[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8091-S8106]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 2159, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2159) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1999, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Daschle amendment No. 2729, to reform and structure the
processes by which tobacco products are manufactured,
marketed, and distributed, to prevent the use of tobacco
products by minors, and to redress the adverse health effects
of tobacco use.
Motion to waive section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget
Act with respect to consideration of Amendment No. 2729.
Motion to Waive the Budget Act--Amendment No. 2729
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the motion to waive
the Budget Act with respect to the Daschle amendment, No. 2729.
The distinguished Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Democratic
leader's request was that there be 10 minutes equally divided, or 10
minutes on each side? Although 10 minutes has already been used in
debating the amendment, does that count? I am curious.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator he has 10
minutes remaining.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to
the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget
Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say to anyone listening to this
debate, you would think that those who want the big spending bill that
is in the guise of helping children stop smoking--you would think they
have not had an opportunity on the floor of the Senate to present their
case. If one would take this discussion and say that is the only
discussion we have had on the so-called cigarette tax bill, that would
be one thing. But my recollection, without checking the record, is that
we have debated this issue for 4 weeks. Is that not correct, I ask the
chairman of the subcommittee? Four weeks of floor time, with scores of
amendments and so many hours of debate that I am assuming even the
American people who watch C-SPAN wondered, ``How much longer are you
going to discuss this?'' Now we come to the floor on an appropriations
bill that everybody knows has to be passed and signed by October 1 or
we close down all of agriculture in America, and up comes the cigarette
bill and a debate starts: ``The Republicans don't want to let us
vote.''
I don't know anything about the lack of ability to amend the
amendment, but I do know this. This amendment is for real in terms of
its budgetary impacts. As a matter of fact, if this were on the bill
when it came out of committee, it would be subject to a point of order
and the whole bill would fall. That is how important it is, because it
overspends what is allocated to the Subcommittee on Agriculture by $8
billion. I wonder how many eight billions of dollars over the
allocation which keeps this new balance we can have around here? Can we
have eight or nine of them this year and say, ``It is such wonderful
legislation that we just ought to break the rules of the budget?''
I will acknowledge the Budget Act says you can waive the Budget Act,
so I am not critical of those who try to waive it. But I am wondering
whether or not, when we wrote that Budget Act and said you can waive
it, whether we had in mind breaking a 5-year balanced budget that was
in place for the first time in 40 years because along came some
legislation that people thought was very, very interesting and
important?
Let me repeat. There are some who are going to say this is just a
procedural vote, it isn't meaningful, and Republicans have pulled this
out of the bag like a rabbit pulled out by some kind of a person that
pulls tricks. There is nothing to that. Mr. President, $8 billion is a
lot of money. I think the American people understand $8 billion. And
this is $8 billion in new direct spending that will be charged to this
subcommittee on its agricultural bill for all of agricultural programs,
including research, in the United States. It could cause the bill to
fail so that those on the other side of the aisle can have yet another
chance to debate an issue which has been debated for 4 weeks.
Mr. President, I am glad the majority leader raised the point of
order under the Budget Act. It is absolutely right. It is correct. It
is substantive. As a matter of fact, had he not raised it, there would
have been a chorus of Senators here to raise it because it is so
patently in violation of the 5-year budget agreement that we just
entered into last year wherein we told the American people it is a
first in 38 years and how proud we are that we are in balance. Then
along comes the President who says don't spend a nickel of the surplus
on anything but Social Security. Then we come with bills like this, and
there goes $8 billion of the surplus here. I don't know what is going
to happen on the next bill when they have more of this. So, frankly, I
believe we ought to sustain the point of order.
I repeat, it is real, it is fair, and it is timely. They have had,
those who want this gigantic $875 billion new expenditure plan over the
next 25 years--that is what the bill before us, the big bill, was--
anyone who wants that, they had their debates for 4 weeks and lost. Do
we want to start over again on an appropriations bill? And then who is
going to be claiming we didn't get our business done, we couldn't get
the appropriations finished by October 1? Who is going to be doing
that? The President and the minority party. And this is just one more
instance where it is their fault we don't get it done, not our fault.
We ought to pass this appropriations bill and do this in due course
if there is another opportunity presented by the Senate. If not, they
have had their day in court, it seems to me. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to vote against the
motion made by the Democratic leader to waive the Budget Act. This is
an amendment that is almost the biggest program in the entire bill that
is contained in the agricultural appropriations bill that is before the
Senate. We don't have the authority as an Appropriations Committee to
write the legislative language to create a program of this kind, and
that is what the Democratic leader and his cosponsors on his side of
the aisle seek to do.
There is funding in the bill, Senators should know, for the Food and
Drug Administration's program targeted to dealing with the problem of
underage smoking. Mr. President, $34 million is appropriated in the
bill for the FDA's
[[Page S8092]]
program to deal with that, and that is consistent with the existing
legal authority which this committee has to operate under and respect.
Supporting the Budget Committee chairman's appeal to the Senate, I
urge Senators to vote ``no'' on the motion to waive.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The time on the Democratic side
has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act with respect to Daschle amendment No. 2729. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--55
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Biden
Glenn
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are
55.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment fails.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Harkin will have an amendment in
just a moment. He is on his way over. I thought it might be appropriate
to get the debate started and to have a discussion about the essence of
the amendment. It will be simply a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that
calls upon the Senate and the country to respond to the problem we find
in agriculture today.
Most of America prospers with an economy that is striking for its
performance and success. On Wall Street, on Main Street, in the suburbs
of America, and in virtually every segment of our country the economy
is as strong as it could possibly be. Wall Street has exceeded their
expectations manyfold. The number of housing starts is up. The number
of new businesses created is way up. The number of people employed has
been dramatically improved upon in the last 5 years. We now have over
14 million Americans who have new jobs.
So while the overall economic picture is extremely bright and
encouraging, with no end in sight, the Federal Reserve Board continues
to argue that its circumstances are that they don't see any need to
change; they won't increase the interest rates. While all that is
happening, there is a segment of our economy that continues to get
worse and worse and more and more bleak.
While most of America prospers, our farmers and ranchers in rural
communities are now in a crisis. While we recognize the geographic
differences that exist, there are some areas where you might suggest
that crisis is avoided. Some in agriculture today--rice farmers and
cotton farmers--are generally happier than they have been on other
occasions. But across the Great Plains, down into Texas, well into the
Dakotas, across into Montana and the West, down into the Southeast,
every time I go home, we see increasing evidence of serious economic
alarm.
This crisis rivals now the worst of the farm crisis in the 1980s in
some parts of our country. Farm income is down dramatically in South
Dakota and across the country. It has fallen in 32 States. It is down
by 30 percent in more than one-fifth of the country today. The problem
is low prices. In 1998, the average net farm income for Great Plains
farmers is expected to be near the poverty line for a family of four.
Let me make sure everybody understands that.
A farmer in the Great Plains who is on the farm today working
actively as a producer--the average farmer today--will actually see his
or her income at the official poverty line for a family of four.
Here we are experiencing one of the greatest booms in modern day on
Wall Street in virtually every segment of the economy, and yet our
farmers and ranchers are the ones experiencing an unbelievable economic
and financial crisis that equals, if not exceeds, anything they have
had in the past.
Farm debt is now $172 billion. That, Mr. President, is the highest it
has been in 13 years. We have to go all the way back to the time when
farmers rolled their tractors into Washington to find a time when farm
debt was as high as it is today at $172 billion. Overall farm income
nationwide is down $5.2 billion since 1996.
So we have seen a precipitous decline in farm income. We have seen an
accompanying increase in debt rivaling anything we have seen in my
lifetime, going all the way back to the farm crisis of 1985. And that
is our current circumstance. Do you call that a crisis, when a family
of four is trying to eke out a living on a farm, or a ranch, is at the
poverty-line income, when debt has gone up by $172 billion, when we
have seen the precipitous decline in farm income in just the last 2
years of $5.2 billion?
Mr. President, that translates into losses that go beyond farms. In
fact, we are told that we could see a loss of 100,000 jobs in rural
America as a result of the problems in the agricultural sector--100,000
people. Why? Because farm income has plummeted, debt has gone up, and
the economy continues to worsen.
So there is no doubt that this isn't just a farm issue, it is a rural
issue of enormous magnitude. The ripple effect is clearly now in
evidence.
Mr. President, I have the greatest admiration and affection and
respect for the current Presiding Officer. He and I have worked
together and come from the same part of the country. I appreciate his
sense of humor. But in some ways you have to have a sense of humor to
look at the Freedom to Farm Act today. Freedom to Farm, in my view, is
what is responsible in large measure for what has happened. It has
destroyed the safety net for our country's family farmers. Many of us
predicted on the day that it passed that this would be what we would be
facing. In fact, going back to a quote I made the day that the bill
passed, I said at the time: ``I think the Senate has made a very tragic
mistake. This fight is not over. We will come back.''
Well, we are back. I wish we didn't have to be. But we are back. We
are back because we have no choice now. The crisis is upon us. Some of
us could have predicted it. The fact is that it has happened. Without
delving into all the reasons why it happened, at least right now, I
don't think with the figures I have just stated for the Record that
anyone can deny that it is happening. What else can you say about a
family farm that is experiencing poverty-level income? What else can
you say about an income overall in the economy, the farm economy, that
has projected a $172 billion debt, the highest since 1985? What else
can you say about just 2 years of lost income, now $5.2 billion?
Mr. President, there is no question we are in a crisis. The question
is now, what do we do? Frankly, after a great
[[Page S8093]]
deal of debate internally, most of us have concluded that it isn't our
purpose now to completely reopen the debate on the Freedom to Farm Act
and revisit each and every one of the areas that we think need
improvement. That is something we will have to save for another time.
We are in a crisis. We are in an emergency. Because we are in an
emergency, we don't have the luxury of saying let's just take our time,
go back and review everything, and rewrite everything that we believe
may be causing these problems. Rather, what we decided to do, Mr.
President, is simply this:
First, let's offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that recognizes
the seriousness of the problem, and as clearly, and hopefully in a
bipartisan manner, say: ``We want to respond. We hear you. We are
empathetic. We agree the situation is very serious, and we are going to
respond.'' That is the purpose of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
Amendment No. 3127
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin, and as a
cosponsor of the resolution, I send it to the desk at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) for himself and
Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 3127.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert:
Findings:
In contrast to our Nation's generally strong economy, in a
number of States, agricultural producers and rural
communities are experiencing serious economic hardship;
Increased supplies of agricultural commodities in
combination with weakened demand have caused prices of
numerous farm commodities to decline dramatically;
Demand for imported agricultural commodities has fallen in
some regions of the world, due in part to world economic
conditions, and United States agricultural exports have
declined from their record level of $60 billion in 1996;
Prolonged periods of weather disasters and crop disease
have devastated agricultural producers in a number of States;
Thirty-two of the fifty States experienced declines in
personal farm income between 1996 and 1997;
June estimates by the Department of Agriculture indicate
that net farm income for 1998 will fall to $45.5 billion,
down 13 percent from the $52.2 billion for 1996;
Total farm debt for 1998 is expected to reach $172 billion,
the highest level since 1985;
Thousands of farm families are in danger of losing their
livelihood and life savings;
Now, therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that
emergency action by the President and Congress is necessary
to respond to the economic hardships facing agricultural
producers and their communities.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, many of our Republican colleagues have
said that high prices and robust trade would keep the farm economy
strong. I agree. I don't think there is anyone who disagrees with that.
