Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 93 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8107-S8129]
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 Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 3127

Mr. President, I come before the Senate as a Senator from Minnesota,
along with other Senators from the Midwest, although I think that we
represent the point of view of Senators throughout the country. I come
to speak to the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that is before the
Senate, although we are going to have much more business to follow.
The concluding paragraph of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution is:

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.

This was laid down by my colleague, Senator Daschle from South
Dakota, the minority leader.
I ask unanimous consent that I be included as an original cosponsor
of his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator Harkin spoke when I was out on the floor
earlier, and Senator Dorgan, and Senator Johnson. Senator Conrad may
have spoken.
Mr. President, let me talk not so much about what is happening around
the country, although most Senators represent States that are being
hurt by this crisis in agriculture. Let me instead talk about what has
happened in northwest Minnesota and what is happening right now in my
State.
In northwest Minnesota, we have been hit by bad weather. Everybody
remembers the floods. We have also been affected by scab disease. And
now we are facing very low prices with grain crops.
Mr. President, the situation is dire. Wally Sparby, director of our
farm service agency in the State, has predicted that we could lose as
many as 20 percent of our farmers, that right now one out of every five
farm families is in trouble and is struggling. Thanks to the help of
Senators, including the Senator from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, we
were able to get some help to farmers for spring planting season. We
were able to get USDA farm credit to farmers at planting time. The
problem is whether people are going to continue to be able to farm.
Mr. President, I read from the testimony of Rod Nelson, who is
president of the First American Bank in Crookston, which also has
offices in the communities of Warren, Fisher, and Shelly in northwest
Minnesota. Here is the concluding paragraph:

In our bank in the fall of 1995, we began addressing the
reality that things had reached a new level of concern, as
many rather than some of our farm customers, were not doing
well. Things have only gotten worse since then. This year we
conservatively project to have 20 growers quitting or
significantly downsizing their operation. We likely have an
equal number thinking about doing so or in the process of
doing so. It's important to note that to properly phase out
of farming it takes good planning and 2, 3 or 4 years. The
increased number we are seeing this year will likely be even
larger next year. These numbers just represent our banks
customers. As you look at the whole of Northwestern
Minnesota, the picture would be worse because not all areas
have beets which has been the one consistently good crop.

Mr. President, I will just translate all of these statistics in
personal terms.
I hope we will take action in this Chamber that will make a
difference. I hope it will happen in the House. I don't want it to be
symbolic politics. I don't want a partisan debate. I hope it doesn't
end up going in that direction, because I will tell you, I have met too
many people who are now being driven off their farms. They not only
work on the farms; this is where they live. During the mid-1980s, I was
a teacher at Carleton College in Northfield, in Rice County, some 491
square miles, population I think about 41,000, and most all of my
community organizing was in farm, rural areas. I spoke at so many
different farm gatherings, and I knew so many families that were
foreclosed on. I saw a lot of broken dreams and a lot of broken lives
and a lot of broken families. That is exactly the direction we are
going in right now.
Farmers have good years and also some not so good years. Prices go up
and prices go down. I am not, I say to my colleagues, going to come out
here and rail about the Freedom to Farm bill. Maybe there will be a
time to do that. I will say in a very quiet way that I really do
believe this has been more for the benefit of corporate agribusiness,
and I do think now that prices are falling and the so-called transition
payments are dwindling, an awful lot of farmers are in trouble. That is
the real point.
We no longer have the safety net we once had. Farmers cannot make it
on $2 corn, they can't make it on $3.25 wheat, and that is why at the
beginning I said, and I say it again, I think the Freedom to Farm bill
has become the ``Freedom to Fail'' bill.
Now, after having said that, I want my colleague from Mississippi and
other colleagues to know that I don't see this particular resolution or
the amendments that we are going to bring to the floor over the next
day or so as being a debate about the Freedom to Farm bill. I think it
was a profound mistake. I voted against it. I will always take that
position until proven wrong.
By the way, I said when it was passed that I prayed I was wrong. I
would be pleased to be proven wrong. If in fact the Freedom to Farm
bill, along with the flexibility for farmers in planting, which I am
all for, was to lead to family farmers doing better and the families
being better off, I would be all for it.
I guess that was the theory. But now we don't have the safety net we
had, and, most important of all, farmers do not have the leverage in
the marketplace to get a decent price. That is what I would put my
focus on, a fair price for farmers, especially family farmers.
Now, for people who might be watching our debate, I think this is
special to me as a Midwesterner, because the family farm structure of
agriculture is precious to our part of the country. We all know that
the land will be farmed by somebody and somebody will own the animals.
The question is whether or not the land is farmed by family farmers.
The number of family farmers who live in our communities has a lot to
do with who supports our schools, who supports our churches or
synagogues, who supports the local businesses in town. This is a life-
or-death issue for a very important part of America. This is a life-or-
death issue for a part of America that is dear to many Americans.
So first we have the resolution that is before us which asks the
Senate to recognize that we have an emergency situation, and we do.
This would potentially free up some funds that are needed to provide
family farms and families in rural America with some support.
Second, I think the most significant thing we can do is to focus on
price. When I think about the discussions I have with farmers--I hope
to be in Granite Falls, Minnesota this Saturday with State legislators.
Doug Peterson is going to be there; Ted Winter is going to be there;
Jim Tunheim from northwest Minnesota has been making the plea over and
over: Please do something. Our focus will be to lift the current cap on
the market loan rate.
Right now, we have a cap on the loan rate which is $1.89 for a bushel
of corn and $2.58 for a bushel of wheat, and this tends to set a floor
under prices. But this is simply too low. It is just simply too low.
Farmers cannot cash-flow with these kinds of prices. At a Minnesota
average price for the year at $2 for corn, it simply is not going to
work for family farmers.

What I would like to do in the best of all worlds, is to remove these
caps and raise the loan rate to the close to the cost of production--$3
corn and $4

[[Page S8108]]

wheat. That is what we should talk about. Instead, what we want to do
is to at least take the cap off this loan rate, and then raise the loan
rate to 85 percent of the average price for the last 5 years. That
would be at about $2.25 a bushel for corn and about $3.22 for a bushel
of wheat.
Let me say to my colleagues, if we do that and we also extend the
repayment period from 9 months to 15 months--all of it is paid back;
this is not a giveaway--then what we will see is farmers getting a
better price for their crop.
We have to take the cap off the loan rate. We have to get the price
up. There is no way that family farmers can make it otherwise. We can
focus on exports. We can focus on all those other issues. That is fine.
But the central issue is price, price, price. And right now that loan
rate is set at such a low level and farmers have so little bargaining
power in the marketplace that they cannot get a fair price.
We also want to make sure that we have some price disclosure and
reporting when it comes to what is going on with the livestock markets
around the country.
The problem is that there is plenty of competition among the
producers, but there is no competition among the buyers of hogs and
beef cattle. Therefore what we are talking about is a pilot project
that basically puts us on the path toward mandatory price reporting by
the packers. I personally would like to see mandatory price reporting
done nationally, but I think this is a good step. We ought to know what
they are paying.
We have precious little free enterprise in what should be a free-
enterprise system. The family farmers are the only competitive unit,
and they find themselves squeezed both by the input suppliers and to
whom they sell.
Finally, crop insurance just cannot do the job if you face several
disaster years in a row. Our amendment would replenish the disaster
reserve of the Secretary of Agriculture so we can make payments to
farmers who have suffered a disaster and for whom crop insurance hasn't
worked. This is the indemnity feature of this piece of legislation.
I say again to my colleagues, we can end up debating Freedom to Farm.
I am all for debating it. But there is no way, whether it be what is
happening to wheat farmers or what is now going on with corn growers as
well, that farmers are going to make it if we don't get the price up.
The most important single thing we can do as an emergency measure is to
take the cap off the loan rate to get the price up, and, in addition,
make sure that we can get some funding out there, some kind of
indemnity program that will enable the Secretary of Agriculture, in the
spirit of disaster relief, to get some funds out there to these
families so that they have a chance.
I want to say to my colleagues, I hope there will be overwhelming
support for this resolution. More importantly, I hope that we will have
overwhelming support for what is to follow. We want to take a position
as a Senate that this is for real. The economy is at peak economic
performance, but we are faced with a crisis in many of our rural and
agricultural communities. Then what we have to do is pass amendments to
this appropriations bill which take some concrete steps that can make
all the difference in the world to the people we are trying to
represent here.
Those are steps I think we should take. I hope we get strong support
for them. My priority is to be out on the floor speaking, debating
this, working with colleagues, trying to get as much support as
possible. For many family farmers in Minnesota and around the country,
time is not neutral. It is not in their favor.
If we are not willing to take some action that can make a difference,
they are going to go under. We are going to see too many family farmers
driven off the land. We will see more and more concentration of
ownership of land. It is not going to be good for agricultural America;
it is not going to be good for rural America; it is not going to be
good for small businesses; it is not going to be good for small towns;
it is not going to be good for the environment; and it is not going to
be good for the consumers in this country. This is a crisis of national
proportions, and I hope we will take corrective action this week on
this bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the American
farmer.
Mr. President, Montana's farmers and ranchers have suffered from an
extraordinary turn of events that is driving people off the family
farm. Low prices, shrinking Asian markets, drought and the adjustments
to a new farm bill have left our producers with an inadequate safety
net. For many, this is disaster.
First, we have to deal with price. And we have to deal with price
today. Our producers can't survive another setback. Montana farmers
have already planted the smallest spring wheat crop since 1991--down 17
precent over last year and down 8 percent from what they intended to
plant March 1. As I recall, we were talking about low prices as far
back as December, And now, in mid-July we are talking about the same
issues. We are simply farther down the rocky road. It's high time to
act.
I am sure many of you will recall last spring--nearly 6 months ago--
when our producers were desperately reaching out for help. So, we
brought an amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill
that would extend marketing assistance loans. Unfortunately, we faced a
brigade of opponents who wanted to push an aggressive trade agenda
instead of an emergency price fix.
Now I find it ironic, that despite all of our best efforts, the many
hearings held about the ``Crisis in Agriculture,'' and the promotion of
the sanctions package as the cure-all for our price dilemma--that we
are exactly where we started--at ground zero. We've seen no improvement
on price. In fact, we've lost ground: Montana's winter wheat average
price decreased 22 cents from April 1998 to now, dropping to $3.06 per
bushel.
Beef prices also are lower--down $3.10/cwt. And sheep have dropped by
$8.40. And still, we want our producers to believe that we should look
for brighter days in the international market--without congressional
intervention.
Some would argue that this situation can be blamed on over-
production, alone. I wholeheartedly disagree. While it is true that
wheat stocks in Montana on June 1 totaled nearly 60 million bushels, up
80 percent from the same quarter last year, but our exports are down
considerably. I think we can also make the argument that extending the
market loans an additional six months is but a step in resolving the
problem.
It is true that we must move our wheat, our beef, and all other
``crisis commodities''--and now. We can't view this measure of
extending loans and lifting the loan cap to become a last ditch-policy.
But as an emergency matter, I would call on my colleagues to consider
the ramifications of letting this disaster go another day. And
encourage them to lend their support.
That will solve the short-term issue of price. Then, we must address
the long term. We did just that by stepping up our efforts on the trade
front by passing a bill last week removing GSM ag credits from our
sanctions package on India and Pakistan.
Next we need to review those sanctions still pending on nearly 9
percent of the world and re-evaluate whether they are current,
necessary and proper. If not, let's remove the sanctions and move our
wheat into these markets and help our producers. Food should not be
used as a weapon. And our policies should not hurt our hard-working
producers.
We should also support the country of origin labeling amendment for
our livestock producers. Consumers in America can examine the label on
any given product to make an informed shopping decision. But that is
not the case with our imported meat. I am a cosponsor of Senator
Johnson's efforts to require meat labeling. It makes sense. It costs
little. And the benefit extends, not only to producers, but also
consumers.
And finally, we cannot ignore the force of Mother Nature. No one can
argue that our farmers have been subject to an adverse and often
hostile market. But this year marks a series of natural disasters that
are beyond our control. Drought still plagues many counties in Montana.
In fact, twenty-two percent of our crops are in poor condition because
of lack of moisture. That is bad news for our livestock industry, as
well. Fifty-nine percent of

