agriculture states. 
Almost 70 percent of the USDA budget is not for research or export 
promotion or conservation or for subsidies to farmers--it is for food 
and nutrition programs, primarily the food stamp program. For those who 
have watched over the years as a greater and greater percentage of USDA 
funds have gone to welfare, often at the expense of programs that 
assist farmers and conservation, this legislation moves $1 billion back 
to agriculture.
  While I understand that some here today would like to see less money 
for food stamps for legal immigrants, others would like to see more. I 
recall that the Administration proposed in their budget that all this 
administrative savings go for legal immigrants and have threatened to 
veto crop insurance and research if it didn't also include funding for 
food stamps for legal immigrants.
  The food stamp provisions of this act are an essential step to 
providing much needed assistance to certain legal immigrants. Attempts 
to undo this carefully-crafted bipartisan compromise will result in 
delay and ultimately undermine the entire bill.
  The bipartisan leaders have worked hard to craft a bill that the 
President will accept. There should be no further delay and I urge my 
colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and move swiftly to final 
adoption of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't have any time, but I ask if somebody will give 
me a couple minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from New 
Mexico?
  Mr. GRAMM. How much time do we have on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 6 minutes, 47 
seconds; the Senator from Indiana has 4 minutes, 43 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do we have a time certain to vote, or when the time 
expires?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur when all debate time has 
expired.
  Mr. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator might have 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I won't 
object, but I hope if we are going to go down this path that the other 
side be afforded equal opportunity to have additional time, if so 
requested. I don't request it, but in case somebody does request it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Indiana, what 
does he think about this? Does he want 5 minutes himself if I get 5?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes, Mr. President. Can we amend the request that there be 
an additional 5 minutes for me to speak?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the Senator is not going to speak on behalf 
of my amendment; he just wants to speak on the bill itself.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator give me 2 minutes, and that will be 
enough.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me repeat my request. Since the Senator is not going 
to engage in the debate before us, but has relevant comments about the 
bill before us, and we hope, obviously another motion, infinite number 
of motions are in order, but we hope this will settle the order, I make 
a unanimous consent request that the Senator have 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, I renew my request that 
Senator Domenici have 5 additional minutes and I have 5 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. I would like 5 additional minutes, then, as well.
  Mr. LUGAR. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. 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. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Alabama 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am very, very reluctant to rise in 
opposition to this conference report as it is presently constituted, 
and in support of the motion to return this legislation to the 
conference committee. I believe, however, that returning this 
legislation to the conference committee is the proper and appropriate 
thing to do. Having said that, I feel that there are some marvelous 
provisions contained within this bill. For example, agricultural 
research is very important, and this legislation will strengthen and 
improve the work being done to advance this field. Similarly, crop 
insurance will be made sound under this legislation. Both are matters 
of critical importance to me.
  I do not believe that sending the legislation back to the conference 
committee to fix this bill's entitlement expansion in the Food Stamp 
Program will kill this bill or extraordinarily delay it or in any way 
jeopardize the fundamental reforms that are contained in it. Sending 
the bill back to conference simply reflects routine business practices 
in this Senate.
  Under this legislation's expansion of the food stamp entitlement, 
250,000 new people will be added to the food stamp rolls. In my last 
campaign, I talked about the fact that the President had committed to 
undermining the welfare reform bill that was passed several years ago. 
These provisions have proven that statement to be true. This bill

[[Page S4671]]

expands from 5 to 7 years the amount of time noncitizens can draw food 
stamps. It is an expansion of that policy, and it is the kind of 
expansion I think is not justified. Will we next year come back for 10 
years? Will it be 15 years? What will be the next revision?
  There will always be pressure for us to expand and expand and expand. 
I think we have to show some integrity and some fortitude on this 
issue. And so, with great reluctance, I have to say to the 
distinguished chairman of the committee and the members of that 
committee that I cannot vote for this bill. I cannot vote for it 
because I told the people of Alabama I was not coming up here and 
voting for the undermining of the welfare bill that was passed last 
time. I cannot justify this expansion of the Food Stamp Program. So if 
we cannot send it back, I will be forced to vote no. I will hate to 
have to do that. I think supporting this motion to recommit the bill is 
the best way to address this issue.
  I thank the Senator from Texas for his leadership and courage in 
raising this important issue, because we have to get to a point in this 
country where we can contain our spending tendencies, and if we do not, 
we will never maintain a balanced budget.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleague and compliment him on his leadership 
on this bill and all aspects of the bill, on research on crop insurance 
and food stamps.
  I listened with some amusement to my friend and colleague from Texas 
talking about this issue, saying that it is principle, that he is doing 
this on principle. I know we passed the Balanced Budget Act last year 
in the Senate. That extended from 5 to 7 years Medicaid and SSI to the 
same refugees and asylees we are talking about. I do not recall the 
Senator from Texas then offering an amendment to strike it out of the 
Balanced Budget Act.
  Mr. GRAMM. I voted no, I would like the Senator to be aware of that.
  Mr. HARKIN. I believe the Record will show the Senator from Texas 
voted when the Balanced Budget Act passed the Senate.
  Mr. GRAMM. I did. And I voted no.
  Mr. HARKIN. I believe the Senator voted aye when the Balanced Budget 
Act passed the Senate--maybe not on the conference report but when it 
passed the Senate. And that provision was in the Senate bill to extend 
it to 7 years.
  Secondly, the Senator from Texas may be philosophically opposed to 
food stamps. That is fine. That is his position--that may be his 
position. That is another debate for another time. We settled that in 
welfare reform, and we settled it in the Balanced Budget Act last year.
  All we are doing now is making food stamps compatible with Medicaid 
and SSI. So I hope the Senator would not hold our farmers hostage, 
because that is what is happening. We know full well, if this goes back 
to conference, it is dead. We have hundreds of thousands of farmers who 
need crop insurance this summer. Over 106,000 winter wheat policies 
right now will be up on September 30. Farmers all over the plains 
States will not be able to renew their policies. Many farmers use their 
crop insurance policies as collateral in order to secure an operating 
loan. So if we do not have that, thousands of farmers will not have 
access to the credit they need to get the crop in. That is why we need 
to pass this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 2 minutes 40 
seconds.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield myself that time.
  Mr. President, let me make as clear as I can the parliamentary 
situation. We have tried, in the Ag Committee since last fall, to pass 
a sound research bill. We succeeded last fall. The House did not act 
finally until the end of the session and did not appoint conferees 
until a short time ago.
  It has been a very difficult conference--not the first time such a 
thing has occurred. Conferences in the Congress have occurred 
frequently. Compromises are made.
  Mr. President, to suggest glibly that we can go back to conference if 
the motion made by the Senator from Texas passes, simply excise what he 
wishes, and return to the Senate with a bill, is inaccurate. I have 
tested the conferees, and they will not change. The Senator from Texas 
may not change. Furthermore, if changes are made, the Secretary of 
Agriculture has written to the committee that he will recommend the 
President veto the bill. Now we can all estimate, Is the President 
bluffing? Is the Secretary accurate? Will somebody weaken on the House 
side--maybe many people--and suddenly see the light? Conceivably, Mr. 
President. And I pledge I will try. Patiently, for 6 months, I have 
tried, and if need be, I will continue to do that.
  My prediction is, there will be a considerable delay with regard to 
crop insurance, probably a year or 2 delay in terms of research, and in 
due course I have no idea what will happen on the food stamp issue.
  But, Mr. President, let me simply say, we have a remarkable 
possibility for achievement here today that I hope will not be defeated 
on a very narrow point. I understand the objections of our colleagues, 
but I understand an overwhelming majority, 74 Senators, expressed 
themselves in writing that this is their will. I hope we will have an 
opportunity to manifest it in passage of the report.
  I yield back our remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 3 minutes 23 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
2 minutes.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Senator Gramm.
  I did not really think my few words would be this controversial, but 
I want to share with the Senate a concern. It is not just about this 
bill. But it seems to me that every day or so we are talking about an 
approach here in the U.S. Senate which essentially wipes out last 
year's budget agreement. The cornerstone to last year's budget 
agreement was the caps we placed on discretionary spending, both 
defense and domestic. That means, written in the law are numbers that 
we said we will not violate; that we will not exceed this level of 
spending.
  Everybody who is getting anything from Government would like to turn 
those discretionary programs into mandatory programs, so they are not 
subject to the caps. Everybody would like to have a guarantee that 
their program is going to get funded. That is what we call an 
entitlement or a mandatory program. We are talking about that in this 
bill. We are talking about that in the tobacco bill in a very big way.
  What is happening now is that we are absolutely breaking the 
agreement we made, which was so solemn, about getting our budget under 
control. Every time the budget bites and it squeals a little because a 
decision is tough, we find a way to avoid it and spend the money in 
another way. It is money nonetheless, and it is adding to the size of 
Government nonetheless.
  Frankly, I do not agree with Senator Gramm's position on this bill in 
terms of the food stamps provisions. But I, frankly, do not believe we 
ought to shut our eyes to a tendency that could become a very big 
stream. We are forgetting about appropriated accounts and caps, 
understandings and agreements, and finding brand new ways to fund 
programs that will be on automatic pilot.
  I submit to you, from the taxpayers' standpoint, there is absolutely 
no difference. If you are using a dollar of taxpayers' money to break 
the caps that we agreed upon or if you are spending a dollar for a new 
entitlement program, it is the same effect.
  I hate to make this statement on this bill because I am not 
necessarily saying the bill should go down to defeat. But I want to 
warn the Senate--and I am going to warn the Senate on every bill that 
circumvents the caps--that this is not the way we got to balance.