High prices and robust trade go hand in glove. The problem is, we don't
have either. Prices across the board have plummeted to the lowest
levels they have been in more than a decade. Livestock prices and grain
prices are at such a point that no one can survive today. No one can
survive on prices that farmers are receiving at the local elevator--no
one. They are at the levels that farms received when the Presiding
Officer and I were born. The same levels that farmers were getting when
we were born are the prices farmers are getting today. Could we survive
on that kind of an income as Senators, as members of the Senate staff?
Could anyone on Main Street survive on prices they were getting in
1947, in my case? We know the answer to that.
This last week, an amendment was offered which was introduced by the
distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Roberts, and our very
distinguished colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, exempting farm
products from sanctions. We could have added a lot of things to that.
But the Senator from Kansas said--and I had a discussion, and we
agreed--that it was better to get something done than to use it as a
vehicle for more proposals that we wish could get done.
So on a bipartisan basis, I think unanimously--if not unanimously,
almost so--the Senate went on record in favor of lifting the
agricultural sanctions that have existed now for some time.
The right thing to do--and I am very proud that on an overwhelming
basis we sent as clear a message on trade with that vote as we could.
Now I hope we will send just as clear a message on domestic solutions.
If we can do it on trade, as the Senator from Kansas has noted, we
ought to do it on price. And while there is no question that trade can
have a positive effect on price, I think one would have to argue
vociferously, and I don't think ever conclusively, that whatever
changes we make on price related to trade will not be short term. It
will be very, very difficult to see any short-term, immediate
repercussions based on trade, although for long-term purposes it is
exactly what we need to do. We need to find ways to market our products
abroad. We need to find ways to be competitive and to see that those
markets open up. For us to shoot ourselves in the foot at the very time
when farmers need those markets is the absolute worst thing we can do.
So, Mr. President, the trade piece is the right piece for the long
term. The problem is, we have short-term needs that will never be
addressed by trade. So here we are, back to correct the failed policies
that have crippled rural America, back to recognize that we have to
take some actions on this particular bill.
The amendment that we now have before us recognizes the plight of the
family farmer in America. It says that we are on your side, we
understand your situation, and that we must act on a solution. That
solution will be the subject of additional amendments that we will lay
out over the course of the next period of time. It will remove the cap
on marketing loans and extend the loan term. We require mandatory price
reporting for livestock. We want to require labeling of imported meat.
We want to target emergency assistance for victims of multiple-year
disasters. The alternative is to do nothing. All Senators should ask,
all Senators really need to ask is this: Would they accept a 30 percent
cut in their income as thousands of farmers have? Do they want rural
America to survive? Do they value the whole societal fabric that family
farmers bring to rural America today?
We have to recognize and respond to this crisis and help farmers in
rural communities, help at least in part by restoring a small segment
of the agricultural safety net, create a more open and fair marketplace
where a safety net isn't even necessary, and give farmers an
opportunity to share in America's prosperity.
That is what we hope to do. We wish we could do it outside the
context of an agriculture appropriations bill. That would be my choice.
We have been unable, at least to date, to get markups and votes in the
committee, taking legislation from the Agriculture Committee to the
Senate floor. And so our choice is left to this, to offer amendments on
the best second vehicle we could have. The agricultural appropriations
bill is a bill that has to pass.
We will work with the distinguished manager, and there is no better,
I might add, than the manager of this particular bill. We will work
with him to see that we have the opportunity to pass this legislation
and do what we must to assure that farmers have the resources they
need. I cannot think of a more important issue than this. I cannot
think of a better time than this for us to respond.
I hope that on a bipartisan basis we will see fit to pass this
amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think it is a good idea that at the
beginning of this debate on agriculture appropriations we acknowledge
there are some serious problems in the agriculture sector of our
economy. There is no quarrel with that, and on both sides of the aisle
I think Senators are prepared to acknowledge that we have an obligation
to understand this fully and to do what we can within the constraints
of the Budget Act and the constraints of the law. We appropriate funds
to make sure that the Department of Agriculture has the resources to
take all appropriate action to help deal with these problems.
We realized when we began work on the agriculture appropriations bill
that we did not have enough money to do everything we would like to do
for
[[Page S8094]]
rural development, for nutrition assistance, for agriculture research,
for export promotion, and the wide range of activities that go into the
programs administered by the Department of Agriculture and the related
agencies that are funded in this bill.
It is a bill that was fully supported by Members on both sides of our
subcommittee and in the full Committee on Appropriations. We didn't
have a dissenting vote anywhere along the way for the appropriations
bill that we brought to the floor and that is pending before the Senate
right now. We have tried to make sure that every possible effort is
made, as we deal with the question of how much money to put in one
account or the other, to do the best possible job that we could, and I
think this bill is going to pass that test.
We were glad to have the strong and helpful support of the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers, who is the senior
Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee for the Department of
Agriculture, and other Senators who worked with us as well. This sense-
of-the-Senate resolution, if Senators will notice, outlines a number of
things that are suggested for changes in either current law or the
efforts that the administration could take to help deal with this
problem which the distinguished Democratic leader outlined.
It may very well be that we can make some changes to this and have a
bipartisan sense-of-the-Senate resolution. That would be my hope, and I
suggest to Senators that we make that effort.
Since we have just seen this proposed resolution, I am hopeful that
we can set it aside, take some time with those who are interested in
helping make sure that we do accurately state the problem and the
observations that the Senate has as a collective body of Republicans
and Democrats in dealing with the problems, and can pass it without any
objection on either side. That would be my hope, and that is what I
intend to suggest the Senate do.
We have some other amendments that we are going to have to offer.
Many of these amendments are proposed by Senators who are not members
of the Appropriations Committee, but we have now had an opportunity to
review them and we are prepared to recommend that a number of
amendments be accepted.
The distinguished Democratic leader indicated that he would have no
objection in setting aside this amendment if we wanted to go to other
amendments, and so at this point I am going to ask unanimous consent
that the pending sense-of-the-Senate resolution be set aside and I be
permitted to send an amendment to the desk on the subject of crop
insurance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3128
(Purpose: To provide additional funding for the Agricultural Research
Service, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service, and the Rural Community Advancement Program; to amend the
Federal Crop Insurance Protection Act by eliminating the surcharge on
the administrative fee for fiscal year 1999; and to restrict the
Wetlands Reserve Program's new acreage enrollment in fiscal year 1999)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr.
Bumpers, for himself and Mr. Cochran, proposes an amendment
numbered 3128.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 10, line 17, strike ``$767,921,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$768,221,000''.
On page 13, line 11, strike ``$49,200,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$50,500,000''.
On page 14, line 17, strike ``$434,782,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$436,082,000''.
On page 35, line 7, strike ``$700,201,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$703,601,000''.
On page 36, line 14, after the ``systems'', insert ``:
Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated,
$2,800,000 shall be available for a community improvement
project in Arkansas''.
On page 64, line 18, strike ``140,000'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``120,000''.
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
``Sec. 739. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to require any
producer to pay an administrative fee for catastrophic risk
protection under section 508(b)(5)(A) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)(5)(A)) in an amount that is
greater than $50 per crop per county.''.
``Sec. 740. Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted or
construed to alter the current implementation of the Wetlands
Reserve Program, unless expressly provided herein.''.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the clerk
withhold reporting of the amendment. I have been advised, contrary to
my understanding with the Democratic leader, there are some Democrats
who could not agree that that amendment be set aside now. So I do not
insist that the amendment be reported. Let me state what this amendment
will do when it is offered.
This is an amendment that increases appropriations in the bill for
the Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service to fund additional agriculture research
activities.
It also increases the total appropriations for the Rural Community
Advancement Program and earmarks funding for a community improvement
project in Arkansas.
It also adds a general provision to the bill to eliminate for fiscal
year 1999 the surcharge on the administrative fee in excess of $50 per
crop per county authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Protection
Act.
The proposed changes will also place some enrollment limitations on
the Wetlands Reserve Program. The amendment is designed to make
available to the Crop Insurance Program additional funds that were
contemplated by the agriculture research bill that was passed by the
Senate and signed by the President earlier this year. It is that
legislation that we are suggesting be attached to this legislation to
help carry out the provisions in the law that we now have had enacted
as a result of the bipartisan effort in the Agriculture Committees of
both the Senate and the House.
It is that amendment that we would like to propose to the Senate
while we work on reaching an accommodation with Senators on both sides
of the aisle on the sense-of-the-Senate resolution with respect to the
problems in the agriculture sector of our economy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment offered by
the Senator from Mississippi is set aside.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand that the objection that we
previously heard had been raised to setting aside the pending sense-of-
the-Senate resolution and sending an amendment to the desk has now been
lifted, and that there is no objection to taking that action, as I had
earlier been advised.
So, I send the amendment that I described on crop insurance to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from
Mississippi is now the pending question.
Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment increases appropriations
in the bill for the Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service to fund additional
agricultural research activities. Specifically, the amendment provides
an additional $300,000 to increase scientific staffing at the Cropping
Systems Center at the New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory in
Orono, Maine, to develop production and disease management systems.
This research will increase potato production efficiency, viability of
small farms and enhance water quality in the Northeast Region.
It increases the total funding provided in the bill for special
research
[[Page S8095]]
grants funded through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service by $1,300,000 to fund the following new research
grants at the levels specified:
Chesapeake Bay agroecology (Maryland)..........................$300,000
Designing Food for Health (Texas)..............................$250,000
Infectious disease research (Colorado).........................$250,000
Scallops Research (Connecticut)................................$250,000
Urban aquaculture (Massachusetts)..............................$250,000
The amendment also increases the appropriation for the Rural
Community Advancement Program by $3,400,000 and earmarks funding for a
community improvement project in Eastern Arkansas.
Finally, the amendment adds a general provision to the bill to
eliminate for fiscal year 1999 the surcharge on the administrative fee
in excess of $50 per crop per county authorized by the Federal Crop
Insurance Protection Act.
The additional costs of the changes proposed by this amendment are
fully offset by a further restriction on new acreage enrollments in the
Wetlands Reserve Program for fiscal year 1999. This proposed change
would place a 120,000 acre limitation on new acreage enrollments versus
the 140,000 limitation currently recommended in the bill.
I ask that this amendment be favorably considered by my colleagues.
Let me say by way of further explanation, in describing the
amendment, the reason we have to make this change in the Crop Insurance
Program is that we wanted to remove a 10-percent surcharge on the
administrative fee imposed by the Agriculture Research Extension and
Education Reform Act. That was the bill that we had earlier passed
which provides a lot of new, mandated expenditures for agriculture
research. This surcharge, that I have referred to, would require
farmers to pay as much as a 400-percent increase above the 1998
administrative fee. This is not a minimal administrative fee as farmers
had been promised.
So this amendment will remove the surcharge, and that is the purpose
of getting this amendment offered at this early stage in the bill, so
there will not be any question about whether or not there will be an
opportunity for participation by farmers in the Crop Insurance Program
because of these prohibitive costs. We think this is an important
change to be made in that law and will help provide the opportunity to
deal with disaster assistance under the Crop Insurance Program.
My understanding is that this amendment has been cleared on both
sides. I will defer to my friend from Arkansas for any comments he
would like to make on this amendment.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. This amendment
has been cleared on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3128) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have a number of other amendments
where we have worked to reach agreement and to recommend to the Senate
that amendments be approved.