[[Page S8109]]

our pasture--used for forage--is in less than good condition. Clearly,
efforts targeted at replenishing the disaster reserve would be hailed
as relief for those victims of annual disaster.
And finally, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support these
measures--not on a partisan basis--but because it is the right thing to
do for our producers back home. Our feet--and those of our producers--
are being held to the fire. Will we take action--or spout rhetoric?
Will we show our constituency that we are here in Washington fighting
for them--not amongst ourselves? I would hope we can take the higher
ground and send a message to America--we need and support our farmers
and ranchers--by lending our support.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four members
of my staff, Catharine Cyr, Jason McNamara, Brandon Young and Sally
Molloy, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the
consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maine.

New England Plant, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Senator from
Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee, for so generously honoring my request to
support the USDA-Agricultural Research Service's New England Plant,
Soil, and Water Research Laboratory, which is located at the University
of Maine. I am very pleased that the Senate Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee has recommended that this important agriculture research
worksite be kept open, despite the administration's misguided attempt
to close the facility and curtail its funding.
I am also happy that the distinguished chairman has agreed to my
request to provide a $300,000 increase in the lab's funding to hire new
scientists at the Cropping Systems Center to develop production and
disease management systems.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I was pleased to be able to grant the
request of the distinguished Senator from Maine, the request to ensure
that this valuable agricultural research is continued at the
Agriculture Research Center's laboratory.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, to continue the colloquy with the
distinguished chairman, I again thank him very much for his support. I
would like to point out the research conducted at the University of
Maine is particularly vital because of the 104 USDA-ARS labs across the
country, the laboratory located in Orono, ME, is the only one in New
England. The facility is thus able to conduct research on the unique
challenges that face our New England farmers.
Specifically, the lab at Orono has conducted research into raised bed
techniques that allow potatoes to be grown in the short New England
growing season, as well as into disease and pest management.
The potato industry in New England, 95 percent of which is located in
northern Maine where I grew up, is suffering through a difficult
period. Underpriced subsidized imports and several consecutive years of
disease, drought and pest problems have resulted in a steady decline in
the amount of acreage planted in potatoes. The additional $300,000
included in the managers' amendment will allow the lab to hire a new
pathologist and microbiologist to help New England farmers to overcome
many of the challenges they face. I look forward to working with my
colleague to enact this significant legislation and, again, I commend
and thank him for acceding to our request in this regard.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to point out the
distinguished Senator from Maine has chaired committee hearings in the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on the subject of food safety.
It has been a pleasure to participate with her in that effort and to
observe the quality of leadership she has brought to that issue.
Her comprehensive investigation on the subject of food safety will
greatly assist all of us in the Senate in our efforts to improve the
food safety system in this country and ensure legislation on this
subject is responsive to the real needs for improvements in the
programs that are administered by the Food and Drug Administration and
other agencies of the Federal Government.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator for his very kind comments. It has
been a great honor to be able to work with the Senator on the issue of
improving the safety of imported fruit and vegetables and all imported
food.
As we have learned from the two hearings that we held to date, this
is a very complex issue that does not lend itself to a simple solution.
It is my hope that continuing to work with the Senator from
Mississippi, we will be able to complete our investigation this fall
and develop a series of recommendations that will get to the heart of
the problem and help to continue to ensure that our food safety is the
best in the world.
I thank the chairman for his cooperation and participation in this
conversation, and I yield the floor.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the distinguished
Chairman of the FY99 Subcommittee for Agriculture, Rural Development,
FDA and Related Agencies appropriations for honoring the requests of
Senator Collins and myself for additional funding of $300,000 to fund a
scientist and technical support for the New England Plant Soil, Water
and Research laboratory at the University of Maine in Orono. I also
greatly appreciate the fact that the appropriators have also agreed
that the lab, which has been threatened with closure in the President's
FY99 budget, should remain open.
This lab, under the capable leadership of Dr. C. Wayne Honeycutt,
conducts research to develop and transfer solutions to problems of high
national priority in the potato industry and is critical to the State
of Maine, its potato growers, and its economy. Ninety five percent of
New England's potato acreage is in Maine, and this lab has the benefit
of being in close proximity to growers' fields. The additional funding
provided by the appropriations will preserve and expand this vital
research program and maintain New England's only agricultural research
laboratory, and I thank Senator Cochran for his attention to our
requests.

Amendment No. 3127

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the pending amendment is the resolution
that was offered by the Democratic leader and others which is a
recitation of some of the challenges and problems that face those who
are involved in production agriculture throughout America. Several
Senators have taken the floor to point out some specifics that back up
the suggestion made in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
Other Senators have added their comments in the form of other
resolutions. We have already adopted on a voice vote a resolution
offered by the Senator from Texas dealing with the problems of the
drought that is confronting agriculture producers in that State.
We have another amendment that has been brought to my attention that
will be offered by the Senator from Florida, maybe both Senators from
Florida, on the subject of the problems of agriculture that have been
caused by the wildfires and the other disasters that have occurred in
that State.
So it is no secret that we have plenty of problems out there. There
may be disagreements on exactly how to approach the difficulties. They
are not all the same. Some are weather related; some are not. Some have
to do with market conditions in various parts of the world. So it is a
complex and wide range of problems facing the Senate. We are being put
to the test today, to come to some decision on these issues.
I encourage Senators who have comments to make on this subject to
come to the floor and express their views. This is a good time to do
that. At some point, we will have to either agree to this amendment or
consider an amendment to it and move on to other issues.
So any Senators who would like to comment on that at this point, I
encourage them to do so.
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.