[[Page S4672]]

 This is not what we promised the American people and the marketplace 
in terms of where we were going as a Congress, and I plan to call that 
to everyone's attention on a regular basis.
  I yield the floor and thank the Senator for time.
  Mr. GRAMM. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think Senator Lugar put his finger on the 
situation when he said that the President would veto the agriculture 
research bill and crop insurance if the bill didn't contain $818 
million worth of new food stamps adding 250,000 people to the food 
stamp rolls. I believe that is piracy. I do not believe the President 
would veto this bill. Further, I am confident that we would override 
his veto, and I think it is imperative that we start standing up and 
defending the major actions we take, and welfare is one of those 
actions.
  This bill is going to effectively raise the level of spending in the 
Federal Government by $1.86 billion, because we are going to pay for 
four entitlement programs in this bill, and we are going to free up 
$1.86 billion to be spent on discretionary spending. I intend to oppose 
the bill. I hope my colleagues will vote for this motion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question occurs 
on the motion to recommit the conference report to the committee on 
conference with instructions offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. 
Gramm.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 77, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 128 Leg.]

                                YEAS--23

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     Nickles
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--77

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have requests from other Senators wanting 
to speak on other subjects. I would ask the Chair, is it possible we 
could move to disposition of the business before us?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the conference 
report?
  Is there further debate on the conference report?
  Mr. KOHL. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Agriculture Research conference report. A great deal of thanks and 
appreciation is due to Senators Lugar and Harkin for their hard work 
and efforts to reform and prioritize USDA's agriculture research, 
extension and education activities.
  This conference report is extremely important to the agricultural 
community. It invests $1.7 billion in agricultural research to develop 
the new technology that will be used by farms in the next five to ten 
years, to solve the projected shortfall in crop insurance funding, and 
to support the Fund for Rural America.
  The nation's Land-Grant Universities work with the USDA on issues 
ranging from the international competitiveness of our family farms, to 
new food borne illness problems, to ground water contamination. We need 
to support their efforts with a robust research budget in line with 
other agencies' research budgets. This bill puts us on the track to do 
that, and I support it.
  I am also pleased to speak in strong support of the provisions of 
this bill restoring food stamps to legal immigrants.
  Mr. President, I supported the 1996 welfare reform law. The time had 
clearly come for radical change. We rightly concluded that nothing 
erodes the human spirit more readily than dependence on handouts, and 
we instituted reforms based upon the principles of personal 
responsibility and hard work.
  But in some cases, a helping hand is truly necessary, and sometimes 
so much help is needed that only the Federal government is capable of 
providing it. This is clearly the case with respect to certain classes 
of legal immigrants. The welfare law provisions restricting legal 
immigrant access to food stamps went too far.
  Legal immigrants pay taxes and serve in our armed forces. They are 
not granted all the privileges of U.S. citizenship, but are expected to 
fulfill most of the responsibilities of citizenship. The ban on food 
stamps for elderly, disabled and other needy legal immigrants from food 
stamps was harsh and unfair.
  While myself and others argued that point during debate on the 
welfare bill in 1996, the majority of us have learned it since then. In 
any case, we should all feel confident that we are doing the right 
thing today by voting for this bill.
  Mr. President, my support for the food stamps restoration is 
particularly heart-felt due to my concern for the Hmong and other legal 
immigrants from Laos and their families. As my colleagues may know, the 
Hmong fought along side our American men and women in the Vietnam War. 
They risked their lives on behalf of all that we hold dear in this 
country--freedom from oppression, democracy and the pursuit of 
happiness--and fled to the United States following the War out of fear 
of persecution. To them, we truly owe a debt of gratitude.
  There are 250,000 Hmong and Lao people living in the United States, 
approximately 40,000 of whom live in Wisconsin. Of those 40,000, 
roughly 7000 lost eligibility for food stamps under the welfare law. 
And 75 percent of those individuals who have lost food stamps in 
Wisconsin live in households with children.
  The Hmong and highland people have enriched our country and enriched 
Wisconsin. They have worked hard to support their families and give 
back to their communities. Simply put, we are thankful for all they did 
and thankful for the contributions they continue to make.
  Last year, we took steps to restore SSI benefits to the Hmong and 
other worthy immigrants, and today we are right to take this step with 
respect to food stamps.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the conference 
report?
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the importance of 
passing the Conference Report on the Agricultural Research Bill, S. 
1150.
  This bill has the overwhelming support of over 70 Senators, yet we 
have continued to struggle here in the Senate to get this critically 
important legislation passed.
  In recent years, American agriculture has greatly changed. Because of 
the 1996 Farm Bill, our producers rely greatly on the crop insurance 
program to protect them from production risk. The reforms in 
agricultural research programs included in S. 1150

[[Page S4673]]