Amendment No. 3129
(Purpose: To make a technical correction in the amount provided for
demonstration programs)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the first one that I suggest we consider
is an amendment offered by Senator Bumpers and myself dealing with the
Rural Community Advancement Program. It is a technical correction. I
send that amendment to the desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself and
Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 3129.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 35, line 25, strike ``$1,000,000'' and insert
``$70,000''.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment makes a technical
correction to the bill to provide that not to exceed $70,000 of the
total funds appropriated for the Rural Community Advancement Program be
available to subsidize the cost of funds provided for demonstration
programs.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this
side of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
there is no objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3129) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3130
(Purpose: To transfer funding for credit sales of acquired property to
subsidize the cost of additional farm ownership loans)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk
offered for myself and the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. This
amendment will transfer funding for credit sales of acquired property
to subsidize the cost of additional farm ownership loans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself and
Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 3130.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 26, line 26, strike ``$488,872,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$510,649,000''.
On page 27, line 7, insert ``and'' before ``for''.
On page 27, lines 8 and 9, strike ``; and for credit sales
of acquired property, $25,000,000''.
On page 27, line 13, strike ``$16,320,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$19,580,000''.
On page 27, line 20, insert ``and'' before ``for''.
On page 27, lines 21 and 22, strike ``; and for credit
sales of acquired property, ``$3,260,000''.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment, as I stated, is designed
to eliminate the subsidy appropriation for Farm Service Agency credit
sales of acquired property and transfer this amount to subsidize the
cost of additional farm ownership direct loans.
The amendment increases the subsidy appropriation for farm ownership
direct loans by $3,260,000 to fund an additional $21,777,000 in loans.
This will fund an estimated total farm ownership direct loan level of
$85,649,000 for fiscal year 1999 versus the $63,872,000 level now
proposed by the bill.
I have been advised by the Department of Agriculture that the Farm
Service Agency credit sales loan obligations are currently lower than
anticipated and the full amount requested for fiscal year 1999 will not
be required. Any funding needed for credit sales of acquired property
for fiscal year 1999 can be made available through the agency's loan
programs. Given this, the amendment proposes to move this money to
increase available funding for farm ownership direct loans.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this
side of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3130) was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3131
(Purpose: To establish a personnel management demonstration project)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the next amendment on my list that has
been cleared is one by the Senator from Arkansas dealing with a pilot
personnel program. Does the Senator want to send that to the desk?
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
[[Page S8096]]
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an
amendment numbered 3131.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 67, after line 23, insert the following:
Sec. . That notwithstanding section 4703(d)(1) of title
5, United States Code, the personnel management demonstration
project established in the Department of Agriculture, as
described at 55 FR 9062 and amended at 61 FR 9507 and 61 FR
49178, shall be continued indefinitely and become effective
upon enactment of this bill.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this bill continues the current hiring
system being used within the Forest Service and the Agricultural
Research Service to examine for, and make, first permanent competitive
Federal appointments. The hiring system will terminate on June 30,
1998, unless it is extended.
Applicants and management officials have had an overwhelmingly
positive response to the hiring system. Specifically, management
believes the program has increased its control over hiring, resulting
in a greater likelihood that the candidate pool is appropriate and
available, reducing the number of staff hours expended in testing,
examining and rating applicants.
The Office of Management and Budget has no objection to this
amendment. I think this has been cleared on the other side.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have reviewed this amendment, and we
have cleared it on this side of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3131) was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is another amendment of Senator
Bumpers, which I have cosponsored, to prohibit budget requests based on
unauthorized user fees. If it is appropriate, we can send that
amendment to the desk at this time.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like to move on to the next
amendment and come back to this one.
Amendment No. 3132
(Purpose: To make an amendment relating to rural housing programs)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is another amendment which we have
agreed to be adopted offered by Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes dealing
with the rural housing authorization in this bill.
On behalf of Senator D'Amato, for himself and Mr. Sarbanes, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr.
D'Amato, for himself, and Mr. Sarbanes, proposes an amendment
numbered 3132.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 67, after line 23, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) The first sentence of section 509(f)(4)(A) of
the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1479(f)(4)(A)) is amended
by striking ``fiscal year 1998'' and inserting ``fiscal year
1999''.
(b) Section 515(b)(4) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C.
1485(b)(4)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 1998'' and
inserting ``September 30, 1999''.
(c) The first sentence of section 515(w)(1) of the Housing
Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1485(w)(1)) is amended by striking
``fiscal year 1998'' and inserting ``fiscal year 1999''.
(d) Section 538 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C.
1490p-2) is amended--
(1) in subsection (t), by striking ``fiscal year 1998'' and
inserting ``fiscal year 1999''; and
(2) in subsection (u), by striking ``September 30, 1998''
and inserting ``September 30, 1999''.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment relating to
rural housing programs of the Department of Agriculture. I express my
sincere appreciation to Chairman Cochran and Ranking Minority Member
Bumpers for their consideration of the amendment which I offer with
Senator Paul Sarbanes, Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. I commend them for their steadfast
commitment to providing affordable housing for rural Americans.
The Department of Agriculture operates a number of successful housing
programs under the auspices of its Rural Housing Service (RHS). Rural
housing programs, while a function of the Department of Agriculture,
are under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. As Chairman of the
Banking Committee, I respectfully request the adoption of this
amendment.
This amendment will permit vital housing programs to continue in an
uninterrupted fashion. It includes one-year extensions of existing
housing programs. Specifically, the RHS Section 515 Rural Rental
Housing Program, the RHS Section 538 Rural Rental Housing Loan
Guarantee Program, and the RHS Underserved Areas Program would be
extended until September 30, 1999. These short-term extensions are
necessary to ensure that needy Americans continue to be served.
There is a critical need for affordable housing in rural America.
According to the 1990 census, over 2.7 million rural Americans live in
substandard housing. In my home State of New York, 76 percent of
renters are paying 30 percent or more of their income for housing.
Approximately 60 percent of New York renters pay over 50 percent of
their income for rent.
The Rural Housing Service Section 515 and Section 538 programs
represent a significant portion of the limited resources available to
respond to this serious unmet housing need. Since its inception in
1962, the Section 515 rental loan program has financed the development
of over 450,000 units of affordable housing in over 18,000 apartment
projects. The program assists elderly, disabled and low-income rural
families with an average income of $7,200. The Section 538 program is a
relatively new loan guarantee program which has proven to have
widespread national appeal. With a subsidy rate of approximately 3
cents per dollar, it is an example of cost-efficient leveraging of
public resources.
I thank the Appropriations Committee for its recognition of the great
need for these essential rural housing programs. I support immediate
adoption of this amendment.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment,
along with the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs, Senator Alfonse D'Amato, to extend rural housing
programs for the Rural Housing Service of the Department of
Agriculture. I would like to commend the leadership of Chairman Cochran
and Ranking Member Bumpers for their continued commitment to ensuring
that rural housing programs serve rural Americans with affordable,
decent housing choices.
This amendment would extend for one year several rural rental housing
programs. This includes the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program,
the Section 538 Rural Rental Housing Loan Guarantee Program, and the
Underserved Areas Program. Because many families in rural America do
not have incomes high enough to make homeownership possible, it is
imperative that Rural Housing Service be able to provide decent,
affordable rental units. These programs are among the few resources
that help alleviate the shortage of affordable rental housing and
enable very low and low income renters in rural America to access
affordable rental housing.
The Section 515 Program has provided over 450,000 units of affordable
rural housing since 1962; there is no other federal program that
provides this assistance to very low income renters in rural areas. The
Section 538 Loan Guarantee Program is designed to meet the needs of low
and moderate income rural Americans not being served by the Section 515
Program. This program enables the federal government to partner with
developers and funders to generate needed rental housing in rural
areas.
[[Page S8097]]
Both the Section 515 and 538 Programs offer direct benefits for
communities, including creating jobs and increasing local taxes, in
addition to attracting and maintaining businesses. Stable rental
housing has been proven to be a vital link to the overall health and
viability of rural communities. While the Rural Housing Service has
done much to bring affordable housing to rural America, many rural
families still experience housing overcrowding, substandard facilities,
cost overburdens, and remain in desperate need of housing assistance.
As we encourage families to move from welfare to work, it is even more
essential that we build on this vital housing program that provides the
safety net which will give the working poor an opportunity to live in
affordable, safe and decent housing.
Again, I would like to commend Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member
Bumpers for their action to ensure that essential rural rental housing
programs receive authorization to continue serving low income families
for another year. I urge the swift adoption of this amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this
side. We recommend that it be approved by the Senate.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this
side of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3132) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3133
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a review
of methyl bromide alternatives research)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, another amendment which we have been able
to review and are prepared to recommend the Senate accept is one
offered by Senator Graham of Florida. I send that amendment on his
behalf to the desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Graham,
proposes an amendment numbered 3133.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. 7 . METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES RESEARCH.
(a) Review.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through
the Agricultural Research Service, shall conduct a review of
the methyl bromide alternatives research conducted by the
Secretary that describes--
(1) the amount of funds expended by the Secretary since
January 1, 1990, on methyl bromide alternatives research,
including a description of the amounts paid for salaries,
expenses, and actual research;
(2) plot and field scale testing of methyl bromide
alternatives conducted by the Secretary since January 1,
1990, including a description of--
(A) the total amount of funds expended for the testing;
(B) the amount of funds expended for the testing as a
portion of a larger project or independently of other
projects; and
(C) the results of the testing and the impact of the
results on future research; and
(3) variables that impact the effectiveness of methyl
bromide alternatives, including a description of--
(A) the individual variables; and
(B) the plan of the Secretary for addressing each of the
variables during the plot and field scale testing conducted
by the Secretary.
(b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress a report
that describes the results of the review conducted under
subsection (a).
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the review of
methyl bromide alternatives research. We have examined the amendment.
We think it appropriate for the Senate to include it in this bill, and
we recommend that it do so.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this
side of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3133) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3134
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of
Agriculture should take certain actions to provide timely assistance to
Texas agricultural producers that are experiencing worsening drought
conditions)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, another amendment we have been able to
review and are prepared to recommend approval of is offered by the
Senators from Texas, Senator Gramm and Senator Hutchison. On their
behalf, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Gramm,
for himself, and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an amendment
numbered 3134.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF SENATE ON DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR TEXAS
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the statewide economic impact of the drought on
agriculture in the State of Texas could be more than
$4,600,000,000 in losses, according to the Agricultural
Extension Service of the State;
(2) the direct loss of income to agricultural producers in
the State is $1,500,000,000;
(3) the National Weather Service has reported that all 10
climatic regions in the State have received below-average
rainfall from March through May of 1998, a critical time in
the production of corn, cotton, sorghum, wheat, and forage;
(4) the total losses for cotton producers in the State have
already reached an estimated $500,000,000;
(5) nearly half of the rangeland in the State (as of May
31, 1998) was rated as poor or very poor as a result of the
lack of rain;
(6) the value of lost hay production in the State will
approach an estimated $175,000,000 statewide, leading to an
economic impact of $582,000,000;
(7) dryland fruit and vegetable production losses in East
Texas have already been estimated at $33,000,000;
(8) the early rains in many parts of the State produced a
large quantity of forage that is now extremely dry and a
dangerous source of fuel for wildfires; and
(9) the Forest Service of the State has indicated that over
half the State is in extreme or high danger of wildfires due
to the drought conditions.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the Secretary of Agriculture should--
(1) streamline the drought declaration process to provide
necessary relief to the State of Texas as quickly as is
practicable;
(2) ensure that local Farm Service Agency offices in the
State are equipped with full-time and emergency personnel in
drought-stricken areas to assist agricultural producers with
disaster loan applications;
(3) direct the Forest Service, and request the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, to assist the State in
prepositioning fire fighting equipment and other appropriate
resources in affected counties of the State;
(4) authorize haying and grazing on acreage in the State
that is enrolled in the conservation reserve program carried
out under section 1231 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3831); and
(5) convene experts within the Department of Agriculture to
develop and implement an emergency plan for the State to help
prevent wildfires and to overcome the economic impact of the
continuing drought by providing assistance from the
Department in a rapid and efficient manner for producers that
are suffering from drought conditions.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the situation
in the State of Texas occasioned by the severe drought that has
occurred there. The Senators from Texas are acquainting the Senate with
the problems that exist in Texas and making some observations about
appropriate actions that could be taken to help relieve the problems.