[[Page S8110]]

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to address the agricultural
issues that have been presented by my colleagues, the agriculture
appropriations bill, and to discuss the current state of agriculture in
the country. More particularly, I think it is most pertinent and
appropriate to discuss the amendment that has been introduced by the
distinguished Democratic leader on behalf of my friend and colleague
from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that describes a very serious
situation in agriculture today. The resolution was presented to the
desk when I had the privilege of being the Presiding Officer. It is a
little difficult to read all of it in that there has been some editing
there. I am not trying to perjure the editing at all. The distinguished
chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, the Senator
from Mississippi, has indicated that if we could work on this a little
bit, there should not be any problem in regard to a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution that addresses the serious situation we have in agriculture,
and more especially, the regional crisis that is now being experienced
in the northern plains. So I look forward to a bipartisan sense-of-the-
Senate resolution.
I guess we could quibble about the adjectives and adverbs and some of
the comments and figures. We are trying to work that out. It should not
be a problem, though. We have appropriate language. My staff has worked
on it, and I know Senator Cochran's staff has worked on it. I know we
are going to consult with Senator Lugar, and many on the other side
have worked on this. I think it is appropriate that we draw the
attention of the American public to the severe problems that we are
experiencing in agriculture, more especially in the northern plains.
Having said that, Mr. President, I don't argue that things are
perfect in farm country or in rural America. But I do not believe that
the wheels have fallen off and sent agriculture policy crashing into a
wall, as some of my colleagues are claiming. There are, indeed,
problems in agriculture. I think we are all aware of that. But, again,
they are regional problems, it seems to me, caused by weather and crop
disease and the ``Asian economic flu''--or in some cases it has become
the ``Asian pneumonia''--but not the 1996 farm bill. They do not
represent a national crisis in agriculture. It is very severe for the
people involved, but a national crisis? No. Are there real problems in
agriculture today because of the lack of a coherent, aggressive export
policy? Sure. Are there other problems and other challenges? Yes. But a
national crisis? I don't think so. Two years ago, we passed the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, dubbed the Freedom to Farm
Act. And it represented, I think, the most comprehensive change in
agriculture policy since the New Deal. This new farm bill removed
restrictive planting and marketing requirements--and, boy, were they
restrictive--that for many years had prevented farmers from planting
their crops and using their resources in the most efficient and profit-
generating manners. When we wrote the FAIR Act, we had two basic
choices. We could continue on a course of micromanaged planting and
marketing restrictions that often put our producers at a competitive
disadvantage in the world market, or we could pursue a course that
would eliminate these restrictions and allow farmers to make their own
planting decisions based on domestic and world market demands, while
also receiving guaranteed--and I emphasize the word ``guaranteed,''
underscore it--levels of government transition payments.

Let me put it in language that most farmers used when they talked to
me when I had the privilege of being the chairman of the House
Agriculture Committee in the midst of the farm rewrite. They were a
little tired of putting seed in the ground according to USDA dictates.
Before this farm bill, the farmer put the seed in the ground as
dictated by the USDA to preserve an acreage base. Why? Because the
acreage base qualified them for subsidy payments. How much? We would
determine that here in Washington. Then, of course, the more we set
aside to pay for all of this, they said, OK, put the seed in the
ground. You protect your acreage base. But you have to set aside part
of your wherewithal on some kind of a supply-demand, command-and-
control scheme. That said, we will set aside 10 percent, 20 percent, or
30 percent of your reduction as decided by Washington in order to pay
for this. Guess what? Our competitors overseas simply increased their
production by more than we set aside, and we lost market share.
Folks, that was a dead-end street. The whole design of the new farm
bill was to let farmers make their own decisions in regard to planting
and what made sense in terms of price, market, environment, working
their ground, or whatever.
As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I worked with
Chairman Lugar and members of the Senate Agriculture Committee to
pursue this legislation that really would provide our producers with
the tools to compete in the world market. But we did not, Mr.
President--we did not--veer off aimlessly into the wilderness. Chairman
Lugar and I had held dozens of field hearings throughout the United
States. I think we totalled them up in the House Agriculture Committee,
and I think we went 30,000 miles--30,000 miles listening to farmers and
ranchers in regard to what they wanted. The producers overwhelmingly
stated that they wanted flexibility in making their own planting
decisions in competing with the world market.
Has the FAIR Act worked? Has the Freedom to Farm bill worked as it
was intended? I think the answer is a qualified yes. Is it perfect? No.
Is it written in stone? No. Is it an ongoing work in progress? Yes.
Let me refer to the policy ledger that we promised farmers in regard
to when we considered this bill. We said, ``Look.'' If we are going to
be budget-responsible--this is the policy ledger, 1996. This is what we
told farmers in all of the hearings. And most of them bought it. Not
all, but most of them bought it. And we said, look, if you have less
Federal dollars here in terms of meeting our budget obligations--and
let me point out that farmers and ranchers above anyone suffer from
inflation and higher interest rates--they wanted a balanced budget. And
we said, OK, if we are not going to rely on supply-demand set-asides,
we have more reliance on risk management. Boy, that is a tough one
because today a lot of farmers are finding unacceptable risk, as I have
indicated, more especially in the northern plains. We are going to give
you this in connection with the Freedom to Farm legislation.
This was farm policy reform under the bill, a consistent and
predictable farm program support, and the only time we have ever passed
a farm bill that for 5 or 6 years laid it out for every banker, every
financial institution, every farmer on exactly what they were going to
get. As one farmer told me one time at the Hutchinson State Fair in
Kansas, he said, ``Pat, I don't care what you do to me, just let me
know.'' We did for 5 or 6 years.
Planting flexibility: I have gone over that.
The elimination of the set-aside programs, because we were losing
market share. We were noncompetitive on the world market.
Improved risk management tools: Have we done that? Well, no. We
haven't. We have ample funding, hopefully, in the agriculture research
bill that was passed and the crop insurance bill that was passed with
the help and leadership of Senator Cochran, Senator Bumpers, and others
as well, and some others. It was a tough fight, but we got it past the
House, and we got it past the Senate. If we can get it past the House
Appropriations Committee, why, that will be a real feather in our cap.
Having said that, we have not really reformed the risk management
crop insurance that we need to do.
So, yes, the farm bill is not perfect. We need to do that.
Less paperwork and standing in lines: I will tell you, under the old
bill farmers stood in line outside of the old ASCS office. That is an
acronym. It is now changed to FSA. That is the Farm Service Agency. And
Aunt Harriet was in the agency's office, the Farm Service Agency
office. Farmers stood in

[[Page S8111]]