provide a roadmap for the future of agriculture. As importantly, it 
includes a funding stream to fund important new investments in 
agricultural research and rural development by creating and funding The 
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems and by extending the 
Fund for Rural America.
  And yes, to the chagrin of some, this legislation reinstates food 
stamp benefits for our most vulnerable legal immigrants. I would hasten 
to point out that these provisions are modeled on sections of last 
year's Balanced Budget Act that restored eligibility for Supplemental 
Security Income and Medicaid to some legal immigrants.
  I applaud the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and 
Senator Harkin for their leadership in crafting the balanced compromise 
inherent in this legislation. Attempts to derail this compromise put at 
risk the important investments in agriculture and the sound research 
and crop insurance reforms included in the bill.
  Living in a state like South Dakota, I know first hand, and as most 
of you saw during last year's disaster, what continual flooding can do 
to our precious farm land. Again, this year, eight counties in 
northeastern South Dakota are again experiencing severe flooding 
conditions.
  Without a strong safety net, crop insurance remains as the only 
safety net for producers to protect them from the vagaries of nature. 
This bill provides nearly $500 million for partial funding for this 
important risk management tool.
  I have been informed by several crop insurance agents in South Dakota 
that the Agricultural Research Bill must be passed soon or many 
producers face the possible cancellation of their policies. Keep in 
mind, these policies, are in many cases, the only protection producers 
have from disasters which are not of their acts of mismanagement but as 
acts of nature.
  The bill covers all facets of federally funded agricultural research, 
including: the Agriculture Research Service of USDA; the Cooperative 
Extension Service; Land Grant Universities such as South Dakota State 
University and competitive research and extension programs open to 
other entities.
  S. 1150 includes comprehensive research provisions for our nation's 
land grant universities. For example, South Dakota State University 
(SDSU) and other small state schools are protected in this bill by 
allowing a great deal of flexibility in how SDSU will meet new 
requirements that direct a percentage of all research and extension 
funds toward multi-state, disciplinary, and integrated research and 
extension activities. For example, if SDSU is working on a project that 
may need expertise from the University of South Dakota, they will be 
able to include that toward meeting the multi-state research component.
  I am also pleased that the conferees have agreed to authorize a 
competitive research program for tribal colleges, otherwise known as 
the 1994 institutions.
  Unlike the significant research programs that have existed for 
decades for 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions, the 1994 
institutions currently do not have authorization for an agriculture 
research program, and thus are not full partners in the land-grant 
system.
  This legislation mitigates this inequity by establishing a modest, 
competitive research program for the 1994 institutions. Funded research 
would address high priority concerns of local tribal, national, and 
multi-state significance and would be conducted through cooperative 
agreement with 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions.
  Although it is true that some tribal colleges are not yet ready to 
conduct research, many of them have the capability. Some current 
research includes:
  (1) Water quality research: Conducted through contracts with Indian 
Tribes, which are required to meet certain standards under the federal 
Clean Water Act.
  (2) Wildlife research: Conducted by a handful of tribal colleges to 
evaluate and find solutions for the adverse impact of pesticides on 
local wild bird and deer populations, and to research problems 
associated with amphibians and irrigation project lines.
  (3) Native plant research: Conducted because new development on and 
near tribal lands is taking a serious toll on wetland areas. This 
impacts the niche environment of native plants, which are traditionally 
used for medicinal and other purposes. This is an example of the kind 
of research that most larger institutions would not focus on because it 
will not lead to large-scale production agriculture. Without the 
research currently being conducted at Salish Kootenai College in Pablo, 
Montana, the nation risks losing some of our native plants.
  (4) Range cattle research: Currently underway at several tribal 
colleges, to address problems of range cattle traversing streams and 
impacting water quality (and possibly impacting native trout and other 
fish populations). In addition, one tribal college is conducting 
research and development on a new strain of more rigorous cattle.
  This is just a sampling of the kind of research currently ongoing at 
the tribal colleges. The primary focus of this research is on the use 
of niche products to develop and expand reservation economies; the 
preservation and cultivation of land; and the strengthening of families 
and communities.
  The tribal colleges have not asked for millions and millions of 
dollars to conduct costly basic research. Rather, they ask for research 
authority to protect and improve the earth on which they live and to 
ensure the viability of the plants and animals with which they co-
exist.
  Another provision of this legislation addresses an inequity in the 
1994 land-grant extension program. Under the reauthorization, 1994 
institutions would be permitted to enter into cooperative agreements 
with any 1862 or 1890 institution in the United States, rather than 
being limited to agreements with only the 1862 in their state.
  This provision is important to the effort to create productive, cost-
efficient extension programs in Indian Country. Under current law, to 
participate in extension programs, 1994 institutions are required to 
enter into cooperative agreements with the 1862 institution in their 
state, and funding for the program goes to the 1862 institutions rather 
than the 1994 institutions.
  In the case of Sitting Bull College, which straddles the border of 
North and South Dakota, and Din College, which has campuses in Arizona 
and New Mexico, this restrictive language could seriously hamper 
efforts to create the most productive extension program possible for 
the relevant service area.
  This clarification simply makes good business sense. Why should a 
1994 or an 1862 institution be prohibited, for fiscal or bureaucratic 
reasons, from partnering with an institution that has the expertise and 
resources that are most beneficial to the students and communities the 
institution serves?
  To correct this problem, the legislation states that 1994 
institutions may enter into cooperative agreements with any 1862 or 
1890 institution in the United States, rather than being limited to an 
agreement with only the 1862 in their state. Further, the bill directs 
the Secretary of Agriculture to fund the 1994 institutions directly, 
rather than passing the funding through mainstream institutions.
  Again, Mr. President, passage of the Agricultural Research Bill is 
crucial to the future of American agriculture. Our Nation's farmers and 
ranchers work hard each and every day. Not only do they produce an 
abundant supply of food, they produce it at the most inexpensive price 
to consumers in the entire world.
  With the support of over 70 Senators, this bill has enough support to 
pass with wide-ranging support. This bill enjoys the support of 
constituencies--both urban and rural, both--nutritional advocates and 
crop insurers. It would be a great travesty to allow this bill to fall 
victim to the philosophical ideologies of a very few.
  If we do not act on this immediately, it will show our lack of 
leadership to help some of our most valuable as well as our most 
vulnerable members of our society.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of the chairman of 
the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, Senator Lugar and 
the Ranking Member, Senator Harkin, on the research conference report.
  I want to highlight that over 70 Senators--including myself--signed a 
letter to the majority leader urging him to give us an opportunity to 
vote on

[[Page S4674]]

this conference report as soon as possible.
  The conference agreements we worked out represent a very good package 
with four major components: crop insurance funding, agricultural 
research funding, rural development initiatives and food stamp 
assistance for legal immigrants.
  I know that farmers who need crop insurance are very worried--and 
with good reason--that crop insurance policies will be canceled if this 
report does not pass.
  I know that the agricultural research community, with its Land Grant 
University system, very strongly supports this research funding so that 
America can be more competitive in world markets.
  In addition to benefiting farmers and the agricultural research 
community, the report benefits all rural residents thorough its rural 
development programs.
  Sometimes it is forgotten that most rural Americans are not farmers--
this effort benefits both farmers and other rural Americans.
  I also want to speak briefly on the food stamp changes. The food 
stamp changes simply restore benefits for certain level immigrants. The 
changes are modeled on last year's Balanced Budget Act that restored 
eligibility for SSI and Medicaid to some legal immigrants.
  For example, the conference report would apply the provisions in the 
Balance Budget Act--that extended benefits from 5 years, to 7 years, 
for refugees and asylum seekers for SSI and Medicaid--to the food stamp 
program.
  The 1996 welfare law made an exception for these types of refugees 
because they typically come to this country with very little after 
escaping persecution abroad. They often have no sponsors.
  In the past many of them fought along with U.S. troops against our 
common enemies. Some may have escaped from enemy prisoner of war camps.
  That 5-year limit proved unrealistic because of long backlogs at the 
INS. In a number of INS offices, these backlogs exceeded two years. If 
the eligibility of these refugees ended after five years in the 
country, they could be left without recourse while their applications 
to naturalize were in the INS ``pipeline.''
  The extension of eligibility for SSI and Medicaid to allow them to 
receive benefits during their first seven years in this country was not 
controversial last year: it was included in all major Republican and 
Democratic proposals for legal immigrants.
  It should not be controversial this year.
  It should be noted that this provision does not assure that these 
refugees will receive benefits for two more years--they still have to 
be otherwise eligible for food stamps.
  Refugees and asylum seekers still would have to meet the same 
criteria that all other people have to meet to qualify for benefits.
  By conforming food stamp rules to those already adopted for Medicaid 
last summer, the Agricultural Research Conference Report would avoid 
imposing multiple inconsistent eligibility rules on state and local 
agencies that administer both programs.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin in 
their efforts to get the agricultural research conference report passed 
as quickly as possible. America's rural areas, its farmers and the 
research community are eagerly awaiting passage of this report.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Conference 
Agreement on S. 1150, the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Education Reform Act of 1998. This measure will solidify the financial 
foundation for crop insurance and agriculture research well into the 
next century. Agriculture research and crop insurance are vital to 
America's farming and ranching livelihood.
  Research, crop insurance, regulatory relief, and expanded markets 
play a vital role in moving federal farm policy away from government 
intrusion and toward a free market through the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Farmers and ranchers now have 
greater flexibility in their crop and livestock production efforts. 
Crop insurance and research efforts are both tools that will help farm 
producers become more competitive as they move toward a greater 
reliance on the free market and less upon the federal treasury.
  No country in the world can match America's efficiency in 
agricultural production. Not only is this a result of American 
ingenuity and hard work, it's also the result of our investment in 
cutting edge research. Our research efforts have led to more efficient 
production, better products, new uses for our products--all of which 
have led to new markets where we can sell our products. S. 1150 
provides 600 million dollars for the Initiative for Future Agriculture 
and Food Systems.
  The global demand for our agricultural goods will continue to grow as 
the world's population increases and as more nations achieve higher 
standards of living, resulting in a demand for better diets. Research 
allows American agriculture to meet the world's demand for food and 
fiber. Under S. 1150, research dollars will go toward new and 
alternative uses of agricultural commodities and products, agricultural 
biotechnology, agricultural genome research, natural resource 
management, precision agriculture, food safety, and food technology and 
human nutrition. These dollars will help our agriculture research 
facilities, such as the University of Nebraska, to continue to lead the 
world in crop and livestock production sciences.
  Expanded markets and increased trade are a clear byproduct of 
agricultural research. Research will lead American agriculture into the 
next century and keep American farmers and ranchers at the forefront of 
global food and fiber production. Research, global food production, 
global trade and farming profits are all connected.
  Crop insurance is also vital to the long-term health of American 
agriculture. Farming and ranching involves risk. That's a fact of life 
in American agriculture. Crop insurance provides a very important 
management tool for our agricultural producers to withstand 
fluctuations in the market and changes in weather and production 
conditions.
  For example, in recent years, severe weather conditions have forced 
some Nebraska farmers to face the loss of their crops and livestock. 
Protecting farmers and the agri-businesses that depend on them from 
suffering major losses is what crop insurance alternatives do for 
America's producers. Comprehensive crop insurance plans will minimize 
losses for many agricultural producers so that the economic damage from 
diminished crop yields is not overwhelming for our rural towns and 
communities. This conference report provides 500 million dollars to 
partially fund crop insurance delivery expenses.
  Research and crop insurance are interconnected with agricultural 
production and basic farm and ranch income. Research keeps American 
agriculture on the leading edge of production technology. Crop 
insurance minimizes the many risks involved with producing food and 
fiber for the world's growing population.
  I strongly support S. 1150 and urge my colleagues to support its 
adoption.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the 
Agriculture Research Reauthorization bill.
  This bill reaffirms our commitment to American agriculture in a 
number of ways. It reauthorizes existing research programs at our land 
grant universities and goes one step further in creating a new, 
competitive research initiative to study some of the most cutting edge 
agricultural issues of the day: food safety, agricultural 
biotechnology, precision agriculture and the competitiveness of small 
and medium sized farms.
  As well, it maintains our commitment to the federal crop insurance 
program, perhaps the most successful public-private partnership our 
government has to boast of.
  And just as importantly, it restores our commitment to legal 
immigrants who are elderly, disabled, or children. Restoring food stamp 
benefits to these groups of people is simply the right thing to do.
  But while I commend the conferees for their work in satisfying many 
parties with their work on this bill, I rise to say it does not go far 
enough.
  We have perhaps no more important research need than that of 
agricultural research. It represents 2% of the total federal research 
budget. Yet, between