It is very similar, as a matter of fact, to the sentiment contained
in the earlier sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It probably could be
included in our overall sense-of-the-Senate resolution on this subject
when we get that worked out on both sides of the aisle. I am optimistic
that we can do so. But in the
[[Page S8098]]
meantime, I think it is appropriate for us to go ahead and adopt this
amendment. We recommend that it be done.
Mr. BUMPERS. The amendment has been cleared on this side of the
aisle, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3134) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the next item on my list for agreed
amendments is one by the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from
Arkansas dealing with Conservation Farm Options Program funding, if
that is ready.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, it is not quite ready yet. Hopefully, it
will be by the time we finish this package of amendments.
Amendment No. 3135
(Purpose: To amend the Wetlands Reserve Program by exempting thirty
year easements from payment limitations; and clarifying the
interpretation of ``Maximum Extent Practicable'' regarding the Wetlands
Reserve Program enrollment goal)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, next I have an amendment by the Senator
from Indiana, Senator Lugar, dealing with the Wetlands Reserve Program.
I am prepared to send that to the desk at this time and ask that it be
stated on behalf of the Senator from Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Lugar,
proposes an amendment numbered 3135.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 67, after line 23, add the following new sections:
``Sec. . Section 1237D(c)(1) of Subchapter C of the Food
Security Act of 1985 is amended by inserting after
``perpetual'' the following ``or 30-year.''
``Sec. . Section 1237(b)(2) of Subchapter C of the Food
Security Act of 1985 is amended by adding the following: (C)
For purposes of subparagraph (A), to the maximum extent
practicable should be interpreted to mean that acceptance of
wetlands reserve program bids may be in proportion to
landowner interest expressed in program options.''
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to
improve the effectiveness of the Wetland Reserve Program, or WRP.
The WRP is a program, administered by the Department of Agriculture,
or USDA, which purchases easements to restore and protect wetlands.
These easements are purchased from landowners on a willing-buyer and
willing-seller basis. Under current law, land going into the WRP is
enrolled for different time periods based on one of three types of
contracts entered into between USDA and the landowner: (1) cost share
contracts (which enroll land for ten years), (2) 30 year easements, and
(3) permanent easements. Landowners have expressed more interest in
longer term easements than in cost share contracts. However, current
law requires USDA to enroll an equal proportion of each contract type
(hence the so-called \1/3\, \1/3\, \1/3\ rule), regardless of landowner
interest. One part of the amendment which I am proposing would permit
USDA to deviate from the \1/3\, \1/3\, \1/3\ requirement based on
landowner interest. Landowners would retain the ability to choose among
permanent, non-permanent and cost-share agreements.
Mr. President, the second part of my amendment would also amend the
WRP. Under current law, landowners receive annual payments for land
enrolled in the WRP, but, in the case of longer term easements, can
elect to receive payments up-front in a lump sum. Annual payments,
including those taken in a lump sum, are subject to a $50,000 per
person limitation. However, permanent easements are exempt from the
limitation. Exempting only permanent easements from the payment
limitation tends to discourage landowners from choosing 30 year
easements. This amendment solves the inequity by broadening the
exemption to include 30 year easements.
My amendment is strongly supported by the Audubon Society, Ducks
Unlimited, and other conservation groups. It has been scored at no cost
by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The amendment makes common-
sense improvements to an important program which protects our natural
resources. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this does involve an effort by the
Senator from Indiana to improve the effectiveness of the Wetland
Reserve Program. It has been reviewed, and we are prepared to recommend
that it be agreed to in this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3135) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3136
(Purpose: To make technical corrections to the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have another amendment offered by the
Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and cosponsored by others, dealing
with technical corrections to the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act. On behalf of Senator Lugar, I send that amendment
to the desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] for Mr. Lugar,
for himself, Mr. Santorum, Ms. Collins, Mr. Harkin and Mr.
Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 3136.
Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 67, after line 23, insert the following:
SEC. . TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,
EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 1998.
(a) Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research.--
Section 3(d)(3) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Research Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1642(d)(3)) (as
amended by section 253(b) of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998) is amended by
striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``At the request of
the Governor of the State of Maine, New Hampshire, New York,
or Vermont, the Secretary''.
(b) Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information.--
Section 7(e)(2) of the Honey Research, Promotion, and
Consumer Information Act (7 U.S.C. 4606(e)(2)) (as amended by
section 605(f)(3) of the Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Education Reform Act of 1998) is amended by striking
``$0.0075'' each place it appears and inserting ``$0.01''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on the date of enactment of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise to offer an amendment to make
a technical correction to recently passed bill. This noncontroversial
legislation serves to clarify two provisions of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. Senators
Santorum, Collins, Harkin and Leahy are cosponsors of this amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is twofold. First, under the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Research program in the northeastern
United States, the amendment adds a requirement that the Governor of
the State of Maine, New Hampshire, New York, or Vermont make a request
to the Secretary before any research is conducted under that particular
program. Second, the assessment rate is amended from $0.0075 to $0.01
under the Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act.
Mr. President, both amendments make technical corrections. I hope my
colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have reviewed it. We think it ought to
be agreed to by the Senate.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, it has been cleared on this side of the
aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
[[Page S8099]]
The amendment (No. 3136) was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3137
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, another amendment we have been able to
clear, I am advised, is offered by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Robb.
On his behalf, I send his amendment to the desk and ask that it be
stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Robb,
proposes an amendment numbered 3137.
Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
After line 23 on page 67, add the following new title:
TITLE VIII
``SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This section may be cited as the `Agricultural Credit
Restoration Act'.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT.
(a) Section 343(a)(12)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(12)(B)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(B) Exceptions.--The term `debt forgiveness' does not
include--
``(i) consolidation, rescheduling, reamortization, or
deferral of a loan;
``(ii) 1 debt forgiveness in the form of a restructuring,
write-down, or net recovery buy-out which occurred prior to
date of enactment and was due to a financial problem of the
borrower relating to a natural disaster or a medical
condition of the borrower or of a member of the immediate
family of the borrower (or, in the case of a borrower that is
an entity, a principal owner of the borrower or a member of
the immediate family of such an owner); and
``(iii) any restructuring, write-down, or net recovery buy-
out provided as a part of a resolution of a discrimination
compliant against the Secretary.''.
(5) Section 355(c) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2003(c)(2)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) Reservation and allocation.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, to the greatest
extent practicable, reserve and allocate the proportion of
each State's loan funds made available under subtitle B that
is equal to that State's target participation rate for use by
the socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers in that State.
The Secretary shall, to the extent practicable distribute the
total so derived on a county by county basis according to the
number of socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers in the
county.
``(B) Reallocation of unused funds.--The Secretary may pool
any funds reserved and allocated under this paragraph with
respect to a State that are not used as a described in
subparagraph (A) in a State in the first 10 months of a
fiscal year with the funds similarly not so used in other
States, and may reallocate such pooled funds in the
discretion of the Secretary for use by socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers in other States.''.
(c) Section 373(b)(1) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2008h(b)(1)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary may not make a guarantee a loan under subtitle A or
B to a borrower who received debt forgiveness on a loan made
or guaranteed under this title unless such forgiveness
occurred prior to April 4, 1996''.
SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate
regulations necessary to carry out the amendments made by
this Act, without regard to--
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code; and
(2) the statement of policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and public
participation in rulemaking that became effective on July 24,
1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804).
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this deals with the Agricultural Credit
Restoration Act. It has been cleared on this side. We recommend it be
agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3137) was agreed to.
orphan products research grant
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in order to engage the
chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator
Cochran, in a brief colloquy regarding the ``Orphan Products Research
Grant'' program. I am pleased to note that the bill before us which
includes funding for the Food and Drug Administration specifically
maintains the current level of funding for the operation and grants
that support research on rare conditions and diseases, the so-called
``orphan products''. While I hasten to point out here, as in many other
cases, continued level funding is a reduction in program effectiveness
because underlying costs go up which result in fewer grants and less
research efforts going into this effort to help what have to be some of
the most neglected and medically needy in our society who lack
effective therapies.
Beyond the grant funding, I am seeking assurance that the Committee
intends that the staffing and support functions of the FDA's orphan
program are to be continued at not less than the current level of
appropriated dollars and FTE's allocated to this most important mission
and function. I understand that the FY98 resources are 17 FTEs and $1.8
million for operation costs for administering the Office for Orphan
Products Development. The total funding level is $11.542 million which
includes both grants and operation costs. The whole program is
relatively small, clearly within the core functions of the agency, and
extraordinarily effective and productive. It certainly deserves to have
priority on any future increased funds that become available. In the
last 15 years, this program has nurtured the development and marketing
of more than 170 products, 21 of which have directly benefitted from
its grant funding. It could easily get lost in the focus on many of the
other big ticket, high visibility responsibilities of the FDA.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Illinois. As Senator Durbin
knows, the committee has worked hard over the past several years to
maintain this very important program. This program may be the only hope
for cures for some with extremely rare diseases. It is important that
FDA not divert these appropriated funds to other areas, thus
undermining this worthwhile program. I thank the Senator from Illinois
for bringing this issue to our attention.
fda
Mr. GREGG. I would just like to commend the Senator from Mississippi
for his hard work and dedication on this bill, and would like to thank
him for his particular attention to FDA matters. It is important that
the regulatory programs be adequately funded, and of particular
importance to me and a number of my colleagues is the important
regulatory program for cosmetics in the Office of Cosmetics and Color
within the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. As the
Senator from Mississippi knows too well, the FDA recently announced
cutbacks in this program, and I just wanted to thank him for the report
language accompanying this bill and its encouragement for restoring
this program to previous years levels.
It is my understanding that our colleagues in the House have provided
a $2.5 million increase to restore this program to that level, and I
would hope that we can work to ensure that the final version of this
bill contains that increase.
Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the Senator's remarks. We will do
everything we can to make sure that the funding for this worthy program
is adequately addressed.
tomato spotted wilt virus
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss
a very important issue, specifically my efforts to provide critical
research funding for Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus. First, I would like to
thank my distinguished colleagues, the Chairman, Senator Cochran, and
Ranking Member Senator Bumpers, for their skillful work and superb
leadership on this bill. I, like many of my colleagues, find it
extremely fortunate to have two gentlemen in these posts who not only
provide a valuable resource on matters facing agriculture, but can be
depended on to work with Senators with candor and cooperation. As you
may know, spotted wilt, caused by the tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV),
has become a serious impediment to effective production of several
economically important crops in the Southeast, causing an estimated
$100 million in losses to peanuts and vegetable crops annually. The
disease is endemic to the Southeast and the wide host range of the
virus
[[Page S8100]]
makes it extremely difficult to control. If you recall, in the letter
which I sent to you earlier this year, I requested that $330,000 be
appropriated to the College of Agriculture at the University of Georgia
for a project titled the Integrated Approach to Mitigate Tomato Spotted
Wilt Virus Epidemics in the Southeastern United States. Although
funding has not been provided in this bill, I understand that the House
version contains $200,000 for this project's research.