line, filled out all of the paperwork, and filled out all of the forms.
They got plumb tired of it. Under this new farm bill they don't have to
do that. Less paperwork, less regulation, and less waiting in line.
Tax policy reform: That is all part of the credit that we promised, a
farm savings account. We are going to do that this session of Congress.
We should have done it in the farm bill. It should have been done at
that particular time. We simply ran out of time.
Capital gains tax cut: We have done some of this. We need to do more.
State tax cut: We have done some of that. We need to do fully
deductible health care. We are on the road to accomplishing that.
Income averages: Conrad-Burns from this very desk introduced the
amendment on income averaging. We should extend it for the life of the
farm bill. We need to do that.
The other thing on the ledger that we promised farmers we would work
on, No. 3, is trade policy reform. Boy, we have a real challenge ahead
of us in this regards.
Fast track negotiating authority: If there is one single thing that
has happened in the last year that threw a real clinker into our export
sales it was a decision by the Congress--and, yes, by the President--to
withdraw fast track. That single item is the most distressing piece of
news since the embargo of 1980 that lead to shattered glass in regard
to exports, and helped cause the 1980s farm crisis.
I say to you, Mr. President, with all due respect, if we can get a
98-to-0 vote in regard to sanctions reform as we did last week, rethink
fast track, please. I think that we could get it done, if you are for
it. Be for it. Speaker Gingrich and Leader Lott have indicated that we
will vote on it with a CBI initiative, with the African Trade
Initiative. Let's do it. But that signal that was sent when we withdrew
that bill sent tremors through all of our trade policies and with
regard to contract sanctity.
End these unilateral sanctions. This Congress, and, yes, this
administration, have become sanctimonious in regard to walling off
about 75 percent of the world's population, 75 percent of the world's
countries. You can't have a market-oriented policy with that.
Consistent aggressive export policy: Well, I don't think we are using
all the tools we should.
NAFTA and WTO oversight: Not doing enough.
Value-added emphasis in regard to research funding: We are doing
some. We should do more.
Extend MFN for China: Well, you can see on the trade policy reform
that we haven't done so well. And that is part of the problem, albeit a
passing glance to my colleagues on the other side. But that is part of
the problem that we have.
Regulatory reform; preserve the conservation reserve program. We did
that; not the way I wanted to, but we did that to some degree.
Enact FIFRA reform. That is an acronym for you. That is the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Reform Act. That is the food
safety reform bill. We enacted reform. The way the EPA is administering
it we have real problems. And that is going to be the source of another
debate on the floor and in committee as we go down the road. So we need
some help there.
Incentive programs for good stewardship; eliminate unfunded mandates.
That is the recipe.
We promised farmers in all of the hearings we had. We said, OK, you
go to market-oriented agriculture. We rely less on subsidies. These are
the things we are going to work on. Have we done them all? No. Should
we do them all? Yes. And it should be a bipartisan effort.
But, if we do this, then obviously, by the way, the Freedom to Farm
bill will work, and is working to a certain degree.
We have heard a lot of statements that the Freedom to Farm bill has
failed, and that we ``pulled the rug out from underneath our
producers.'' My colleagues, this is not true. The facts are not there.
The 1996 and 1997 farm bill provided a combined $11.5 billion in
payments to America's farmers. Under the old program farmers would have
only received a combined $3.6 billion in payments.
If we have increased the payments to farmers in this transition three
times as high as in the old farm bill, how on Earth can you say that
the current farm bill is the source of our problem?
Let's just put it in simple terms. If we provide more money to
farmers, three times as much, that is a problem in regards to price
with our export demand? Hello.
Mr. President, we have also heard that there is no longer a safety
net for America's farmers, and advocates of this position argue that we
must extend marketing loans and remove the caps on loan rates. And
based on recent figures, it is estimated the loan rate for wheat would
rise to $3.17 a bushel from its current level of $2.58. We could use
corn and soybeans and other program crops, but wheat is going through a
difficult time. It is a good example, so I am going to use wheat. But
if you add in the transition payments--nobody over there on that side
of the aisle has even mentioned a transition payment--the 63 that a
farmer is getting per bushel right now--as I say, three times as much
as they would have received under the old farm bill. That doesn't exist
for my friends across the aisle. It is invisible. But it is not
invisible to the farmer. When you add in the transition payments of 63
cents per bushel on the historical base farmers are receiving for
wheat, you now have a safety net of $3.21. Why should we approve
amendments that will bust the budget at a cost of nearly $4 billion
over 5 years, Mr. President, when they provide a lower safety net than
the current program?
No, I know the answer. They say we want both; we want the whole loaf.
As a matter of fact, if we are going to consider any kind of a payment,
it seems to me it ought to be added to the transition payment so
farmers could make the decision, not some kind of a marketing loan or a
loan program where, again, Washington makes the decision.
So raising and extending loan rates, I do not think, in the end
result will improve prices and the producer's income. As a matter of
fact, extending the loan rate actually results in lower prices in the
long run. Extending the loan for 6 months simply gives producers
another false hope for holding on to the remainder of last year's crop.
Farmers will be holding on to a portion of the 1997 crop while at the
same time harvesting another bumper crop in 1998. Thus, when you roll
over the loan rate, it actually increases the amount of wheat on the
market and results in lower prices, not higher prices. Since the excess
stocks will continue to depress prices, we will then extend the rate
again.
Once you go down that road, it is going to be very difficult not to
extend it again. And I think it would become an endless cycle that
would cost billions of dollars and which will eventually lead to a
return of planting requirements to pay for it. You can't simply stand
up and say we are going to spend $4 billion on an emergency because you
have a regional farm crisis on the northern plains and not expect some
people around here to say where is the offset. The offset would be in
set-aside acres and you are right back to square one with the same old
farm bill that caused all the problems to begin with. That would be an
attempt to control the output and limit the budgetary effects.
I suppose we could find some offsets. Where is that article by Jim
Suber? Jim Suber is an ag writer for the Topeka Daily Capital. He knows
what he is talking about, if we want to find offsets and pay for this
and do it the right way, not add to the budget deficit, not add to the
possibility of inflation, higher interest rates. Jim says USDA is
spending, or will spend $37.9 billion on social welfare programs. I am
not perjuring that. They are very good programs. But it plans only to
spend $5.9 billion in commodity programs.
So here we have the Department of Agriculture, according to Jim,
spending 7 to 1 more money in regard to social welfare programs and
other very fine programs as opposed to assistance to farmers.
Well, if we want to get offsets, I can certainly go down that list,
but I don't think that is a popular thing to do, and I don't think I am
going to do that.
Extending and raising loan rates will only serve, I think, to
exacerbate the lack of storage associated with the
transportation problems in middle America because it simply causes
farmers to hold on to their crops and to fill their elevator storage
spaces.

Now, in Kansas we have just harvested our second largest wheat crop
in

[[Page S8112]]

history. Perhaps not in Oklahoma and Texas, where they have had bad
weather, but in Kansas that is certainly the case. There are
predictions of record corn and soybeans in the fall in Kansas. If we
don't move the wheat crop now, it will create transportation problems
in the future that will surpass anything we experienced last year. And
we had mounds of grain sitting by the local country elevator with no
rail transportation.
I think I should also mention that advocates of higher extended loan
rates argue it will allow farmers to hold their crops until after the
harvest when prices will rise. After all, that is the whole intent, or
that is the whole plan in regard to the higher loan rate. I would point
out that Kansas State University recently published a report which
looked at the years of 1981 to 1997, and they compared the farmer's
earnings if they held wheat in storage until mid-November as opposed to
selling at harvest. In all but 5 years, why, farmers ended up with a
net loss as storage and interest costs exceeded the gains in price.
Simply put, extending and raising the rates, I think, would provide a
false hope for higher profits that most often does not exist.
Really, what we are talking about here, Mr. President--and it gets a
little detailed here, but we are talking about what is the function of
the loan rate in any farm program. Is the loan rate a market clearing
device or is it income protection. And my friends across the aisle
obviously want to make it both. I don't think you can have it both
ways, but they want to make it income protection as opposed to the
transition payments.
In addition, if you raise the loan rate up to $3.17, and you have a
fire sale on wheat, you have a bumper crop and you have China, which is
the world's No. 1 wheat producer, and you had the European Union, which
is the world's No. 2 wheat producer, and a surplus of grain on the
world market, what do you think is going to happen to the price? It
will fall, and we will never have wheat over the price of $3.17.
So what my distinguished colleagues across the aisle fail to point
out is if you put that cap on the loan rate at $3.17, you may get the
$3.17 plus the transition payment if you can somehow squirrel that by
the Senate and the House with all the budget problems, but you put a
cap on it and you will never see $4 and $5 wheat. As a matter of fact,
that is what some of my colleagues across the aisle say they have to
have to stay in business.
One of the most effective measures of the success of the Freedom to
Farm Act is to review the planting changes that have occurred all
throughout the country since its passage. When that bill was passed,
the opponents argued that farmers did not have the capability to rotate
and grow various different crops, that this would be a negative. And we
have heard that rhetoric here in this debate. We have heard it now for,
what, 2, 3, 4, 5 weeks with the appropriate charts. Here are the facts.
In the northern plains, where many farmers are suffering from a
devastating disease called white scab, farmers have rotated out of
wheat acreage. They have switched to higher value crops. Recent USDA
reports state that spring wheat acreage has fallen nearly a quarter
from last year. We have in effect had a wheat set-aside to reduce the
supply, but the farmer made that decision and went to more productive
crops all across this country.
A comparison of the Farm Service Agency figures from 1993 and 1997 in
North Dakota shows that during the 4 years soybean acreage increased
from 591,000 acres to 1,090,000. Canola, which should be the crop of
preference now in terms of profit in that State, went from 47,000 acres
to 456,000 acres; dried pea acreage rose from 6,711 to 67,000 acres;
navy beans went from virtually no acreage to 151,000--dramatic changes
in crop production made by the decision of the individual producer.
Minnesota: The Minnesota Agriculture Statistics Service reported
record soybeans and sugar beet acreage in 1997 with soybeans breaking
the previous record by 850,000 acres. South Dakota's harvested soybean
acres were 3.4 million--million--in 1997, 780,000 above the previous
record set in 1996. Sorghum production was also up 42 percent from
1996.
I think it is important to know that these changes are not only
occurring in the northern plains, but throughout the entire United
States by farmers, under the flexibility under Freedom to Farm. Alabama
cotton on acreage fell by 74,000 acres in 1997; soybean acreage
increased by 70,000. They are following the market. A February paper by
the Agriculture and Food Policy Institute at Texas A&M reported that
cotton acreage declined in 1997 from the 1994-1996 average in
Louisiana, in Mississippi, and in Arkansas by 34, 23, and 9 percent,
respectively.
Here cotton farmers take a look at the market saying, ``I think I can
make a better deal; I can make a better profit in another crop.'' That
is the flexibility that was provided in regard to Freedom to Farm.
Same report: Cotton acreage in Oklahoma decreased 42 percent from a
3-year average while sorghum acres increased 31 percent. And harvested
wheat acreage in Kansas--we have a little saying on the Kansas license
plate that says, ``The Wheat State.'' Well, we are not. We are now the
grain State--in 1998 was at its lowest level in nearly 25 years.
Meanwhile, we have now planted some 20,000 to 25,000 acres of cotton in
Kansas because it is productive. It is a profit incentive. As a matter
of fact, the weather is a little cold up in Kansas as compared with
down south, and the insects can't bite quite as hard on the cotton. If
we can survive the winters, which we are doing, why, Kansas is now a
cotton-producing State. You would never have dreamed that under the old
farm bill.