[[Page S4675]]

today and thirty years from now, we are going to add 5 billion people 
to the planet. And all those people are going to need to be fed. And 
they are likely to be fed on less acres, not more.
  The caloric requirement to feed those additional 5 billion people 
will be more than the caloric consumption for the past 10,000 years. It 
is a huge increase in consumption requirements. And our research is the 
key to solving that problem. There is a tremendous amount at stake here 
for those who worry about peace and prosperity.
  We take this agricultural research for granted. Indeed, we take all 
of agriculture too much for granted. But agricultural research has 
added so much value to our productive capacities, as well as to the 
quality of our lives, that it is ridiculous to be struggling to pay for 
it as we are right now.
  At the same time, we are going to double the funding for the National 
Institute of Health, and double the funding for the National Science 
Foundation. I support both of those things. But it won't do us any good 
at all to live longer through NIH investments if we short agricultural 
research and we aren't able to feed ourselves. And that's precisely 
what will happen if we don't come up with some satisfactory way to 
guarantee a long-term funding of ag research at higher levels than we 
have provided in the past.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support 
of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
1998. The conference report before us reauthorizes various agriculture 
research programs at land-grant colleges and universities through 2002. 
In addition, it provides for $600 million over five years for a new 
competitive grants program for research in key areas such as 
agricultural genome, food safety, nutrition, new and alternative uses 
of agricultural commodities and products, biotechnology, natural 
resource management, and farm efficiency. This bill also contains 
important provisions which authorize funding for crop insurance, rural 
development, and to restore food stamps to certain legal immigrants.
  The critics of S. 1150 most often question the costs of the various 
provisions included in the conference report. However, it is important 
to note that our investment in agricultural research provides a 
tremendous return to our economy, generating economic growth and tax 
revenue through increased agricultural productivity. This return is 
estimated to be between 35% and 50% nationwide--and even greater in 
Oregon. Additionally, in terms of constant dollars, federal spending on 
agriculture research has declined over the last ten years while other 
non-defense research spending in such areas as health, space 
exploration, and the environment has increased. As an added assurance 
that these funds will be spent in the most efficient way possible, the 
conference report contains provisions which increase the accountability 
of these research projects, making them subject to competition, 
requiring more stakeholder input, peer and merit review, and greater 
collaboration amongst the research institutions involved. Further, the 
benefits of other important provisions contained in this bill, such as 
funding for crop insurance, rural development, and restoration of food 
stamps to certain legal immigrants, far outweigh the arguments against 
this legislation. I am especially pleased with the food stamp provision 
which allows the resources of private charitable groups, such as the 
Oregon Food Bank, to reach a wider spectrum of our communities. What 
better way to use these funds than to enhance our food production, feed 
our nation's hungry, and protect America's farmland?
  Currently, some of the most important work in the area of agriculture 
research is being done in my state, where more than 140,000 jobs are 
tied to farm production, In just one example, research at Oregon State 
University facilities on wheat strains and diseases has resulted in an 
estimated $8 million in increased wheat productivity per year. Results 
of their studies are shared with other states like Idaho, Montana, 
Utah, Kansas, and Colorado, presented at national and international 
symposiums, published in scientific journals, and communicated through 
industry newsletters. Again, this is just one of the many valuable 
research projects undertaken in my state by OSU through this 
partnership of federal and state funds.
  Agriculture in my state is diverse--reflecting the varied geography, 
soil, an climate types of Oregon's beautiful mountains, valleys, 
coastline, deserts, and forests. There really is no such thing as an 
average farmer in my state. He or she may be a large scale wheat 
grower, a small orchardist, a producer of high quality nursery plants, 
or a family farmer maintaining cranberry bogs. Despite the varied 
backgrounds of Oregon's farmers, all of them, and I think this would 
apply to farmers across the country as well, are working hard to 
maintain America's leadership in agricultural production despite 
unrelenting pressure from all sides--pressure to continue to produse 
the world's safest food supply while competing with imports that may be 
heavily subsidized, produced with pesticides illegal in the U.S., or 
even, as was widely reported in the media just yesterday, not even 
meeting our food safety standards.
  For the small family farmer, who still exists in my state, this 
pressure is compounded by the struggle to maintain the way of life 
which fed our grandparents and their parents before them. Everyday they 
defend their farm, perhaps part of their family for generations, for 
encroaching development, inheritance taxes, and complicated and ever 
increasing governmental regulations. Breakthroughs brought about as a 
direct result of the research dollars we will be voting on today may 
mean that family farmers in Southern Oregon may be able to squeeze 
enough productivity out of their land to hold onto their farms for a 
few more seasons. Or it may mean that a grass seed farmer in the 
Willamette Valley can export more grass straw to Japan due to a quality 
assurance program. Or it may mean a farmer in the Columbia Basin can 
use fewer pesticides on pea plants due to new, more pest resistant 
strains or new growing techniques. For them, the components of this 
bill represent the American research and technological know-how that 
has kept them ahead of the curve--and hopefully, with your support 
today, will continue to do so into the future.
  Let's give our farmers the tools they need to continue to produce a 
safe and bountiful food supply for our families. The conference report 
before us reaffirms the traditionally strong Congressional support for 
American agricultural leadership. This legislation enjoys overwhelming 
bipartisan support and I urge my colleagues to join me in casting a 
vote in favor of S. 1150.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at long last, we are about to pass the 
Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act conference 
report. I support all its provisions, but I want to speak briefly about 
one of the most important--the restoration of food stamps for legal 
immigrants whose benefits were unfairly eliminated by the harsh 1996 
welfare law. Although the amount in this conference report is less than 
half of the $2 billion proposed in the President's budget, it is at 
least a down-payment toward restoring food stamps to the nation's 
neediest legal immigrants.
  The food stamp program was cut by $25 billion over 5 years in the 
1996 law. That reduction was clearly unfair. According to the 
Department of Agriculture, at least 935,000 low-income legal immigrants 
lost their federal food stamps as a result of the 1996 welfare law. 
Nearly two-thirds are families with children. Two years later, we are 
finally remedying a significant part of this injustice.
  This bill restores food stamps only to the most needy legal 
immigrants--refugees, the disabled, and some poor children. It helps 
only 250,000 out of the 935,000 immigrants cut off from the food stamp 
rolls. No one should think our work is done with the passage of this 
bill.
  The effect of the food stamp terminations is not limited to 
immigrants. Their children born here are American citizens, but they 
too are facing sharp reductions in their food stamps. These children 
remain eligible for food stamps themselves, but the removal of their 
parents from the program means that, as a practical matter, the food 
stamp benefits for their families have been cut by 50 to 70 percent in 
many cases. 600,000 poor children who are American citizens live in 
families