Mr. COCHRAN. My colleague from Georgia is correct.
Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator. While I would like to see funding
for this project included in the Senate bill, I understand the
difficulties that my colleagues are facing in trying to accommodate my
request at this time and I defer to your advice on this matter and will
not offer an amendment to provide the funding. Given that my ultimate
goal is to ensure that adequate funding for this important project is
obtained, I would truly appreciate my colleagues providing recognition
of the seriousness of this problem as well as a commitment to work to
obtain this funding in conference.
Mr. BUMPERS. I share the Senator's concern about this matter and
recognize the serious nature of this disease. I also believe that it is
important that we provide funding for this valuable project, and
hopefully we will be able to accommodate the Senator from Georgia's
request in conference.
Mr. COCHRAN. I too appreciate the Senator bringing the critical
nature of this issue to our attention. When we meet with the House
Conferees on this bill, we will give every consideration to provide
funding for this project.
Mr. CLELAND. I thank my esteemed colleagues for their assistance on
this matter and I feel confident that, with your commitments, this
critical funding will be provided. Considering the cost-benefit ratio
of this research as well as our desire to maintain the superiority of
American food quality and abundance, I believe that such funding is
well justified and in the national interest.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Amendment No. 3127
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on amendment 3127.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Iowa is
recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, a parliamentary inquiry. I guess we
have before us now the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that was proposed
a little while ago by the minority leader, Senator Daschle?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. That is the pending matter before the Senate.
Mr. President, I note the presence of my colleagues from the Midwest
and the Northern Plains States who are here on the floor. I think we
have to really lay out for the American people what is happening in
rural America today.
We can close our eyes to it. We can try to ignore what is going on,
but the fact is, there is a crisis of immense proportions happening all
over rural America.
In our sense-of-the-Senate resolution, we pointed out that net farm
income for 1998 is projected to fall to $45.5 billion. That is down 13
percent from 1996. Now, with farm income going down 13 percent--I asked
my staff to check and see what Wall Street did last year. The S&P 500
index went up 36 percent last year; farm receipts down 13 percent.
Farm debt for this year is expected to be $172 billion, the highest
level since 1985. So what we say in our sense-of-the-Senate resolution
is:
. . . emergency action by the President and Congress is
necessary to respond to the economic hardships facing
agricultural producers and their communities.
Very simple. Very straightforward. It is an emergency situation and
requires emergency action.
Mr. President, this chart really says it all, what happened to farm
income between 1996 and 1997. Let us see, 32 States had a drop in net
farm income--32 out of 50. Now, some of them, you might see, had a big
increase. Oklahoma was up 94 percent and Kansas 28 percent and Wyoming
73 percent. That was simply because of the devastating drought they had
in 1996, and their wheat crop recovered in 1997, and it looks better.
But the prices there--and I will get to that in a moment--are still
catastrophic for the wheat farmers all up and down the wheat belt.
But look at the other States: Minnesota, down 38 percent; North
Dakota, down 98 percent, a 98-percent drop in farm income in the last
year; New York State, 44 percent; Pennsylvania a 32-percent decrease in
farm income.
Wall Street is doing great. Standard & Poor's is up--what did I
say?--36 percent. Yet the ag economy in New York State went down 44
percent. That is the story across America. That is why we have a
crisis.
Look at prices here, and you will find something, Mr. President, very
interesting about these charts I am about to show. Here is the farm
level corn price. We were coming up here in the early 1990s, and we had
a steady increase, a little drop, but kept coming up. Right here is the
Freedom to Farm bill, and, bang, down it goes. That is corn. Is that an
anomaly? Let's look at wheat prices. We were bouncing around, but we
had steady progression up all the time. We enacted Freedom to Farm, and
down it comes. Wheat prices have been coming down ever since Freedom to
Farm was passed. So that is corn and that is wheat.
Farm-level soybeans. Soybeans were coming up gradually, getting
better, and we get here to Freedom to Farm, and down it comes. All of
those crops, ever since Freedom to Farm, down they come.
Here is the other interesting thing. We can look at the corn and the
wheat and the soybean prices. But let's look at the farm share of what
is happening to how much farmers are getting from their products that
are sold in grocery stores.
Right now, the farm share of the pork dollar is at the lowest point
it has been in over 2 decades--in over 20 years. Iowa hog farmers, and
hog farmers around America, are getting the lowest share of the retail
dollar. So if prices have been declining, as I pointed out here for
soybeans and for corn and for wheat, how come we haven't seen the price
dropping at the grocery stores? Not a bit. Prices continue to go up,
and yet the share of that dollar for our farmers keeps going down. That
one is pork.
Let's take a look at beef. Here is the retail share of beef, which
has been coming down all the time. It keeps coming down. Maybe it is
not quite as bad as pork, but it is still pretty bad. So farmers get
less and less.
Now, I noted that in the Washington Post this morning there was a
story about our plans to do something to help the farm crisis in
America. It said here, ``While Democrats in both chambers want to help
farmers by revamping domestic farm supports, Republicans say aid will
come from more aggressive pursuit of exports.''
Interesting. We are going to solve it all by exporting more. Well,
let's look at two charts here. I heard a lot of talk about getting rid
of sanctions. We are all for getting rid of sanctions. Here is a chart
that shows how much agriculture is being affected in terms of sanctions
and how much it is being affected by the fact that IMF is not being
replenished, so they can continue to straighten out the economies in
Asia. Trade sanctions reduce U.S. exports by about 1 percent of the
total. That is the USDA estimate. Here is IMF-affected trade coming in
at about $35 billion because of the lack of funding for IMF. Who is
holding up the funding for IMF? The leadership in the House and the
leadership in the Senate.
We will hear a lot of talk about sanctions. But if you really want to
get at what is affecting our farm exports, it is the lack of funding
and replenishment for IMF. But, Mr. President, is it really exports
that are going to solve our problem? Here is U.S. exports on this chart
going clear back to 1960--what we see here, hitting 1970 and in the
1970s and then the 1980s. We had a dip in 1985 because of the farm
crisis, and then up and up and up. Look at the increase in U.S.
agricultural exports. It is down a little bit now from its peak a
couple years ago, down 7 percent. But it is still a huge increase over
what we have had in the past. That is not the total answer to our
problems.
Yes, we need to replenish IMF; yes, we need to continue our strong
support for exports. But that won't solve the
[[Page S8101]]
problem. The problem is that we have pulled the safety net out from
underneath the farmers in this country when we passed Freedom to Farm a
couple of years ago--the so-called ``Freedom to Farm.'' I called it at
that time the ``freedom to go broke'' bill, talking about our family
farmers.
Now, some say, well, what we have to do is, we have to get EEP in
there and we have to do more to get our exports going overseas. But the
fact is, that would put more money in the pockets of the grain traders
and importing companies and not the farmers we all represent. Some
commodity groups want to spend several hundred million dollars on the
Export Enhancement Program and other export programs. But who is it
going to help? That money will go right into the pockets of the
exporters, the big grain companies, and the importing countries. It is
not going to go to the farmers.
I call that the sparrow feeding the horse kind of analogy. If you
want to feed the horse, you feed the sparrow. Then the sparrow drops
something on the ground; that fertilizes the grass; the grass grows,
and the horse eats it. That is a crazy system. If you want to get money
to farmers, then what we have to do is, we have to put in some supports
and put that safety net back in there.
A 1994 General Accounting Office study found that direct payments to
producers increased net income of farmers much more effectively than an
equivalent level of indirect support through subsidies granted under
the export subsidy program.
GAO. Direct payment of producers gets their net income up more
effectively than putting that money into EEP.
Again, a lot of farmers were told that we had to pass this so-called
Freedom to Farm because it gave them flexibility. We were all for
flexibility. We had that before under the Carter administration. We had
the whole farm base at that time. We all wanted to give farmers more
flexibility for the whole farm and let them make the decisions. But we
wanted to keep a safety net there.
This so-called Freedom to Farm is fine when prices are high, fine
when you have the big payments going out to farmers in the initial 1 or
2 years. But when disasters come, as they will in agriculture, as they
have since biblical times, when the prices go down, then what happens
is, our family farmers are squeezed out.
It almost seems like the so-called Freedom to Farm bill really was
designed with only the largest producers in mind. Why do I say that?
Because when you get a downturn, when you have low prices, the big,
well-financed producers can weather it. They can get through 1 or 2 or
3 years of low prices. But for that smaller family farmer out there,
they can't do it. That is why you are now going to see farm
bankruptcies again, as high as they were during the 1980s.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for one question?
Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to my colleague from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, for the sake of other colleagues, I
believe many will support our efforts on the floor this week because
they know how important agriculture is. But when the Senator makes the
point about what is going to happen to family farmers, as opposed to
large conglomerates able to weather this crisis, I wonder if the
Senator might want to explain to people who feel strongly about it why,
from the point of view of consumers, it is important that the family
farmers be able to stay on the land. Maybe some people will hear you
talk and they might say, well, OK, so the giants can stay on, they will
farm the lands, and what difference does it make to the vast majority
of the people in the country? I wonder if the Senator can spell that
out.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend, because we hear a lot about that:
``Wouldn't it be better to have a few large farmers out there rather
than all these family farmers?'' There are a lot of ways to answer that
question.
First, a strong, healthy rural America is better in terms of the
impact of unemployment in our cities, where people from farms are
forced off, they come into the cities. It causes more urban congestion
and all of the expenses that causes for people who live in our larger
cities. You can look at it that way.
Secondly, you can look at it from the standpoint of a stable, safe
food supply. Why do I say that? Because it has been my experience that
a family farmer who lives on that land, owns that land, and the
children are raised there, and they go to the local schools, and they
have a stake in their community--they are some of the best stewards we
have for our land. So if you want to take care of the land for future
generations and you want to protect the soil and the water, it is
better to have a family farm system of agriculture than these big
corporate conglomerates that maybe just hire someone or rent it out.
It is like in housing. If you want people to take care of their
houses, make them homeowners. That is why I have always been in favor
of housing subsidies and getting more housing for low-income people.
They will take care of it. They have a stake in it. They have equity in
it. That is true with our family farmers, too. As long as they own the
land and work it and have their families there, they have a stake in
it.
Lastly, just from the standpoint of price, if you have more farmers
out there producing more beef, pork, poultry, corn, wheat, and beans,
you are going to have a more competitive situation out there. As we all
know, competition gives you the best price.
I never could understand people who believe in a free enterprise
system and who believe in this concept of competition and giving us the
best products at the lowest possible price, then supporting policies
that do just the opposite in agriculture and squeeze them out by
setting up a few large, vertically integrated entities that have
everything from the production of the grain, to the feeding of the
livestock, to the slaughtering of the livestock, to the packaging,
right to the time it gets to your counter. I can't understand people
who think that somehow these kinds of monopolistic prices are going to
be the best deal for our consumers. They just aren't. We know it, and
we can prove it.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have one more question for my
colleague from Iowa. We have colleagues here on the floor from North
Dakota and South Dakota. You talk about the Freedom to Farm bill and
the whole question of the price plummeting and the dramatic loss of
farm income in a State like Minnesota where we are really hurting.