These farmers who made these decisions and changes in American
agriculture have exceeded expectations in 1996. During a recent meeting
with 12 major farm organizations--what we call the summit, which we had
here about 2 weeks ago--a Mississippi farmer representing the cotton
growers summed it up best when he said, ``I have been farming for 40
years and farming has changed more in the last 4 years than it did in
the previous 40.'' That was a positive, not a negative. Farmers have
switched to higher value crops because it makes economic sense.
The plain and simple and sometimes painful--let me emphasize that--
sometimes painful truth is that all U.S. producers are no longer the
most efficient producers of a crop, more especially wheat, in the
world. That is hard news to tell to somebody who is going through a
very difficult time, but in fact our producers are no longer the No. 1
producer of wheat. When my staff, my able staff, answers the phone from
worried and concerned farmers from Kansas, one of the things that I
instruct him to say is: Wake up a little bit. We are no longer the No.
1 wheat producer--I am talking about the United States--that's China.
We are no longer No. 2; that's the European Union.
So, consequently, I think we have to look at what we can grow and be
competitive with in regards to the global marketplace. I think that is
a fact. Some people, however, refuse to accept that fact. But we have a
competitive advantage in the feedgrains and oil seeds, and these are
the exact crops that producers have shifted to under the Freedom to
Farm bill.
Let me again clearly state, I am not standing here saying there are
no problems in farm country--we have them--or that I would not like to
see higher prices for our producers. Would I like to see the $5 wheat
of 2 years ago? You bet. I would like to see $6 wheat. I can give a
pretty good speech about old parity. Parity meant justice. Parity for
wheat today is, what, $12, $13, as compared to what all the costs were
back when the parity formula was first considered, way back in I think
it was 1912.
So, to be fair, our producers ought to get $12 wheat. I can say that,
but I also know that when wheat production--not acreage but
production--is 60-bushel wheat in my State, which is more than double
the level of 1996, we are not going to see any $5 wheat. And when you
add in the European Union and you add in China, that is simply not
going to happen.
As hard as it may be for some to believe--and I want every farmer and
everyone listening, in terms of agricultural program policy, to pay
attention--our Kansas farmers and other farmers, if they are blessed by
good weather and good ideas, will make more in 1998 than they did in
1996. In 1996, 20 bushels an acre was a common yield for many Kansas
farmers. At $5 a

[[Page S8113]]

bushel, why, farmers had gross incomes of $100 per acre. Yesterday,
wheat closed at $2.55 in Dodge City, KS, America. On Friday, we
received estimates that the 1998 Kansas wheat crop will likely average
at a State return of around 50 bushels per acre at $2.55 a bushel, a
price I think is way too low. However, this figures up to a gross of
$125 per acre.
In 18 years, serving as a Representative and Senator, I have yet to
meet a farmer who would not choose the $125 per acre over the $100 per
acre. Obviously, it would be better if the price were higher.
I know that current prices are not good. However, high yields are
allowing farmers to continue to receive an income. The facts simply do
not represent a crisis all throughout American agriculture. Yes, there
are very severe problems in the northern plains. Yes, we must do
something about it. But farmers in this area of the country have had to
face a triple whammy, as evidenced so clear, and appropriately clear,
by their Senators from those States. It is a triple whammy of floods
and blizzards and crop disease. These are regional problems. They are
factors that would have occurred regardless of the farm bill,
regardless of what agriculture policy we had in place. You simply
cannot argue that these factors are evidence we need to rewrite the
farm bill.

Let me try to demonstrate how sincerely I feel about the
demonstration of intent on the part of the distinguished Democratic
leader and Senators Dorgan and Conrad and Wellstone and Durbin and
others who have pointed out the seriousness of the situation in the
northern plains. And I know that.
But let me quote in regard to the farm management specialist from
North Dakota State University and their extension service. His name is
Dwight Aakre. He says:

Farmers in northeast North Dakota have only about a 50/50
chance of paying out-of-pocket costs if they raise durum or
barley or flax in dry beans this year.

Boy, that is tough. They do have a problem, a very serious problem.
He also says--this is Dwight again:

Current expectations for harvest time prices keep dropping
while the cost of production, the cost of operations, do not.

And he said:

We are now approaching price levels where the best farming
strategy is how to consider your losses and to go forward
from that.

And then he says:

Ouch, it is this the combo of anemic wheat prices and wet
weather that has created what Senator Kent Conrad aptly calls
the stealth disaster for his State in that region? As for
this individual--

Again--I am referring to Dwight Aakre--he calculates:

It's a pretty tough time to get enough income to pay out-
of-pocket costs.

And he says:

It's likely too late to drop any rental land for 1998.

So you can understand why my colleagues are on the floor calling for
action. I know that.
Then he said, in regard to the farm bill, however:

Contrary to popular thought--

And this is Andrew Swensen, the Farm Management Specialist for North
Dakota State University Extension Service. He said:

What caused our problems last year with wheat and barley
yields of poor size and quality and lower prices and high
cost of production [he says] is the effects of this last
factor especially have been underestimated by many. Don't
blame Freedom to Farm.

That isn't Pat Roberts, that is Andrew Swensen, from North Dakota:

Contrary to popular thought, [says Swensen] the new Freedom
to Farm Program was not responsible for 1997 woes. In fact,
he says the market transition payments it provided were
greater than what would have been provided under the old farm
program.
It is difficult to avoid blaming this whole situation on
the weather, the Government, and prices, [says Swensen] but
it is more productive to be realistic and analyze things that
can be controlled internally in your own business.

I think that is certainly true.
So I don't doubt or disregard the pain many producers are feeling in
the northern plains. However, I do point out that many of my farmers do
have at least some questions, and I guess if you are going through a
situation where you are drowning in a sea of troubles financially, you
can drown in 6 inches of water or 6 feet. But we have heard that this
is a disaster that has continued for 5 or 6 consecutive years. Every
one of my colleagues over there has indicated that.
Kansas is known as a wheat State, yet both in 1995 and 1996, why,
North Dakota led the Nation in the production of wheat. In 1996, North
Dakota was first in the production of eight crops, second in two, third
in one, fourth in two. In 1997, why, North Dakota had the following
national production rankings: First in spring wheat, durum, barley,
sunflower, dry edible beans, and canola and flax seed; second, all
wheat, oats and honey; third, sugar beets.
There is very real pain being faced by the producers in North Dakota,
South Dakota, Minnesota, some parts of Montana. If, in fact, for 6
years it has been a crop disaster, if you are going to lead the Nation
in production in these crops, that is a disaster that most farmers in
my State would be happy to experience.
I would also ask what good raising the loan rate will do if producers
have no crop to sell; if, in fact, this is that serious. It is
important to note that many farmers did indeed suffer production losses
during the blizzards and the floods experienced in the northern plains
last year, a real tragedy. However, under the old program, why,
producers would have received little or no Government support. Yet,
under the Freedom to Farm Act, farmers in North Dakota received $244
million in transition payments in 1997. Talk about indemnity payments.
Not only did farmers receive the Government support they would not have
received under the previous program, they were also allowed to go into
the fields and plant substitute crops in place of the lost acres.
They could not have done that without the current farm bill. We have
heard many statements on this floor about how the Government payments
have been yanked away from producers in North Dakota, South Dakota and
Minnesota. I point out the average payments in 1996 and 1997 for all
three States exceeded the average level of Government payments in each
State during 1991 through 1995. So if you have a bill that is providing
more average payments to those three States, all three States exceeding
the level of Government payments in each State during 1991 to 1995,
where were my colleagues from 1991 to 1995? And what has changed? And
what has changed is the export demand and unfair trading practices from
Canada and the wheat disease and the weather--we have gone all over
that--but it sure isn't the farm bill.
We have been told this is the worst crisis in farm country since the
crisis of the eighties. Yet, let me point out in other sections of the
country--not the northern plains--tractor purchases were up 15 percent
in June over levels of a year ago, while self-propelled combine sales
are 40 percent above year-ago levels.
I don't think the arguments we are hearing on the floor--they are
certainly true in the northern plains--but I don't think they mirror
what we are hearing from producers all across the country. Mr.
President, I like to think that no one has spent more time on the wagon
tongue listening to America's farmers than I have, and I must tell you
from my recent visits with producers, they are not happy. They are
worried about current prices. They are worried about the export market.
But they realize in many instances why high yields have allowed them to
meet or even surpass their income expectations. The greatest majority
do not want to return to higher loan rates and loan extensions. They
fear, and rightly so, that this would simply be the first step toward
return to the narrow-focused, anticompetitive, micromanaged Government
programs of the past.
Farmers tell me the 1996 farm bill is working if we can get our
export demand back up to the levels that they used to be. They are
changing their planting decisions. They are growing the crops that
allow them to earn the most profits. They are happy with this
flexibility. They want to see it continue.
What my farmers and ranchers are telling me is that they are
extremely concerned with the seemingly lack of

[[Page S8114]]

trade and foreign policy focus in Washington. Our farmers and ranchers
realize the United States must export nearly 40 percent of our
agriculture products to overseas customers. Unfortunately, this is very
difficult to do when Congress and the President become what I call
``sanctions happy'' and place sanctions on approximately, as I have
indicated before, 75 countries, 70 percent of the world's population.
U.S. Wheat Associates recently published several depressing facts in
regard to U.S. trade policies. In the last 10 years, the embargo on
Cuba has cost wheat producers at least $500 million in lost wheat
sales. Iran, Libya, North Korea did represent 7 percent of the world's
wheat market. The United States will not trade with these countries.
Add on the embargo of Iraq and our producers are shut off from 11
percent of the world wheat market.
I am not saying those sanctions should be immediately lifted. There
are national security implications, obviously. The United States has
imposed sanctions 100 times since World War II. Sixty of these have
been imposed since 1993.
Mr. President, as Hubert Humphrey once said, ``We need to sell them
anything that can't shoot back,'' and we are shooting ourself in the
foot by not allowing our producers to sell to the other countries of
the world. We must also give our trade negotiators the tools they need
to open up foreign markets to U.S. products. You can't go to the trade
gunfight with a butter knife. That was a statement by the president of
the Oregon Wheat Producers, and he is certainly accurate. That is what
we continually ask our negotiators to do. Other countries will not
negotiate the trade agreements with the United States because our
negotiators do not have fast-track trade negotiating authority.