[[Page S4676]]

where food stamp benefits have been unfairly lost. These children will 
not be helped by this bill.
  Many elderly immigrants will also receive no assistance from this 
bill. We cannot forget about their plight. We can and must do more in 
the future. It is unconscionable that their benefits continue to be 
denied.
  So I regard this legislation as an important step, but only a first 
step.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. This legislation 
provides funding for the federal crop insurance program, important 
agricultural research programs and the restoration of food stamp 
benefits to approximately 250,000 legal immigrants.
  I have long been a strong supporter of federal nutrition programs 
that help to combat hunger. On November 24, 1997, Senator Harkin and I 
sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman and Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget Franklin Raines, which was signed 
by forty-five of our Senate colleagues. Our letter urged the 
Administration to provide funding for food stamp benefits for some of 
the most vulnerable members of our society: legal immigrants who are 
children, elderly, or disabled.
  As the Agricultural Research bill was sent to conference, I joined 
with four of my colleagues in a March 23, 1998 letter urging the 
conferees to provide relief to poor legal immigrants and refugees who 
previously were eligible but had lost federal food stamps under the 
1996 welfare law. I am pleased that the final conference report 
restores these benefits. I also joined seventy of my colleagues in an 
April 24, 1998 letter urging that the conference report be brought to 
the floor for a vote as soon as possible.
  Besides providing food stamp benefits to vulnerable legal immigrants, 
this bill also provides critical funding for the federal crop insurance 
program, which will allow affordable crop insurance to be offered to 
our nation's farmers. Agriculture is Pennsylvania's number one 
industry, and it is vital that we provide insurance to our farmers who 
work so hard to provide our country and the world with a stable food 
supply. The legislation will also provide $600 million over the next 
five years in funding for agricultural research programs, which are 
critical to our country's efforts to produce enough food for an ever-
increasing world population.
  The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act is an 
important piece of legislation, for legal immigrants, our nation's 
agricultural community, and the nation as a whole. I am therefore 
pleased to support this legislation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
support of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform 
Act of 1998. At long last, this important piece of legislation is 
before the Senate for consideration and passage of the Conference 
Report.
  This Act is the result of more than a year of hard work and can boast 
broad bipartisan support. By providing $1.7 billion in agricultural 
research and extension activities at institutions of higher learning 
across the nation, this Act commits the U.S. government to supporting a 
strong future for agriculture in Montana and across the nation.
  I would like to recognize four areas that affect Montana:
  The Montana State University Agriculture Extension Service. We have 
one of the finest examples of an ag extension service in the country, 
centered at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. The College 
of Agriculture, led by Dean Tom McCoy, has produced numerous innovative 
projects worthy of recognition. Research at Montana State University 
has led to more pest-resistant, higher yielding varieties of barley and 
wheat. MSU scientists have improved the value of barley as a feedstock 
for cattle. And they are using the remarkable power of biotechnology to 
develop the answers to the ag challenges of the next century. The 
agriculture research bill provides the funding necessary for our 
scientists to carry out, continue and build upon their mission to serve 
our agriculture industry.
  This bill will also continue funding for the good work demonstrated 
by our country extension agents. Their efforts on behalf of Montana's 
agricultural industry go above and beyond to provide resources that 
help our producers meet their bottom line, improve their yield, and 
enhance their competitiveness in the world marketplace.
  Crop Insurance. Today, while we debate the passage of this bill, 
several counties in Montana are under severe drought and fire alert. 
Farmers have waited helplessly for rain while their crops wither and 
die. This is surely a make it or break it year due to low prices, a dry 
winter, and unfair grain dumping from our foreign competitors. The mere 
threat of crop insurers canceling policies is an obstacle that many 
producers simply cannot overcome. For that reason, I am pleased that 
this Act contains provisions to strengthen crop insurance--just when 
our producers need it most. Clearly, we must take the final step and 
pass this conference report.
  Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database. I would like to thank 
Chairman Lugar for including my bill, the Food Animal Residue Avoidance 
Database, more commonly known as FARAD, in this Act. I am pleased that 
the Conference report authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make 
three-year grants to colleges and universities to operate the FARAD 
program. FARAD is critical in our food-safety regime. Its database 
provides invaluable information about dangerous residues that affect 
our food supply. The FARAD program successfully links producers, 
veterinarians and the general public to an informational resource 
network that enables us to produce the safest food in the world.
  Agricultural Research Service. I am most proud of the work conducted 
at the Agricultural Research Service stations in Sidney, Montana and 
Fort Keogh at Miles City. I strongly believe that their efforts are of 
tremendous importance to our food industry as well as our agricultural 
trade. The future of agriculture is in their very capable hands. They 
enjoy strong support from the agricultural community because they are a 
part of that community. Whenever I am in these towns, I stop by and 
visit these facilities because the people that work there, and the 
community that supports them, are very proud of the great work that 
they do for our ag industry. This bill will continue the critical work 
at these locations.
  I would also like to recognize that this bill supports many other 
worthy projects, including the National Food Genome Strategy, an 
assistive technology program for farmers with disabilities, the 
important Fund for Rural America, Precision Agricultural research, and 
research of wheat and barley diseases caused by scab.
  This Act is worthy of our immediate action. I urge my colleagues to 
pass the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
1998 and recommend that President Clinton sign it without hesitation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Agricultural 
Research Conference Report. The bill, S. 1150 reauthorizes our 
agricultural research programs and provides $600 million in funding on 
a competitive grant basis for new and alternative uses of agricultural 
commodities and products, natural resources management, farm efficiency 
and profitability, agriculture biotechnology, and food safety, 
technology and nutrition.
  This is good news for our scientists and the agriculture community in 
Maine. They know their chances of receiving more competitive research 
funding are excellent because they know they can compete head to head 
with agriculture researchers from all around the country. This bill 
gives them that opportunity.
  As the Chairman of the Committee is aware, I do have some concerns 
with provisions in this conference report that were not part of either 
the House or Senate passed bills. In addition to the food stamp 
provisions, which have been widely discussed on the floor today, I am 
concerned with addition of the research title of the Northern Forest 
Stewardship Act that was included in conference. I voted to recommit 
the report to the conference committee in hopes that these two 
provisions, which are unrelated to the important agricultural research, 
would be removed from the report. Since the vote to recommit failed, I 
will vote for the report, and