Later on I will get a chance to speak to that. The Senator mentioned
that income in North Dakota dropped by 98 percent.
Could my colleague from Iowa explain, A, why the price has plummeted;
and, B, when we talk about a fair price, what we are really saying
here? Because I think people need to understand how centrally important
the price is to this whole question. Would the colleagues from North
Dakota and South Dakota also be willing to comment on this?
Mr. HARKIN. I am going to ask that same question of our colleague
from North Dakota, because I believe he can answer it better.
I just wanted to point out that last year the average North Dakota
wheat farmer suffered a loss of $23,000. My figures show, at least
right now, that the income of the North Dakota farmer--I could be
corrected by my colleague from North Dakota--this year their income
will be, for a family of four, below the poverty level. Their income
actually will be below what we have designated as the poverty level in
this country.
So I guess the question of the Senator from Minnesota was, What has
brought this about? Was that the question? Why has North Dakota, now, I
think for 2 consecutive years of low wheat and barley prices--what has
brought this about? I ask the same question of my colleague from North
Dakota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. The price, and also, why is the price so important to
whether or not family farmers will be able to continue to farm, and
what is the central importance of that to our statement?
Mr. HARKIN. I would like to ask that question of my colleague from
North Dakota and ask him to respond to that question.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might respond to the inquiry of the
Senator from Iowa, who has used the floor to describe his sense of the
Senate resolution.
[[Page S8102]]
The problem in North Dakota has been that family farmers lost 98
percent of their income last year as compared to 1996. They planted a
crop and they discovered that the crop was devastated by disease. The
worst crop disease in this century has hit our part of the country. It
has also touched Minnesota, Montana, South Dakota, and some other
areas, but none quite as devastating as in North Dakota.
So a farmer plants a crop and hopes it grows. When it grows he hopes
it avoids the insects, avoids the drought, avoids too much water, and
avoids disease. Unfortunately, our crop didn't, it was devastated by
disease. Then the farmer harvests those crops, or is what left of them.
That is not easy. I have been out on harvests plenty of times in my
life. It is tough work. The farmer drives his truck into town and pulls
it up to the county elevator and unloads that grain. The harvest in
that truck box has all of your hopes and dreams for an entire year.
That harvest in the truck box determines whether you are going to be
able to feed your family, whether you are going to continue farming,
and whether you are going to be able to pursue your hopes and dreams on
the farm. That is what is in that truck box.
Then they unload that truck, and they put that durum, or the wheat or
the barley, into that country grain elevator, and it is weighed,
evaluated. And the elevator operator says, ``Well, Mr. Farmer, Mrs.
Farmer, we have decided that your grain is worth $2.75 a bushel.'' You
didn't get much for it because you had a lot of disease. But what you
got is worth $2.75 a bushel. The farmer looks at the price and says,
``Well, the problem is it cost me $5 a bushel to raise that grain.''
That is in short exactly what has been happening in our State. It has
been devastated by disease and low prices.
Think of it this way: Ask any group of families living on any block
of this country, any group of businesses on any Main Street of America,
for that matter any legislators who are standing visiting in a circle.
Ask them about what they would do if they were losing 98 percent of
their income. Ask the folks on the block, the folks on Main Street, the
legislators, anyone, how would you like to lose 98 percent of your
income? Then ask yourself: How am I going to provide for my family? How
am I going to meet the future and continue to farm?
That is what has happened to our family farmers. I will read some
letters. I will not do it at the moment, but I will read some letters
of some farm families in North Dakota who were forced to sell out this
year. They say, ``Well, we are good farmers. We don't spend money
frivolously. We are not going out at night. We work. We work to the
bone, and we try. We try hard. And the fact is we are going broke. Yet,
everybody else dealing with this grain that we produce is making
money.''
The people who haul it, the railroads, have record profits. The
people who put it in the mill have record profits. The people who make
it into breakfast cereal have record profits. Take some wheat, puff it
up, call it ``Puffed Wheat,'' put it on the grocery shelf, charge $4 or
$5 for it, or put it in bread. The farmer gets less than the heel.
Farm prices have collapsed. Have bread prices come down? I don't
think so. Have cereal prices come down? I don't think so. Yet everybody
in the process, except the people who grow the food, is making money.
There is one final point I want to make. I was on the floor of the
Senate yesterday pointing out that half way around this globe of ours
there are people climbing trees for food. Old women are climbing trees
in Sudan to forage leaves to eat. They are eating leaves from trees
because they are dying of hunger. Over 1 million people are at threat
of starvation in Sudan.
The people on this side of the world are told, yes, there are 1
million people facing starvation. They are eating leaves off trees. But
the food you raise on the family farms somehow doesn't have worth. It
doesn't have value. That is a terrible, terrible disconnection of what
we ought to be doing.
So the answer to the question of the Senator from Iowa is that our
farmers have been devastated more than in any other State largely
because we have been hit harder by disease. But all farmers trying to
market wheat at this point are discovering that the price of wheat has
collapsed.
Today the price is $2.99 a bushel at one of our local elevators in
North Dakota. It was $5.75 just 2 years ago. The price today is what it
was decades ago when the price of all the inputs was much, much less.
At today's prices, farmers are losing over $2.00 per bushel.
So the question facing us is whether we are going to do something
that gives family farmers an opportunity to make a living. Does family
farming have value to our society? I believe it is more than just
dollars and cents. If you believe as I do that it is important, then
the question becomes what is the solution. What kinds of solutions and
what menu of choices can we select that will say to family farmers,
``You are not alone? When you hit price valleys, we will try to build
bridges across those valleys because we want you in our future.''
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for asking the question.
I thank my colleagues for their indulgence so that I could answer.
Mr. HARKIN. I just want to finish a few remarks, and then I will
yield the floor.
Is that the desire of the Senator from South Dakota?
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I have a question that I would like to
ask of the Senator from Iowa at some point.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield for a question.
Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his extraordinary
leadership under these very trying circumstances.
One of the points that the Senator was making earlier struck me as
particularly important in terms of the long-term future of rural
America and the long-term capability of our Nation to feed not only our
citizens but also much of the rest of the world. The Senator from Iowa
was talking about what kind of structure we would have in rural America
if we go particularly down the road of more and more concentration and
vertical integration. It struck me that there may be other societies
that have gone down that road from whom we can learn a lesson or two.
I am reminded of the agricultural regime in the former Soviet Union
and their efforts to turn agricultural workers into paid employees
rather than people who have a personal family stake in the outcome of
their agricultural enterprise, and what that led to in terms of taking
a nation with enormous natural resources, that had historically been
one of the bread baskets of the world and what that did to that nation
in terms of destroying its infrastructure of small rural communities,
what it did ultimately to destroy its ability to produce food shipments
for itself and for its neighbors.
I would wonder and question the Senator from Iowa whether he thinks
there are some lessons to be learned from other societies that have
destroyed family agriculture, then discovered it was a mistake, then
discovered that turning family agriculture up by the roots is not so
easily replanted and what happens after you have gone down that road,
if you decide that you want to reestablish family agriculture after you
have ripped it up by the roots in that manner? I wonder if the Senator
will comment about the long-term structure that we are headed to if we
continue down this road.
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from South Dakota has put his finger on it. I
visited the old Soviet Union on a couple of occasions before it
disintegrated, went out and visited some of these big farms, some of
the most inefficient, awful operations you have ever seen, and then I
visited later just when they were breaking up the large farms. What I
heard time and time again was that was probably one of the biggest
mistakes they ever made in the Soviet Union--collectivizing the farms.
And now in Russia, what they have decided--and I have met on more than
one occasion with a couple of their agriculture ministers--is the best
thing to do is return the land to the people, give them private
ownership of that land and to disburse it as much as possible.
What they have found, lo and behold, is they are getting better
products and better production for their people. Right on target. And
yet we seem to be going in the other direction. We seem to be doing
what the Soviet Union did. Now, it is not State collectivization,
[[Page S8103]]
but it is monopoly practices. That is the same kind of vertical
integration.
Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator agree that while the track that we are
on may not be as a consequence of a specific plan simply on the part of
the Government or anyone else, but that any sector of the economy that
is expected to generate profits based on prices that were consistent
with 1940, as we are in the grain and livestock sector today, and yet
to pay the input costs that reflect 1998 costs will lead ultimately, as
certainly as night follows day, to the demise of that enterprise, that
family agriculture capitalized in a modest way as it is cannot possibly
sustain itself with the combination of these tragically low prices and
the extraordinary high input prices?
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator knows about what I am about to say because I
know he has been through this, and that is what I think a lot of
consumers and what a lot of people have to understand about farming in
America and about our family farms. Farmers are price takers. In other
words, a farmer has a lot of fixed costs over which that farmer has no
control--land, seed, fertilizer, chemicals. The farmer who goes down to
get his seed can't say, well, my prices went down last year. I will buy
that, but I can give you 10 percent less. The farmer has zero
bargaining power. He pays the freight. Whatever it is, that is what he
has to pay. So the only way for that farmer to make anything is through
the price that the farmer receives, price plus his production. Now, if
the price is so low, no matter what he produces, he can't produce
himself out of the hole.
That is another little anomaly that I have thought about in all my
years here and working in agriculture on the agriculture committees.
People say, well, if prices drop--see if this doesn't ring true with my
friend from South Dakota. A lot of ideologues say, well, if prices
drop, farmers will take that signal and they will plant less. But we
know what happens when a farmer has a fixed unit of land and he has his
fixed machinery and prices drop. They say, how can I get more
production out of that unit of land to cover the lower prices? And so
what happens is you get a drop in the prices. Farmers plant more
because they have a fixed amount of land. They want to squeeze more
production out of it.
That has happened time after time after time in American agriculture.
Yet some people do not seem to understand that.
So they have to have the price plus production or they are going to
go broke, and that is what is happening today. I believe it was
attributed to former President Kennedy--I can't be certain about this.
But I think former President John Kennedy once said that a farmer is
the only man in America who buys at retail, sells at wholesale and pays
the freight both ways.
That is very true today. That is why we are having this crisis in
America.
Now, again, I am all for farm flexibility and giving farmers the
maximum flexibility. But we have to have a safety net in there because
it is as true today as it was in biblical times. I guess we just never
seem to learn it. I have here a letter that was sent to a number of us
from Mr. Dwayne Andreas, chairman of the board of Archer Daniels
Midland Company. I found this to be a fascinating letter.
Now, obviously, Andreas heads a large agribusiness that takes the raw
food shipments and processes them and makes them into articles that we
see sold all over the world. I am sure we have seen his ads on Sunday
``Meet The Press,'' ADM, which is the supermarket to the world. We have
all seen that and they do a good job. So here is an individual, the
head of a large company that buys the raw products, processes them,
turns them into something that is sold in supermarkets in places around
the world. Interesting. He sends a letter dated June 18. He said:
I feel the urge to say something about present farm policy.
I could write pages about why support prices are necessary to
protect farmers from the excesses of speculators.
It was a bad idea to remove all the support prices from
under farm commodities and if left alone it will lead to
disaster. The side effect of a drop in farm income affects
all U.S. businesses and can be devastating. Only those of us
with long-term memory seem to be aware of that. The country
shouldn't have to learn it all over again. Although, of
course, it is legendary that people in my line of business
can benefit from free falling farm prices by buying bargains,
I feel that stabilized agriculture is extremely important for
America and for the world.