President Clinton has blamed inaction in the trade arena since last
November on the Congress' failure to pass fast track. Now, Congress is
not blameless. I have never seen a Congress more insular, more
protectionist, and more ideological in regard to trade, and I am not
happy with every member of my party on the Republican side who seem to
think we can impose sanctions or not pass MFN or not pass the IMF or
not go ahead with fast track. I understand their concerns. But in terms
of doing great damage to the agriculture sector and other sectors of
the economy, we are not blameless either--an editorial in behalf of the
party with which I am associated.
However, our majority leader and the Speaker of the House are now
pledging a vote on fast track in the Caribbean initiative and the
African trade bill before the end of the 105th Congress. However, the
President indicates he is not quite sure whether this is the time to
pass fast track. Mr. President, our farmers and ranchers respectfully
disagree.
I understand that some of my colleagues have stated that trade is
really not that much of the problem. I point out that approximately 1
month ago, 14 Senators met with 12 major agriculture groups and
organizations to discuss the priorities these groups felt were
absolutely necessary for Congress to pass this year.
Rather than parroting a particular point of view or ideology or being
locked into your criticism of the current farm bill of 2 years ago,
what we did on the Republican side is to respond to the letter sent to
all of the leadership in the Congress by the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the American Soybean Association, the National Association
of Wheat Growers, the National Barley Growers Association, the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Corn Growers Association--
there are about six left--National Cotton Council of America--I have
their tie on in support of Senator Cochran in this debate--National
Grange, National Grange Sorghum Producers Association, National Oil
Seed Processors Association, National Pork Producers, National
Sunflower Association.
A letter by all of these groups was sent to the President, Secretary
of State, Trade Representative, Secretary of Agriculture, members of
the House Committee on Ag, members of the House Committee on Ways and
Means. I guess the only one they didn't send it to is Larry King.
They listed all of the things that they felt--farmers felt--that we
needed to do in this session of the Congress to turn this thing around.
I can go down the list: fast track, $18 billion IMF, reform of U.S.
sanctions, administration should commit to seek agreement to end unfair
trade practices in the next trade negotiation round, foreign market
development, market access program, GSM program--trade, trade, trade,
and trade.
Something has to be wrong here. Either the farmers and ranchers or
the members of these organizations who hold meetings in counties and
States and pass resolutions--the tail doesn't wag the dog; they get
this information from farmers and ranchers--and either they are right
or my colleagues who argue trade is not the problem at all or vice
versa. I think I am going to go with the farm organizations.
I realize that some will argue that trade agreements, such as NAFTA,
have sold out our farmers. I agree. We have not had the appropriate
oversight in regard to NAFTA or, for that matter, GATT or, for that
matter, preparation of the next round of trade talks.
However, let me point out that the USDA Under Secretary Gus
Schumacher, who is doing all he can in regard to our export markets
under very difficult circumstances, recently said in a speech in
Minnesota that the United States would send a record number of exports
to both Mexico and Canada in 1998. That is not a failed trade policy;
it means simply we have regional problems where we could do a lot
better.
Critics have stated on the Senate floor that one day we will wake up
and discover that we are no longer the leader in agriculture exports,
just like we lost the automotive market. Pay attention to this
argument. It is interesting to note that many of the pitfalls suffered
by the U.S. auto industry in the 1970s and early 1980s were based on
its unwillingness to adapt to the desires of consumers the world over.
Could there be a similar effect resulting from some Members' seeming
unwillingness to allow producers to change their production practices
to meet the demands of the world market?
Finally, Mr. President, not only do Republicans believe that we need
to improve trade opportunities for our producers through fast track and
sanctions reform and IMF funding and normal trade relations with China,
we must also provide viable forms of risk management for our producers.
One of the most important steps we can take in this area is passage of
the farm savings account legislation.
The primary sponsor in the Senate is Senator Grassley. The young
Member of Congress who really authored this bill is Kenny Hulshof, who
is from Missouri. We tried to do it in the farm bill considerations in
1996. It would allow farmers to place up to 20 percent of their
Schedule F income tax into a tax-deferred account for a period of up to
5 years. This would allow farmers to average out the income highs and
lows better that are common in agriculture and allow farmers to save
money for those years when incomes are lower due to a reduced crop
yield.
I recently joined with many other Senators in signing a letter to our
majority leader reconfirming our support of the farm savings account
legislation. This is one of the most important risk-management tools,
Mr. President, we can provide our producers. I think we are going to
pass it this year.
As I have said in my earlier remarks, things are far from perfect in
farm country, but we are far from a national crisis. It is not time to
reinvent the wheel. We are at another one of those historical
crossroads in agriculture policy. I am sorry the situation has
developed on our export demand--that it is so severe. We can choose to
return to the failed policies of the past and put our farmers and
producers at a competitive disadvantage on the world market at the same
time our dependence on world markets continues to increase. Or, we can
take the necessary steps to provide our producers and our trade
negotiators with the tools necessary to open foreign markets and meet
the demands of the world market.
My colleagues are correct, the choices we make here today, and in the
next few months, may very well affect the future of agriculture in the
United States. My hope is that we continue to look with our producers
toward the future and not into the rearview mirror and the broken
policies of the past.

[[Page S8115]]

I want to make some very brief additional comments in regard to the
fact that this is an even-numbered year.
At the beginning of this debate, this discussion that is most
relevant to the difficulty we face in farm country, a number of my
friends across the aisle have gone out of their way to mention me
personally--I think I appreciate that--and very candidly, very frankly,
blame most, if not all, of agriculture's problems on what is called the
Freedom to Farm bill.
I know and I realize and accept that it is an even-numbered year. And
when there are strong differences of opinion in even-numbered years,
the chances for just a tad bit of politics to enter into the debate are
pretty good. In this case, a tad has become a deluge.
I truly appreciated the kind remarks of the distinguished Democratic
leader in reference to our friendship, even my alleged sense of humor.
In that regard, I take the job and my responsibility very seriously,
but not myself. But after listening to my colleagues go on and on and
on, blaming all our problems on the new farm bill, I think you have to
have a sense of humor.
The northern plains have experienced very bad weather. It is very
real. You would think that Freedom to Farm was El Nino. The northern
plains have experienced wheat disease for 6 years running. You would
think the disease came from the Freedom to Farm bill.
By the way, I am at least gratified that after 6 years of wheat
disease, my colleagues have now requested the targeted research funds
to address this problem. And we should do that.
The Asian flu and sanctions and the lack of an aggressive and
coherent trade policy are--or as the farm organizations simply put it
to me yesterday, the failure of the administration and the Congress to
use all of our export tools has played havoc in our markets.
My colleagues mention that with the wave of a hand--so much for
supply and demand--must be the fault of the Freedom to Farm bill. The
seven or so distinguished Senators who have been railing against and
blaming the farm bill are the same seven who bitterly opposed it during
the farm bill debate 2 years ago, voted against it, and recommended
that the President veto it. He did not. It is an understatement to say
they have not given up and will not.

If the good Lord is not willing and the creeks do not rise or if the
creeks rise too much, blame the farm bill.
Can we end this partisan book-shelving of Freedom to Farm? I know it
is not perfect. It is a work in progress. No bill is perfect. But I
think it is a foundation. Can we build upon what is a good foundation?
Can we seriously consider proposals that do not break the budget, or
return us to the old command-and-control and residual-supply
agricultural days? Can we shoot straight, Mr. President, with producers
who are experiencing serious problems, and quit promising more than can
be delivered, or should be delivered?
Let us fix crop insurance. Let us get cracking on an aggressive
export policy free of sanctions. Let us finish the job with tax policy
changes and regulatory reform. Let us commit to appropriate research to
fight the plant disease. And let us pass this week--this week, if we
could; next week--the farm savings account, and, yes, let us consider
some form of payment.
The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on Ag Appropriations
has indicated to me that the President would declare the State of
Florida, because of fires, eligible for disaster assistance. The same
kind of thing could apply to the northern plains States. Of course they
are hurting. There may be an opportunity here.
In view of what has happened to our markets--no fault of our farmers
and ranchers--I would favor emergency sanction indemnity payments. If
you are going to spend $4 billion, for goodness' sakes, call it an
emergency. Why would you put it in a loan rate that keeps the price
below approximately $3? You ought to give it to the farmer. Let us do
all of this, and more, to build upon and improve the current farm bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following articles be
printed in the Record. I call them the ``Set the Record Straight
Articles.'' I call them to the attention of all of my colleagues,
especially those so critical of current policy. It ought to be required
reading for them.
As I have said before, the Freedom to Farm bill is not sacrosanct. It
is far from perfect. There is no perfect legislation. It is a work in
progress, should not be discarded.
I originally thought, in coming to the floor, I would not take so
much of the time of my colleagues and the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi. I thought the proper course of debate would be to simply
ignore some of the commentary--basically accentuate the positive,
eliminate the negative, and do not mess with Mr. In-Between. That was
my original plan. But given the tidal wave of criticism, I think we
also have the responsibility to set the record straight.
I ask unanimous consent that an article from Pro Farmer outlining
what Speaker Gingrich has indicated their agenda is in the House to be
of help, be printed; and, finally, an article by Gregg Doud of World
Perspectives, who did an analysis, and he calls it the ``Anatomy of a
Regional Farm Crisis.''
I urge that all Senators--if they could find the time to really get
at the bottom of what we are facing in regard to this farm crisis--read
this. This goes into considerable detail. It is painful. It is painful
to go through a transition when you are not competitive in the world
market or, for that matter, the domestic market. But Gregg certainly
tells it how it is. And I think all of these articles certainly set the
record straight. And, again, I ask unanimous consent that these
articles be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Inside Washington Today, June 26, 1998]