[[Page S4677]]

will continue to work with Chairman Lugar to address my concerns.
  I have been working with the Chairman and Subcommittee Chairman 
Santorum to obtain a field hearing in Maine on the Northern Forest 
Stewardship Act (NFSA) before any action was taken by the full Senate. 
I requested this hearing because many people in Maine are both 
interested and concerned with the potential impact of this bill on the 
economies of their rural communities.
  I was dismayed, therefore, when I learned that the research title 
from the NFSA bill was included in the Agriculture Research conference 
report. Also the language inserted in the report does not include the 
provision which requires that a governor's request is required before 
federal assistance can be made available to the state. This language is 
fundamental because it involves an elected state official in the 
process, ensuring that the state controls its land use decisions. I 
will be working to restore the role of the states in making the request 
for federal assistance, and I thank the Chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee for his offer of assistance in this matter.
  Historically, our state has been defined by our agriculture--from the 
natural resources of its extensive forests, to the potatoes crops of 
Aroostook County and to the Wild blueberries of the Down East area of 
Maine. The Wild lowbush blueberry is unique to Maine, and one of only 
three berries native to the U.S. that are utilized commercially.
  Virtually all of the commercial U.S. lowbush blueberries are produced 
in our state, with 99 percent of the blueberries being processed and 
used as a nutritious ingredient in many food products throughout the 
country. The industry is concentrated in the Down East region of Maine, 
which is an economically depressed region that relies heavily on 
natural resource based jobs, such as those in the Wild blueberry 
industry.
  An increase in competitive research grants funding will help to 
continue a series of research projects that target critical aspects of 
lowbush blueberry culture and processing challenges, and transferring 
research solutions to the growers and processors. Much of the research 
completed to date provides techniques for a sustainable approach to 
production with environmental benefits.
  Research objectives include implementation of a research program that 
is designed to ensure a consistently productive, high quality, low 
input crop that is successfully marketed in the U.S. and worldwide, 
with ongoing projects for such as pesticide reduction/efficacy, 
pollination alternatives, effects and reduction of low temperature 
injury, micro nutrient fertility requirements, and fruit quality 
improvements.
  The bill also funds the federal crop insurance program that will give 
a healthy measure of peace of mind to Maine's wild blueberry industry, 
who, until recently, could not participate in the program. This report 
will allow the wild blueberry industry to renew their contracts for 
crop insurance, giving them protection against an economically 
devastating total crop loss caused by circumstances beyond their 
control.
  Research for the potato industry is being conducted on new chemical-
resistant strains of late blight, now detected in virtually every major 
potato growing state, and the last blight fungus is quickly developing 
into the most serious threat to potato production in the United States. 
History reminds of us the great potato famine in Ireland in the last 
century caused by late blight, and today's research helps us to never 
again realize such an devastating experience.
  In Maine, late blight has already resulted in millions of dollars in 
crop losses since 1993, which is not only a concern for our largest 
agriculture industry, but for potato states throughout the eastern U.S. 
since Maine is the primary source of seed potatoes for these states.
  Comprehensive late blight Integrated Pest Management research 
programs through current grants and future competitive research grants 
offered in the bill before us today will continue to prevent a full-
scale epidemic from occurring in our region. Needless to say, this is 
one initiative in which a modest federal investment will help prevent a 
very costly crop disaster.
  The Hatch Act and the McIntire-Stennis Act are the cornerstones of 
the cooperative/federal/state research effort that has made the U.S. 
agriculture and forestry industries the world's leaders. Under these 
programs, and under broad federal guidelines, states can continue to 
further identify their local research priorities.
  Additional competitive research grants for the McIntire-Stennis 
Program will provide continued funding to 62 universities nationwide, 
including the University of Maine, that conduct research, teaching, and 
extension programs in forestry and related natural resource areas. The 
research focuses on the biology of forest organisms, forest ecosystem 
health, management of forests for wood, and forest product development. 
Each dollar of McIntire-Stennis funding is now matched with five 
dollars from nonfederal sources for these university programs.
  Wood utilization research contributes to research at six land-grant 
Regional Research Centers, including Maine. The work conducted at these 
universities specializes in the efficient use of wood resources, 
developing new structural applications for wood, exploiting wood 
chemical extractives for safer and less expensive alternatives to 
current pesticides, preservatives, and adhesives, and exploring the 
pharmacological properties of trees. Wood utilization research is 
particularly important to forest-based economies in rural areas. In 
Maine, the annual total contribution in forest products manufacturing 
is over $5 billion.
  Mr. President, our agricultural communities, some of the best 
stewards of our land, produce the safest, the most nutritious and 
reasonably priced food products in the entire world. Furthering the 
competitive grants research system through the Agricultural Research 
bill before us will go a long way towards the continued improvement of 
our nation's bountiful harvests and the continued health and 
productivity of our nation's forests.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Conference Report 
to accompany S. 1150, the Agricultural, Research, Extension, and 
Education Act of 1998. For the purposes of this debate, I will focus on 
only the research and federal crop insurance provisions contained in 
this conference report. These are two of the primary issues important 
to farmers and those involved in agriculture.
  Among the important research provisions provided for in this 
conference report is funding for Fusarium Head Blight, or Scab, 
research. This disease has had a devastating impact on producers in 
Minnesota and North Dakota and has caused severe economic losses over 
the past five years. The conference report now before us is an 
important step in continuing the public/private partnership that has 
evolved as we attempt to find a scab-resistant variety of wheat.
  Also contained within this report is funding for genome research. 
This is important in mapping specific traits of corn and other 
commodities. Isolating those traits which are resistant to drought and 
other natural enemies could maximize yields and enhance producer 
efficiency. The flexibility it provides to research is reason enough to 
pass this legislation in a timely manner.
  However, some of my colleagues have expressed concern over the 
federal crop insurance provisions contained in this conference 
agreement. While I certainly understand their point, it is important 
that we look at the ``big picture.'' Currently, there is a budget 
shortfall in the program which jeopardizes the ability of farmers and 
agriculture lenders to make management decisions for the upcoming year. 
I have spoken with hundreds of individuals involved in agriculture who 
have urged me to support this funding fix, and I am confident they will 
be just as forthcoming as we explore options to provide producers with 
greater risk-management tools. It is important to remember that the 
conference report does not contain any major program reforms. It allows 
for five years of mandatory funding while market-orientated reforms are 
phased-in. Once the crop insurance budget issue is resolved, we can 
begin the process of achieving substantive reform of the federal crop 
insurance program.
  Mr. President, we must design alternatives that encourage innovation 
and

[[Page S4678]]