I hope you will work to restore some form of price support
to protect farmers from disaster. Subsequent events prove it
has to be corrected, not just for the benefit of farmers, but
to stabilize the economy of our Nation. People seem to ignore
the fact that no genuine free market is left in this world.
Governments everywhere manage farm prices and the U.S. will
have to follow suit or face disaster.
I find that interesting, coming from the head of perhaps one of the
largest manufacturers of agricultural products. As he said, it is
legendary that it would be in his best interest to have low farm
prices. But I think what we have seen from Andreas is the statement of
a statesman and someone who understands what it means for our entire
economy and for our Government and, indeed, for hungry people around
the world to make sure that our farmers have a decent price. So I
applaud Andreas for making that statement and taking the position he
has taken, which probably is in direct conflict with his economic best
interests.
Why I remembered that letter is he said those of us with memory long
enough. And I have said it time and time again. It started in biblical
times with Pharaoh's dream, and he asked Joseph to interpret the dream.
And Joseph said what it means is during good times you store up the
grain so you have it during bad times, 7 years of plenty and 7 years of
famine. Through the ages, governments everywhere have learned and
relearned that lesson. And yet for some reason, under the Freedom to
Farm, so-called Freedom to Farm bill that we passed here a couple of
years ago we said that is all over. Evidently, farmers are going to
have high prices from now on. Well, they have short memories, and they
probably haven't been reading the Bible either because if they had they
would know that this has plagued us for thousands of years.
Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator agree that one of the things this
institution needs to do is step back and recover its institutional
memory, its recognition of why we arrived at the price support system
in the first place, going back as long ago as the 1930s and the
agricultural stabilization service? There was a recognized need then,
generations ago.
Family agriculture, it would seem to me, cannot sustain itself
without some stabilizing force. Otherwise, they simply will not be
capitalized well enough. They will be driven off the land, just as what
was happening at that time, and we need that kind of a presence not to
micromanage, not to deny the flexibility that our farmers need to meet
the forces in the market, but that they need an opportunity to compete
fairly with a more stable kind of environment. We, in fact, are losing
sight of that--assuming that the $6 wheat when Freedom to Farm was
passed would be here forever, that the $5 corn when Freedom to Farm was
passed would be here forever--and we find it out only a few years
later, conveniently after the next elections, when prices have
declined.
Does the Senator concur that a handful of years of declining
transition payments, a pat on the back and a ``good luck, buddy,'' is
not a reasoned, long-term strategy for family agriculture and the
provision of food in this Nation, and now that there is great urgency,
we need to step back and accept that that was misguided? We do not need
micromanagement, we do not need bureaucracy-laden policies, but we do
need something that will provide the kind of stability that, as long as
60 years ago, was recognized as necessary when, if anything, we are in
a more volatile world market situation now than we were then? Does the
Senator concur with those observations?
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is right on the mark again. I said a couple
of years ago, when that so-called Freedom to Farm bill passed, it was a
triumph of ideology over experience--the experience of thousands of
years; the experience we have had in our own country since the 1930s.
Yet there was this ideology that said, no, we have to get the
Government out of everything; no price supports.
But I submit to my friend from South Dakota that the so-called
Freedom to Farm bill probably is working just as it was intended.
During high-price years, like we had when the Freedom to Farm passed,
it offers large-
[[Page S8104]]
scale farmers the ability to take advantage of opportunities that they
might see in the marketplace. Now, does it help the smaller farmers a
little bit? Sure, but only because those payments were high in the
first years. As the Senator pointed out, those initial payments are
coming down, so the large-scale farmer, better able to weather 1 or 2
or 3 years of low prices, is left to sail on through. The smaller
farmer is left to go broke, and that is what Freedom to Farm was
intended to do. I swear, the idea was to get fewer farmers out there,
to structure it differently.
I am going to yield the floor momentarily, but I have to tell my
friend a story that happened to me back in David Stockman's time. We
always remember David Stockman first as the head of OMB under President
Reagan.
I remember having a meeting with him at that time, talking about farm
bills, and they were after agriculture. I used to have debates with
David Stockman on the floor of the House on agriculture. He was always
for this so-called getting the Government out of agriculture and
everything. I remember, he sat at a table one time, and he said to me
at the time, I think I was a Congressman then, he said, ``Congressman
Harkin, you know as well as I do, if you have two farmers out there and
they both have such-and-such land, they both have two tractors, they
both have two combines, they both have two barns, they both have two
this and that,'' he said, ``you know as well as I do, one farmer could
do it all.''
I said, ``Really? One farmer can do it all? Is that right? How so?
How can one farmer?''
``Well, one farmer can buy out the other farmer and get all that
machinery and get bigger equipment and hire someone to work for him and
get it all done.''
I said, ``How is that one farmer going to buy out the other farmer?
If you have those two farms, what is going to cause one of the farms to
go under?''
``Well, recurring low prices.''
We talked. I will give him one benefit, he was honest about it. He
said, ``With these recurring low prices, the little farmer will have to
get out. The bigger farmer will buy him up.'' And his point was it
would be more efficient to do it that way, more efficient.
I said, ``How do you measure efficiency? How do you measure
efficiency? Do you measure it in terms of the local businesses that now
will go under in the local community because that farmer has gone out
of business? Do you measure it in the local education system, where now
kids have to go 30, 40 miles a day to go to school, and they have a
hard time getting teachers to teach in these rural areas? Do you
measure efficiency in terms of the lost production? If you had two
tractors before and you only have one now, what does that mean in
Detroit and places like that where people are working in
manufacturing?''
So I always challenged him to define efficiency, not just by looking
at the individual farm itself, but looking at the community at large;
what was more efficient? I had always believed, and I do today believe
that the most efficient, in terms of our Nation, in terms of our
country, in terms of our consumers--the most efficient form of
agriculture is one that is diverse, dispersed, and one that encompasses
many family farmers owning their land and working their own land. I
have maintained that for the last 25 years and I maintain it today. I
think a lot of the problems we are having today have to do with the
crisis we had in the 1980s that kicked a lot of farmers off their land,
and we are having the same crisis today up in the northern plains area.
As I said, those who want to stick with that so-called Freedom to
Farm--I suppose maybe they have the votes. I don't know. But we are
going to have some amendments on this floor today and tomorrow, as long
as we have to take, on this ag appropriations bill, to get some changes
made to put that safety net back under our family farmers and to
provide them with the support they need during these tough times. We
can do nothing less, not just for them, but for our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator
from Iowa and the Senators from South Dakota and Minnesota who were
here. We have offered a sense-of-the-Senate resolution on the question
of the farm crisis and will get a vote on that at some point. The
Senator from Iowa indicated other amendments will be offered. Let me
just provide a bit more context for some of this.
I know a lot of folks in this country don't live on a farm, have
never been on a farm, and don't know much about family farming. Perhaps
they wonder why is there so much discussion about family farming. Why
does it matter?
I come from a small community of 300 people in southwestern North
Dakota, which is where we raise a lot of wheat and livestock. I suppose
one can look at those parts of the country where there are not many
people who live in the area and say that is not a big population center
and it doesn't matter much. But it is where we produce our food, by and
large, in this country.
When you get on an airplane and fly across the States at night, you
look out the window. I am sure as the Senator from Iowa flies across
the State of Iowa, just as I fly across North Dakota, he sees these
yard lights out there at night. Take a look at them. See these
brilliant little lights from the prairie that sparkle up to your
airplane window and understand what is there. Underneath that light is
a family out there. They have turned the yard light on, on the family
farm. That is where they are trying to make a living. All those yard
lights out there on the family farms represent the economic blood
vessels that represent the rural lifestyle that allow these small towns
to flourish and to live. That is where I grew up.
I am a Jeffersonian Democrat. I believe, as Thomas Jefferson did,
that this country will survive as a free country with the kind of
political freedoms that our Constitution guarantees us so long as we
also have economic freedom. Economic freedom and political freedom go
hand in hand. And economic freedom is nurtured and guaranteed by broad-
based economic ownership in our country.
Jefferson believed in broad-based economic ownership. Small
businesses and family farms dotting the prairies and populating our
main streets represent broad-based economic ownership and, ultimately,
represent the opportunity within economic freedom.
The country these days has seen an orgy of mergers. Gee, every day
you wake up and you pick up the morning paper and somebody else has
merged. You see it in almost every industry. Recently, it has been
banks. The biggest banks in the country discover they love each other,
apparently, and decide they want to get married. We didn't even know
they were dating, and all of a sudden the newspaper in the morning
tells us they want to get hitched, so they merge and two big banks make
a much bigger bank.
Airlines have been doing it as well. Big airlines take a look at the
little airlines and they don't like the competition. They say, ``We
want to buy you up and merge.'' So they merge. Two big airlines decide
they will be better off if they merge, and they merge.
It doesn't matter what industry you look at. We used to have 30 or 40
class 1 railroads in this country. Now we have a handful at best. They
all merged.
Some say that would also be good for farming. Let's have them all
merge together; we can have farmland farmed; just get the family out of
there. That is what some say. They say we can have giant corporate
agrifactories producing agricultural products from California to Maine
and that we don't need family farmers living out on the farms.
First of all, I think the people who ignore the question of size and
mergers in this country do so at their own peril. And I think the
people who ignore the question of the health of family farms do so at
their own peril as well. Broad-based economic ownership in this country
is important, and we ought to be concerned about it. We especially
ought to be concerned about it on the family farm.
In addition to hearing about mergers every morning, you turn on the
radio going to work and you hear reports on America's economic health.
It is always some gray-suited economist who comes from the same
university and
[[Page S8105]]
works for the same entities, in most cases, who tells us how healthy
America is, and they tell us in the morning how healthy America is by
their latest reports on what we consume.
I actually used to teach economics a couple of years. I don't always
admit that. Yet, I have been able to overcome that experience and,
nonetheless, go on to lead a decent life. When I taught economics, I
was one of those who didn't teach that our economic health in America
is dependent on what we consume. No, it is dependent on what we
produce. Real economic wealth is represented by what you produce.
The most prodigious producers in our country are family farmers. They
are the all-star producers, bar none. Yet, you can take a look at this
economy of ours and who is doing well and who isn't. Then you will
discover that this economy has decided, for a whole series of reasons,
some of which are public policy reasons and others, that the producers
on the family farm are somehow expendable; it doesn't matter whether
they do well.
I mentioned some while ago that in North Dakota family farmers lost
98 percent of their income in 1 year. I don't know of anyone who can
withstand the loss of 98 percent of their income, not in theory, not in
practice. When you lose 98 percent of your income, you lose your
ability to continue.
I am going to read just a few letters from some North Dakotans,
because they say it much better than I can.
A woman named Shirley in North Dakota. Their son is a beginning
farmer. Shirley and her husband farm. Their son is a beginning farmer.
She said:
My son filled a sprayer with water, then checked the
temperature at 4:30 a.m. this morning, June 3, 1998. Last
night, freezing temperature records were forecast for all of
North Dakota.
They ran into a cold spell.
She said:
My son filled a sprayer with water, then checked the
temperature at 4:30 a.m. because it freezes usually just
before sunrise. He was prepared to go out and spray the beans
with water to prevent them from being killed by frost. He
probably already put in a 15- to 18-hour day, but at 4:30
a.m., he was up filling the sprayer with water to try to save
his crop.