House Speaker Speaks Out on Critical Ag, Trade Issues

(By Jim Wiesemeyer)

It is unusual for a top hitter like Speaker of the House
Newt Gingrich to wrap his arms around so many major issues
impacting agriculture and trade. But that he did Thursday in
a joint press briefing attended by other House Republicans,
including Ag Committee Chairman Bob Smith (R-Oregon).
Today's dispatch focuses on the agenda Gingrich and Company
said will prevail this summer and fall. And that agenda, if
realized, would set a very firm foundation for U.S.
agriculture's future, both near-term and especially over the
long haul.
Gingrich's top-five priorities for action to be taken
before Congress ends its 105th session:
A vote on fast-track trade authority by September.
Bipartisan agreement on reform of and funding for the
International Monetary Fund (IMF);
A vote on renewing normal trade status for China;
Legislative action on exempting financial assistance for
exports of agricultural commodities from international
sanctions;
Efforts to significantly increase pressure on the European
Union regarding agricultural subsidies and anti-competitive
trade practices.
Let's takes those five priorities one important step at a
time:
Fast track: Gingrich is committed to scheduling a vote this
September. And the House Speaker says supports were ``within
eight votes'' of passage last fall. Odds for passage this
year in the House would improve rather dramatically under
House Ag Committee Chairman Bob Smith's proposal. Smith says
he could round up the needed House votes by altering a
pending bill to increase the role of the Ag Committee in
working with the Clinton administration before a trade
agreement is initiated.
I've mentioned Smith's proposal before--it was included in
his letter to U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky.
It would create a requirement that the administration consult
with congressional committees before it initials a trade
accord Under Smith's approach, this means the House and
Senate ag panels would have the same rights as the House Ways
& Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee--the usual
trade policy kingpin committees.
Reports have surfaced that in a June 18 letter to Rep.
Smith, Barshefsky informed Smith that the administration
supported a provision similar to his during last year's fast-
track debate and thus would continue to do so. (However, the
U.S. Trade Rep's office says the proposal had not been
returned late June 25.)
What about the White House and Democrats? Gingrich says he
believes the Clinton administration will ``do everything it
can to help pass this when it comes up in September.''
White House reaction: On June 19, White House spokesman
Mike McCurry said he was not aware of a renewed effort to
past fast track, but said the administration would
``welcome'' such a step. Well, they've got it.
The Senate already has the votes to past fast track in my
judgment. And that's what Gingrich says is the conclusion he
got after speaking with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-
Miss.).

[[Page S8116]]

But Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said that
while he would support efforts to resurrect fast track, given
the degree to which it is controversial, ``it may be
difficult to bring up in the short time we have left'' in the
current Congress--with less than 40 legislative days in the
session.
The House must act first on trade legislation because it is
considered a revenue measure.
Botton line: It's been a slow-track to fast-track, but its
getting there.
IMF funding and reform: Gingrich says it might be necessary
to fund the IMF at less than the $18 billion the United
States has promised to provide.
That suggests the $18 billion amount is open to
negotiation. Congressional sources say the final result on
this topic depends on how many IMF reforms Republicans can
get the White House to swallow (this is the most contentious
area on this topic as Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has
focused his attention on the matter.)
Gingrich is mum on what level of IMF funding will likely
come out of the Republican-controlled Congress. But he
admitted the problems in Asia and Russia have sensitized the
need for Congress to act.
Gingrich still faces some naysayers in his own party. Rep.
Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who is the House Majority Whip, says
``Giving the IMF more money is not a panacea for all the
troubles that bedevil the Asian economy. In fact, in many
instances, the IMF is the problem, not the solution.''
I agree in many ways with DeLay's comments, but the IMF has
suddenly (and prudently) changed its previous take-no-
prisoners' stance at reforming the very impacted Asian
countries.
The White House and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-
Mo.) calls the financing of the IMF a more pressing issue
than fast track. Gephardt predicts there would be enough
Democrats and Republicans to support IMF legislation. He said
he thinks Republicans ``are hearing loud and clear from the
business community that they think this is a risky business
(delaying IMF funding). And I think you're going to see more
and more Republicans coming to the view that we ought to take
up that legislation.''.
Bottom line: The ongoing Asian financial crisis is leading
some previous naysaying lawmakers to at least reassess their
prior stance. More IMF money is coming. Perhaps not the $18
billion. And there will be some needed IMF reform strings
attached to it.
A vote on renewing normal trade relations/MFN with China.
The House Ways and Means Committee on Thursday came out
strongly in favor of granting China normal trade status.
Gingrich says ``There are no practical grounds for cutting
off American producers, American agriculture, and American
companies'' from the Chinese market, despite concerns about
transfer of missile technology and illegal campaign
contributions. A better way to say this cannot be found.
Bottom line: This is the easiest one to call--it's not a
question of if but when China gets the ``normal'' trade
status moniker. That is of course assuming the country
doesn't make any major stupid moves to upset an election-year
Congress.
Exempt financial assistance to ag commodities from U.S.
sanctions: The House on June 24 passed a bill (HR 4101) that
has an amendment lifting sanctions on Pakistan. The House Ag
panel also has passed a bill (HR 3654) that would life ag
sanctions. The Clinton administration says it supports the
pending legislation.
Increase pressure on the EU for its ag subsidies and anti-
competitive trade practices. I have two words for this
priority: good luck.
They should have added Canada to the list. For example,
Canada on Thursday declined to conduct a full financial audit
of its wheat board. The United States says it will keep
``pressing'' the issue.
USDA General Sales Manager Chris Goldthwait says Canada
``agreed to an audit of durum (wheat) only. We (U.S.), of
course, had asked for a full audit, including sales to third
countries, and will continue to press them on that.''
The U.S. wants an audit because it suspects the Canadian
Wheat Board is subsidizing Canadian growers--in violation of
international trade rules.
Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) says Canada's outright refusal
to conduct an audit is proof positive that it is subsidizing
its wheat farmers. He labeled it a ``national travesty'' that
the United States has not been able to convince Canada to
conduct the full audit.
It didn't take long for an official at the Canadian Embassy
here in Washington to put the word out that Canada's Wheat
Board does not subsidize exports.
One Canadian official says the Canadian government wanted
to limit the scope of the audit, due to cost. What? Heck, the
U.S. Congress spends more money than a drunken sailor, so
they should take Canada for its word and put the money. But
frankly, if history prevails, another reason will float out
as to why Canada shouldn't and won't oblige.
Bottom line: We must think smarter and be tougher. Until we
get U.S. trade officials who consistently, fervently, and
smartly keep up successful attacks on trade-distorting
policies in the EU and other places (Canada for one), U.S.
agriculture will continue to face an uphill battle in
significantly boosting its export potential in the years
ahead. Market access is one thing; getting countries to
fulfill on prior pledges is another.
The best statement Gingrich made on these topics is when he
said, ``the only country economically strong enough to keep
the world economy moving forward is the United States. The
trick is for us to send a signal that we want a stronger and
more vibrant world market, and that means a strong vote on
fast track.
And if we don't get fast track and the hoped-for result of
improved market access for competitive U.S. agricultural
products, the trick will be on U.S. agribusiness which is in
the process of pursuing structural and farm policy reforms to
gear up for the perceived growth years ahead for the export
market--both in volume and market share.
____

Anatomy of a Regional Farm Crisis

(By Gregg Doud)