competition among insurers with an eye towards moving crop insurance in 
the direction of privately developed policies. I have already begun 
this process with agriculture leaders in Minnesota. I look forward to 
working with Senator Lugar and my colleagues in crafting a program 
which benefits all taxpayers, while providing farmers the opportunity 
to craft a risk-management policy that fits their operation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation and I look forward to its immediate passage.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. As a member of 
the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I have 
worked with Chairman Lugar and the Committee for two years to see this 
Act crafted and passed. I am pleased that the Leader has allowed it to 
come to the floor and encourage my colleagues to support its adoption.
  Mr. President, the bill reforms and reauthorizes discretionary 
agricultural research programs that play an important role in keeping 
our nation's farmers competitive in the ever expanding world market. 
These programs and extension activities have experienced dramatic 
returns--in the form of better land management, environmentally sound 
farm practices, increased crop yield, improved crop varieties, and 
countless other ways--and represent a sound investment in the future. 
The bill's reforms will ensure more collaboration and efficiency in 
federally funded research and provide for greater accountability to the 
American taxpayers.
  The bill also provides $600 million over the next five years in 
mandatory funding to the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food 
Systems. This new mandatory spending will provide $120 million per year 
on a competitive grant basis for six high priority mission areas: 
agricultural genome research; food safety, food technology, and human 
nutrition; new and alternative uses of agricultural commodities and 
products; agricultural biotechnology; natural resource management, 
including precision agriculture; and farm efficiency and profitability.
  In addition, the bill addresses the immediate concerns facing all 
those who rely on federal crop insurance, provides for the Fund for 
Rural America, and funds food stamps for the elderly, disabled, and 
children of the nation's poorest immigrants.
  Mr. President, more than just a reauthorization bill, the legislation 
before the Senate today is an investment in the future and represents 
our commitment to America's farm families. By providing the technical 
research and extension activities that help expand farm income, improve 
resource management, and develop new crop varieties, federally funded 
agricultural research assures that our nation will continue to lead the 
world in farm production and help bolster the stability of our rural 
areas.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support its adoption.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for 
the Conference Report on S. 1150, the Agricultural Research, Extension, 
and Education Reform Act of 1998, and to thank Senator Lugar and 
Senator Harkin for the tremendous effort they have devoted to this 
important legislation.
  Immediate passage of the conference report is critical for 
agriculture research funding, crop insurance, and nutrition funding for 
legal immigrants. The legislation represents desperately needed 
investment in agricultural research, essential to the continuing 
production of safe, plentiful, diverse, and affordable food and fiber. 
Furthermore, failure to pass this legislation will result in massive 
reductions in crop insurance delivery around the country, especially in 
high risk areas such as the Northern Great Plains.
  Not only will terminated policies expose farmers to tremendous risk 
of crop loss due to events beyond their control, such as weather, but 
without crop insurance, producers will not be able to take out 
operating loans essential to planting crops. This will hit young, 
beginning farmers hardest, which is terrible for agriculture--losing 
these young producers truly threatens the future of the industry.
  When the last farm bill was passed, farmers nationwide were promised 
increased access to risk management tools. This promise was made in 
exchange for the elimination of a wide range of commodity and disaster 
programs that had, until then, provided producers some protection 
against the potentially devastating shocks that occur in agriculture.
  Last year, the Dakotas were devastated by extended below freezing 
temperatures, winter storms that dumped record levels of snow, and 
spring flooding worse than anyone living had ever seen. Even with the 
benefit of crop insurance we lost hundreds of producers and farms that 
had been in families for over 100 years. I cannot imagine what would be 
left of the agriculture industry in South Dakota today had we not at 
least had the benefit of crop insurance last year.
  The northeast region of South Dakota is currently experiencing severe 
flooding that is not likely to subside for some time. This is in an 
area that has been characterized by good farm land for as long as 
anyone can remember. No one could have anticipated that the farms in 
these counties and so many of the roads that connect them would be 
under water today. A strong and affordable crop insurance program will 
be critical to producers in this area who are struggling to stay in 
business. Without it, there would be an exodus from this part of my 
state, which would destroy the economy of the entire region. It is in 
all of our interest to provide our nation's agriculture producers with 
the means to insulate their businesses and the local economies of which 
they are an essential part against conditions like those we experienced 
statewide last year, and that our northeast corner is fighting now.
  I also want to stress the tremendous importance of the research 
reauthorization in this conference report. We owe much of the credit 
for this country's agricultural success to our network of land grant 
institutions, state agriculture experiment stations, USDA's 
Agricultural Research Service, and hundreds of county extension 
offices. These entities work together in a wide range of ways to 
produce cutting-edge research and then convert it into improved 
practices and technology meaningful to producers. This report places 
increased emphasis on collaboration among institutions and disciplines, 
and encourages pursuit of goals benefiting more than one region or 
state.
  The land grant university in my state, South Dakota State University, 
currently has a highly regarded record of strong interdisciplinary and 
multi-state cooperative work. I am extremely proud of the fine research 
and extension SDSU produces, and I am pleased that this legislation 
will foster their efforts. It helps level the playing field for small 
schools competing for limited research funds, and it is sensitive to 
the relative importance of formula funds for institutions in agrarian 
states with low populations.
  I am pleased that this legislation preserves existing programs that 
target emerging and critical issues such as the Fund for Rural America. 
The Fund for Rural America was designed to provide immediate, flexible, 
and applied research and support to people in rural areas who are 
adjusting to rapid changes in the agricultural sector since the last 
farm bill.
  The Fund also promotes value-added processing, which is vital to 
successful rural economic development. Our rural communities must 
capture more of the revenue their locally produced commodities 
ultimately generate. Value-added processing keeps that revenue local, 
which will be critical to the future of those communities.
  In conclusion, I cannot overemphasize the importance of this 
legislation and its prompt passage. If we are to maintain our place in 
the world as a leader in agriculture production and technology, we 
absolutely must invest in agriculture research today. If we are to have 
a vital and diverse agriculture sector in the future, we also must 
ensure producers have access to reliable and affordable risk management 
tools like the federal crop insurance program.
  The overwhelming bipartisan support for the agriculture conference 
report is a tribute to the commitment Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin 
have made

[[Page S4679]]

to assuring passage of this critical legislation. I urge my colleagues 
to approve the report in its current form.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to vote for this conference 
agreement.
  For the most part, the bill provides funding to address legitimate 
needs of farmers and the agriculture industry for crop insurance, 
research, and extension and education programs. I applaud the conferees 
for including provisions throughout the bill which establish 
competitive, merit-based, or peer-reviewed selection procedures for 
awarding grants and contracts and allocating funds for various 
programs.
  The bill also requires most recipients of funds to contribute 
matching amounts from non-federal sources. It also broadens the scope 
of many established programs to require a national, regional, or multi-
state focus or benefit.
  While the bill contains language regarding the establishment or 
continuation of several specific programs, it does not require the 
Secretary of Agriculture to comply with the direction in the bill, in 
most cases. For example, the bill authorizes, but does not require, the 
Secretary of Agriculture to acquire and operate the National Swine 
Research Center in Ames, Iowa--an institution which has received 
earmarked funds in appropriations bills for as long as I can remember. 
I would hope that the Secretary would exercise the discretion provided 
in this bill and resist the temptation to expand the federal 
bureaucracy to include this wholly unnecessary swine research facility.
  Let me also take a moment to express my support for the provisions in 
Title V of the bill that make food stamps available to certain 
categories of legal immigrants who may fall on hard times. These 
provisions simply restore eligibility for food stamps to certain 
categories of immigrants who were eligible for assistance prior to 
August 22, 1996, when sweeping welfare reform legislation was enacted. 
Only refugees and asylees, disabled and elderly immigrants, children of 
legal immigrants, certain Indians, and certain Hmong and Highland 
Laotians, all of whom had to be lawfully residing in the United States 
on August 22, 1996, are again eligible for food stamps.
  In these times of economic prosperity, Americans can certainly afford 
to be compassionate to our most vulnerable immigrants. Last year, the 
Congress restored to these same categories of immigrants eligibility 
for Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid. Finally, it should be 
noted that the cost of providing assistance to an estimated 250,000 
individuals is offset in its entirety by reductions in the 
administrative expenses of the food stamp program and other programs.
  Again, I thank the conferees for including these many excellent 
provisions in this bill.
  However, as usual, there are a number of glaring exceptions to the 
otherwise good-government approach taken by the conferees.
  Mr. President, most disturbing among the objectionable provisions in 
this bill is Section 401, which establishes a new entitlement program, 
called the Initiative for Future Agricultural and Food Systems, which 
is funded at $120 million per year for five years. Although the grants 
under this new program will be competitively awarded and recipients 
must provide matching funds, I am concerned that the conferees would 
find it advisable to establish a brand new mandatory spending program 
without regard to its effect on other high-priority agriculture 
programs.
  Clearly, this new entitlement is intended to bypass the spending caps 
that limit how much is spent on agriculture program grants in the 
annual appropriations process. It violates the spirit and intent of the 
budget process that has resulted, finally, in a projected federal 
budget surplus for this year.
  Mr. President, I intend to take a very careful look at the 
appropriations bill for agriculture programs this year. If, as in 
previous years, another $100 million or more is allocated for the same 
programs that are to be funded under this new entitlement program, I 
will be offering an amendment to remove that duplicative funding from 
the appropriations bill. I hope to have my colleagues' support to 
prevent this effort to circumvent the budget prioritization process and 
essentially double the funding for these types of programs.
  Other objectionable provisions in the bill establish new 
bureaucracies and boards to coordinate activities which should be 
within the capabilities of the existing Department of Agriculture 
bureaucracy. One such provision establishes a Thomas Jefferson 
Initiative for Crop Diversification, a program coordinated by a 
nonprofit center to coordinate cooperative research by public and 
private entities on new and non-traditional crops. Another is the 
provision authorizing a grant program for precision agriculture 
programs and establishing precision agriculture partnerships. Other 
provisions include the establishment of an Office of Pest Management 
Policy and a Food Safety Research Information Office, and a mandate to 
continue the operation of the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database 
program.
  Funding for these new programs is subject to future appropriations 
and participants are required to provide non-federal matching funds. 
However, the parameters and criteria specified in the bill will require 
new regulations and bureaucracies for implementation. These efforts 
have both monetary costs and potentially negative effects on other 
agriculture priorities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of objectionable 
provisions in the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Objectional Spending Provisions in S. 1150, Agricultural Research, 
              Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998