He does carpentry work all winter to make ends meet. He
serves on cooperative boards. He is a volunteer on the
emergency medical team that runs two rural ambulances in our
community. Last year, two quarter sections of his land were
totaled by hail, and Federal crop paid almost nothing. He's
been able to pay his $5,294-a-year health insurance bill only
by giving up some farm-related necessities, like hail
insurance.
She said:
This letter is my personal plea that Congress appreciate
the value of family farmers in this country and do something
to help stabilize their income.
This is from Edwin from North Dakota. He said:
If things continue as they are now, in 10 to 15 years,
you'll find very few family farms. I believe when and if this
happens and the farms get big enough, the price of food will
go up drastically because the companies that operate these
corporate farms will then be able to hold back production
until they get what they want to make a profit. I farm a
1,200-acre farm. The original farm was homesteaded by my
grandad, so I'm the third generation to be out here on the
family farm. I'm 61 years old and have a son who would very
much like to take over the farm when I retire, and I would
like nothing better. But I have no choice but to tell him
that as it is now, it is almost impossible to make a living
on this farm anymore.
The Federal Government says they want to keep family farms
viable, but the freedom to farm bill is selling them down the
river, in my opinion.
Mr. President, a letter from a man named Kelly, a family farmer. He
wrote to Secretary Glickman and sent me a copy of it. He said:
You can say that a farm crisis is occurring in a small
isolated area and that Mother Nature has caused all of this,
but I disagree. First of all, this is not an isolated area.
This is a huge area. The population is small because many
farms have already been forced out of business. Mother Nature
is something farmers are used to dealing with when they have
the proper tools to manage the climate wrath that she can
behold. But these tools have slowly been taken away from
farmers as yield guarantees and crop insurance formulas are
getting lower and lower each time a claim is filed. Secondly,
farmers' marketing tools--export enhancement and restricted
trade with Canada--have been thrown in the junk pile by two
successive administrations.
I am not going to continue to read more letters, but I think everyone
understands the circumstances. Let me mention, finally, a paragraph
from a woman named Kristen who talks about her father:
I spoke to my father and he said if he doesn't have a good
year this year, doesn't make it this year, he probably will
have to get another job and sell the farm.
She said:
That broke my heart. My father worked so hard all his life
to give me and my brother the best upbringing and education.
He put me through undergraduate and graduate school. As a
child, I remember not seeing him much from April until he
started taking me to basketball practice in August. He got up
before dawn and returned long after I went to bed. That is
what family farming is. The winters were not idle, either.
Intricate planning necessary to run a successful farm is
done all year-round. The reason my father is struggling is
not because he is not a good farmer. He doesn't spend
money frivolously. There is an increase in disease
ravaging his crops, and the government is cutting back the
help to make up for these losses.
Well, Mr. President, you get the point. But the point is more than
just that. There is suffering and there is a farm crisis. The point is
that somehow this system of ours has decided that everybody else can
make money with the farmer's product. Yet the persons who grow it, it
is OK if they do not make any money, and it is OK if they go broke.
You raise some crops, as I mentioned a bit ago, on the farm, and ship
them through the process. The people who are going to haul that crop
are going to make money. We have a railroad through our State that is
going to charge them twice as much to haul that grain per carload of
wheat, than they would charge on another line where there is
competition. From Bismarck to Minneapolis there is no competition, so a
farmer is told, ``You pay $2,300 a carload to ship your wheat to
Minneapolis.'' Yet, if you put the wheat on a train from Minneapolis to
Chicago, which is about the same distance, you pay $1,000. Why do they
charge us more than double? Because they can. That is the way the
system works.
The people who haul the wheat make money. The people who mill the
wheat, the flour mills, are doing just fine. About four firms control
about 60 percent of that. They are doing just great, probably making
record profits. Grocery interests are doing just fine.
Virtually everywhere you look, the people who turn it into breakfast
food and puff it and crisp it and mangle it and shape it and box it and
package it and send it to the store shelves and charge $4 for it, they
do just fine. What about the person who produces it and takes all the
risks and does all the work to produce the food out there in the family
farm. They are the ones going broke in record numbers. In my State,
they have had so many farm sales this spring they had to call
auctioneers out of retirement to handle the sales.
The question for the Congress is whether we are we going to do
something that says to the family farmers: ``You matter. You are
important to this country, and we want to provide something that helps
you in a range of areas?''
We ought to help because we have a trade system in this country that,
in my judgment, sells out the interests of producers. Our system of
trade is not fair. We say to farmers, ``We're upset with Cuba;
therefore, we won't ship grain to Cuba, and you pay the cost of that
lost market. We're upset with Libya; we will not allow you to ship
grain to Libya, and you pay the cost, Mr. and Mrs. Farmer, for that
lost market.''
Ten percent of the wheat market in the world is off limits to our
farmers. And farmers are told that is a foreign policy judgment, and we
want you to pay the cost of it. That is not fair.
We also negotiate trade agreements with Canada, Mexico, China, Japan,
and many others. In every set of circumstances, somehow we end up
losing. We send negotiators out and they can lose in a day. I do not
understand that. Will Rogers said some 60 years ago, ``The United
States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference.'' He
surely must have been thinking about our trade negotiators. How can
they lose so quickly?
Let s talk about Canada. They negotiated an agreement with Canada
which fundamentally sells out the interests of our farmers. Every day,
in every way, there is a flood of unfairly
[[Page S8106]]
subsidized grain coming into this country eating away at the profits of
our farmers, diminishing our price.
When we say to the Canadians, ``We think you are violating the
antidumping laws of this country, and we demand you open your books to
our inspectors,'' they thumb their noses at us and say, ``Go fly a
kite. You have no ability to determine the trade practices of Canada.''
This incidentally is happening despite the fact that the trade
negotiator who negotiated the trade agreement with Canada promised in
writing it would not happen. That promise was not worth the paper it
was written on.
I can speak at great length about trade. Why can't we get more wheat
into China? Why can't we get more beef into Japan? Why can't we get raw
potatoes into Mexico? Why can you drink all the Mexican beer up here
you can possibly consume in a lifetime, but try to order an American
beer in Mexico. Yes, when I talk about beer, I am talking about barley.
But rather than talk at great length about all of those trade problems
that confront our farmers and diminish their price, my point is, this
isn't their fault.
The Federal Government, through a series of policy initiatives must
take some responsibility. First of all, there were bad trade deals that
were negotiated poorly, and then not enforced at all. Secondly, there
has been a ravaging crop disease which decimates the quantity and
quality of a crop. Then third, prices have collapsed following a farm
bill that was passed by this Congress. which pulled the rug out from
family farmers, and left them without a working safety net.
When Congress passed the farm bill a couple years ago, the price of
wheat peaked at $5.75 a bushel. They called it the Freedom to Farm
bill. To pull the rug out from under family farmers and say, ``We're
going to get rid of the price supports for you,'' would be like saying
to the minimum wage folks, ``Let's cut the minimum wage to $1 an hour
and call it freedom to work.'' That is what freedom to farm is all
about.
Since freedom to farm was passed, the price of wheat has gone
straight down. Now it is almost $2 a bushel below what it costs the
family farmer to raise wheat or to produce wheat. Family farmers cannot
continue with prices below their costs of production.
This Congress has to decide whether it wants family farmers in our
country's future or doesn't it? If it does, the question becomes what
can and must we do together? What can Republicans and Democrats,
conservatives and liberals and moderates do together? What can and must
we do together to develop some kind of basic safety net to say to
family farmers, ``You matter. When prices collapse, and you are
confronting monopolies on the upside and monopolies on the downside, or
you are confronting unfair trade agreements, or you are confronting
sanctions all around the world, or when you are confronting crop
disease that is devastating your crops, then this Government cares
about that, and the rest of the American people will provide some basic
kind of safety net for you.''
That is going to be the question that is posed to Members of Congress
in the coming couple of weeks: Do family farmers matter? If they do,
what can we do together to try to say to these people, ``We'll give you
some hope for the future. If you don't get a decent price at the
marketplace, we'll provide a support mechanism of some type to get you
over this price valley.''
For decades, this country had decided that when farm prices collapse,
we will build a bridge across those price valleys, because family
farming matters and we want family farmers to be able to populate this
country and retain broad-based economic ownership of the land in
America.
That is the question we have to confront in the next couple of days
and couple of weeks as we talk about this farm crisis that gets worse
by the day and is affecting more and more areas of the country.
It is true that North Dakota is hardest hit. It is true that North
Dakota had a 98-percent loss of net farm income for family farmers in
our State. That is devastating. But it is also the case that crop
disease called scab or fusarium head blight is spreading across this
country. And it is also true that collapsed grain prices eventually
will cause the same kind of problems they cause for our farmers in
other parts of the United States.
Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just want to speak for a few
moments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I advise the Senator that, under the previous
agreement, we are to adjourn at 12:30.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to
speak for up to 5 minutes on an amendment that has just passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3134
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Cochran and
Senator Bumpers for helping pass a sense-of-the-Senate resolution about
an hour ago that addresses the devastating drought that we have been
experiencing in Texas. They did it on behalf of Senator Gramm and
myself. This is a very important sense of the Senate, because it direct
the Secretary of Agriculture to do everything possible to relieve the
drought conditions--not to provide rain, obviously, but to do
everything we can to prepare for the relief that is going to be
necessary due to the economic losses that Texas farmers and ranchers
are facing because of the worst drought that we have seen in my memory
in the State of Texas.
In fact, it is now estimated that more than $4.6 billion in losses
will result to the agriculture community according to the Texas
Agricultural Extension Service. Direct losses of income to agricultural
producers is $517 million, which will lead to another $1.2 billion in
economic activity for the State.
What we are asking the Secretary to do is to streamline the drought
declaration process to provide necessary relief as quickly as possible.
The Secretary has released CRP acres in 53 counties for haying and
grazing.
It will help to have these acres available for grazing because there
is so little grass and few crops able to grow right now. Not only will
haying the land provide food for the livestock, but it will take up dry
grass so that it will not be a fire hazard.
In addition, we have asked and the President has given us an
emergency declaration so that we can start positioning equipment in
places where there is imminent danger of wildfires. We are very
concerned about this potential because we have had so little rain for
such a long period of time.
We have also ensured that the local farm agencies are equipped with
full-time and emergency personnel in these drought-stricken areas to
assist the producers with the disaster loan application pages. We are
doing everything we can to prepare for the disaster that we are seeing
unfold before our very eyes in our State right now. In fact, we have
had more days of back-to-back temperatures over 100 than at any time in
our State's history.
As you know, when you have, day after day after day, of no rain, and
over 100-degree temperatures, it does start baking our land pretty
quickly. I hope the Secretary of Agriculture will continue to respond
to the requests that Senator Gramm and I are making. As I will continue
to do everything to prepare for the farmers who are losing their
crops--as we speak right now--to give them the insurance that they need
to get through this year economically. I want to thank both Senator
Cochran and Senator Bumpers for working with us to expedite this sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. I just hope that, in lieu of rain, we will do
everything else we can to prepare and give a cushion to the farmers and
ranchers of my State that are suffering greatly right now.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Texas for her leadership in bringing to the attention of the Senate the
facts about the Texas drought. We have already had news reports on that
subject. It is obvious that there are very serious conditions there
that need the immediate attention of the Federal Government. Her
resolution, cosponsored by Senator Gramm from Texas, will be very
helpful in directing the way for this response to be made.
____________________