       Section 241 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     establish an Agricultural Genome Initiative to study the 
     genetic makeup of crops.
       Section 242 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to study 
     the control, management, and eradication of imported fire 
     ants, and establishes high priority for 26 specific research 
     and extension programs, including potato blight, ethanol, 
     deer tick ecology, grain sorghum ergot, prickly pear, wood, 
     wild pampas, sheep scrapie, and tomato spotted wilt.
       Section 245 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to cede 
     responsibility for awarding grants to develop an agriculture 
     telecommunications network to a consortium called A*DEC, 
     which is made up of private universities and land grant 
     colleges and unspecified international members, with language 
     specifying that grants are to be awarded competitively 
     regardless of the grant seeker's membership in A*DEC.
       Section 252 requires $60 million each year for five years 
     to be transferred to the Fund for Rural America.
       Section 401 establishes a new entitlement program, the 
     Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, to 
     provide agriculture research grants at a level of $120 
     million annually for five years.
       Section 405 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     establish the Thomas Jefferson Initiative for Crop 
     Diversification, to coordinate public and private research 
     and promotion of new and non-traditional agricultural 
     products.
       Section 604 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     continue the operation of the Food Animal Residue Avoidance 
     Database Program through a program of grants to colleges and 
     universities.
       Section 614 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     establish an Office of Pest Management Policy to coordinate 
     pest research and use of management tools.
       Section 615 orders the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     establish a Food Safety Research Information Office at the 
     National Agricultural Library, with the direction that the 
     office sponsor a national conference on food safety research 
     priorities within 120 days of enactment of the bill and every 
     year thereafter for four years.

  Mr. McCAIN. Because of the inclusion of these low priority, 
unnecessary, and wasteful programs, I voted in favor of Senator Gramm's 
motion to recommit the bill to conference so that these provisions 
could be addressed again and, hopefully, deleted from the bill or 
revised to prevent the waste of taxpayer dollars.
  Unfortunately, the motion to recommit was defeated by a wide margin. 
However, since I believe the many positive aspects of this bill 
outweigh these onerous provisions, I intend to support the conference 
agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the conference 
report?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me just wrap up by again thanking 
Senators for the overwhelming vote that we just had. I think that vote 
will send

[[Page S4680]]

a clear signal to the House to move very rapidly on the bill. We will 
get it down to the President and hopefully get this important 
conference report signed in very short order.
  I can just tell you, there will be a giant sigh of relief among the 
agriculture community from coast to coast and border to border as soon 
as this bill gets signed, because then we can get on to the business of 
getting our crop insurance policies renewed around the country and we 
can get on with the business of revamping, revising, and strengthening 
agricultural research throughout America. But the most important and 
most vital aspect of the bill in the immediate future is the Crop 
Insurance Program. Farmers will be assured right away that they will be 
able to continue their protection against disaster losses.
  Mr. President, let me again compliment and thank my chairman, Senator 
Lugar, first for his leadership on the ag research provisions of the 
bill. He has said many times that, entering the new century, we need to 
have a new approach, and new ways of doing our research in agriculture. 
He is absolutely right. I was happy and proud to support him in those 
efforts. It took quite a while to get the bill worked through the 
hearing processes, through negotiations in conference, getting all the 
issues worked out on research, but it was done, and we had good, 
bipartisan support.
  I believe the chairman has fashioned an Ag research bill that is 
really going to help us move ahead in the next century in producing new 
kinds of crops, new products from and uses for crops, in biotechnology, 
in improving agricultural productivity and natural resource protection. 
So I believe we will see a whole new focus and revitalization of our 
agricultural research. It is long overdue, but this bill will move us 
in that direction.
  I thank the chairman also for his leadership on crop insurance, in 
making sure that we addressed this need to provide that critical 
element of a safety net for farmers, because, as we all know, they need 
this crop insurance, both to cover disasters over which they have no 
control and also to make sure they have the collateral they need for 
obtaining financing for their farming operations. Farmers rely on crop 
insurance, and agricultural lenders rely on it.
  So, this provision is going to be very, very meaningful to make sure 
that farmers, and we here in Congress, do not have to be worrying every 
single year how we will find funding to continue crop insurance--and 
whether in fact farmers will have crop insurance. That is going to be a 
great relief to our farming community all over America.
  Finally, on the food stamp provisions, again, I thank the chairman 
for his great leadership in making sure we produced a sound bill and 
held together our coalition encompassing agricultural and nutrition 
matters.
  I also thank all the staff who worked very hard for a long time, for 
well over a year now, to get us to this point: Randy Green, our staff 
director; and Dave Johnson, chief counsel; Ms. Terri Nintemann on the 
majority side; on the minority side, Dan Smith, Mark Halverson, Phil 
Schwab and Richard Bender. There are a number of other staff. These are 
our leaders. They did a great job of pulling this bill together, 
keeping us on course and making sure we got to conference and got it 
all wrapped up. We are very blessed with a very good and very capable 
staff. I thank them for all the long hours and hard work they put in.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the ranking member, Senator Harkin, was 
characteristically gracious and generous, and I appreciate his 
comments. I want to tell him how much I have appreciated working with 
him and with all of our colleagues on what I believe is a monumental 
advance for not only American agriculture, but for feeding the world in 
the next 50 years, as well as the assurance of our farmers immediately 
in crop insurance and humane measures with regard to nutrition 
programs.
  I simply mention, Mr. President, that Dave Johnson and Terri 
Nintemann have been mentioned. Of course, our distinguished Randy 
Green, who does so much on the majority side in likewise guiding all of 
the committee staff efforts. But I also will mention Marcia Asquith, 
Beth Johnson, Andy Morton, Michael Knipe, Bob Sturm, Debbie Schwertner, 
Carol Dubard, Kate Wallem, Kathryn Boots, Chris Salisbury, Danny 
Spellacy, Terri Snow, Whitney Mueller, and Jennifer Cutshall, because 
this has been a 2-year effort on the part of all of these individuals 
and they have contributed highly.
  I have consulted with the distinguished majority leader, Trent Lott, 
and with the distinguished ranking member, Tom Harkin, and it will be 
our request that there be a final rollcall vote. I alert colleagues 
that that will be coming, hopefully soon.

  I appreciate very much the leader working with us to make this time 
possible and this opportunity to debate. I mention specifically the 
importance of the contribution of Senator Gramm, who is a member of our 
committee, who argued well a point of view that did not prevail but, at 
the same time, sharpened the focus of all of us on those things we 
believe are important in this legislation.
  Finally, I mention Senator Domenici, who had only a very small speech 
but an important one with regard to caps and entitlements in the budget 
and overall considerations. We are mindful of what he had to say and 
grateful for his support ultimately of our effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Is there further debate?
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the conference 
report? If not, the question is on agreeing to the conference report. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Gramm
     Gregg
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Nickles
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again I thank all Senators for their 
strong vote in support of this legislation. Hopefully now we can get it 
to the President, and get his signature, and again reassure farmers all 
over the country that they will be able to renew their crop insurance 
programs for next year.

                          ____________________