There is no ``crisis'' in U.S. agriculture today. Even
though grain prices are at multi-year lows and livestock
prices are also in the doldrums, it must be realized that
agricultural is a cyclical business. Anyone would have to
expect that after 20-year-highs in world grain prices, the
pendulum would eventually swing. After all, it's taken at
least the last 100 years figuring out that the ebb and flow
of supply and demand explain price and that agricultural
commodity markets literally ebb and flow with the wind.
What hasn't been so obvious, however, is that little more
than plain and simple greed drives farmers, over time, to
produce at a level that covers little more than their
variable costs of production. In other words, very few
farmers have not wanted to farm the entire county in which
they reside. Every year it's the same old, ``I'll gamble and
extend myself a little this year, because if I don't my
neighbor will have an advantage over me.''
Applying this classic psychology to northwest Minnesota and
northeast North Dakota where there certainly is a regional
production agriculture crisis going on these days, is the
first step in understanding just what is now causing
producers to go bankrupt and what policies and actions, if
any, are to blame.
A recent study by North Dakota State University (NDSU) says
production costs for producers in the Red River Valley
(again, northwest Minnesota and northeast North Dakota) have
increased by 71 percent since 1991 although yields in this
predominantly spring wheat and barley producing area have not
changed. The report estimated that costs of production in
this region of the country range anywhere from $11 to as much
as $200 per acre for wheat and/or barley. By comparison, the
average northcentral Kansas total variable cash costs are $82
per acre and fixed costs are $35.53 per acre for a $118 per
acre total. (Source: Kansas State University) Much of these
added production costs in the Red River Valley include
fungicides and herbicides and increased fertilizer costs
associated with disease problems and an overabundance of
rainfall in recent years.
It seems that where the Red River Valley separates itself,
however, is with regard to land costs. In central North
Dakota, cash rental rates typically run between $25 and $30
per acre (30 bushels per acre wheat). In the Red River
Valley, though, NDSU put the average rental rate at $57.75
per acre and the average land value at $850 per acre. In
comparison, good dry-land wheat farmground in northcentral
Kansas these days that has a wheat production capability very
similar to the Red River Valley goes for about $450-500 per
acre. Remarkably, the disparity in land values is even larger
when one considers that property taxes in Minnesota are some
of the highest in the nation.
These numbers are important as they bring to light one of
the major factors influencing this crisis. There is no way a
Red River Valley wheat and barley producer can stay in
business and pay these prices for cash rent or land
ownership! The NDSU report suggested that a barley crop can
cover about 50 percent of the cost of production while wheat
will cover about 85 percent of total costs. These examples
quickly illustrate the biggest obstacle Red River Valley's
small grain producers face--their land is overpriced for the
crops they are trying to grow. Or is it? There is a reason
for this seemingly mad behavior and it's probably not too
surprising that its roots are derived from another U.S.
government commodity program.
In this region of the country, sugar beets are the money
crop as producers can gross $700 per acre and net $150.
However, in order to ``get in'' a producer must buy stock in
the sugar beet corporation or co-op and that stock translates
into the number of acres of beets the producer can plant.
Apparently sugar beet stock trades just like land and is
worth about 1-1\1/2\ times what the land is worth. Stock
offerings have recently expanded to acquire more acreage.
Although there is a tariff rate import quota, these returns
have driven up cash rental rates to $120 per acre or more in
beet production areas. This wide discrepancy between these
$25 per acre cash rental rates in the central part of the
state and $120 per acre for beets has provided a wide window
of opportunity for non-sugar beet landowners with an average
$57.75 per acre rental rate the result.
Coming along once again to further complicate these
seemingly unjustifiable rates, however, is the USDA and its
``prairie pothole'' designation as part of the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP). Some would argue that while the
approximate average of a $55 per acre CRP rental rate doesn't
necessarily drive up regional rental rates, the

[[Page S8117]]

special designation makes it easier for landowners to get
into the program. It is this threat that is causing renting
producers to bid enough to keep the land in production
despite the fact that paying these rates is not economically
justifiable.
When Red River Valley producers have to pay ``too much''
for fixed or capital investments, it means there is little or
no room for error when it comes to anything connected with
either price (marketing), yield (gross returns), or
management decisions. However, since problems do occur
because of poor weather, etc., producers have to insure
themselves by utilizing risk management tools such as crop
insurance and the futures market.
Managing risk is the most difficult part of farming and
every producer knows there is no such thing as a ``perfect
hedge.'' One often used risk management tool is the Federal
Crop Insurance program. However, Red River Valley spring
wheat producers in recent years have exposed a few holes in
this program when it comes to dealing with scab damaged
wheat.

is better crop insurance the answer?

Federal Crop Insurance indemnity payments are based on
yield losses. If a producer's average wheat yield is 40
bushels/acre and insurance with a typical 65 percent coverage
level is purchased, that equates to 26.5 bushels per acre of
coverage multiplied by $3.50 per bushel, or $92.75 per acre
of coverage. While this is still below the cost of
production, it's certainly better than nothing. In the Red
River Valley, participation in the Federal Crop Insurance
program is very high although it has begun to decline
somewhat. However, problems occur with this program when
wheat is infested with scab damage.
Scab damage greatly reduces the quality of the wheat while
sometimes having only a minor impact on yields. Research
indicates that the Actual Production History (APH) on which
Federal Crop Insurance is based has fallen by about five
bushels per acre on the Minnesota side of the valley, but on
the North Dakota side there is no overall decline. In fact,
there has been a slight increase in the North Dakota barley
APH. (Note: This describes county aggregates. Some individual
producers may be greatly impacted by their lower APH levels.)
Since the APH is based on a five-year moving average yield
and there have been three to four years of problems in this
region, lower APHs are unavoidable and present a significant
problem for the producer. The primary area of concern
involves some 18 counties in eastern North Dakota and 10
in western Minnesota. While there are some instances of
significant declines (20 bushels per acre) in APH levels,
the bulk of the counties in North Dakota actually
fluctuates between +/- 4 percent. An APH change of 4
percent, with a 40 bushel per acre yield, would add $5.60
per acre to the indemnity payment using the example above.
Some have suggested that USDA ``give'' or reset the APH
levels in these areas to provide relief to the producer. To
this regard, there will be a pilot program in 1999 that will
look into alternative ways of calculating an APH. However,
officials have some concern about the impact of having other
parts of the country essentially subsidize the program in
this particular region.

quality losses

The more serious income problem also not addressed by
federal crop insurance is a result of the drastic changes in
discount schedules the marketing system has instituted as a
result of scab disease problems. In 1993, when scab damage
first entered the scene, the market severely discounted non-
millable quality wheat in a range of between 50 and 80 cents
per bushel. Discounts typically deal with the quantity of
total defects and test weight losses and are usually larger
in times of higher prices.
Since that time, cleaning equipment has been installed and
the market has done a better job of segregating quality. This
past year a typical discount was about 20 cents per bushel.
In all cases, however, neither crop insurance, the futures
market, nor any other government program could provide the
producer a mechanism of risk management for these income
losses.
USDA's federal crop insurance program does not factor in an
offset for losses until the quantity of damaged kernels
exceeds 10 percent (making it U.S. Grade #5 wheat). Even at
that point, the program only provides a 1 percent increase in
the production account for 11 percent damage. This level of
damage, however, would likely relegate a particular parcel of
wheat to a price on par with corn.
Scab damage is again a concern in the Red River Valley this
year as a large portion of the Valley's wheat crop is now
flowering and standing in water due to recent heavy rains.
Quality premiums and discounts could well end up being more
important price discovery factors than the futures market
this year if disease once again breaks out. The Federal Crop
Insurance program's ability to better address quality and
value losses could be of great benefit to these producers.
The concern is that adjustments in these quality provisions
could impede market signals.
A third minor option being discussed is to define an
additional ``unit level'' within the structure of the Federal
Crop Insurance program by combining ``all owned'' land with
``all crop shared'' into one ``enterprise unit.'' This might
provide for lower premiums, but this is very minor in
relation to the overall regional farm income situation.
All of the above, however, is not enough to explain or
resolve the distress for the entire region although a few
changes to the crop insurance program would provide at least
some assistance. These changes may also help turn the tide of
decreasing participation in the Federal Crop Insurance
program in this region.
A better approach would be the whole-farm-based Farm
Production Insurance Corporation (FPIC) proposed by World
Perspectives' CEO Carole Brookins. This program would deliver
business interruption insurance and whole farm equity
protection rather than a price-times-yield insurance coverage
that has to be modified for every new situation that arises.

Making Better Business Decisions

One piece of WPI advice to producers is that when they find
themselves in a hole, stop digging. Most U.S. grain farmers
learned during the mid-1980s that bigger is not necessarily
better. Farmers in the region say that one of the most unique
characteristics of this regional crisis is that many
producers have not stopped spending money. The truth is that
farmers may be greedy, but when they have money, they spend
it.
In the instances of producers still sitting on large
quantities of old-crop grain, many had the opportunity to
sell wheat at $3.75 per bushel last fall, but chose instead
to put the crop under loan. Although hindsight is always 20/
20, it would appear that in this case, the lure of $8 per
bushel soybeans, $5 per bushel wheat and $3 per bushel corn
clouded judgment at a very inopportune time. Will this crisis
finally provide adequate encouragement for producers to seek
other less risky methods of acquiring higher prices for their
crops? Heaven only knows.
Farming is a cyclical business and it appears that the
dairy business is doing quite well and grain prices may be
turning the corner. Alternatively, WPI expects to see land
values stagnate or possibly even decline slightly along with
reductions in cash rental rates in relation to commodity
prices. The grain market reacts to global events and right
now there seems to be plenty of supply amid sluggish demand.
WPI notes, however, that it's always interesting to see how
politicians try to spin these circumstances to justify their
policy positions.
Summer is quickly approaching and it's an even numbered
year. All seats of the House of Representatives and one-third
of the Senate seats are up for election. The current
political landscape suggests that the majority in the House
of Representatives is also up for grabs. There are probably
about 15 House seats out of the 435 that may well decide who
holds the majority and nearly all involve rural districts.
As a result, U.S. farm policy is caught in the middle of a
raging battle of partisan politics with House Democrats
claiming that Freedom to Farm has failed and Republicans
decrying the Administration's approach to trade. House
Republicans have also seen the non-use of Export Enhancement
Program (EEP) during periods of low domestic prices as an
opportunity to needle the Administration.
Both these postures are fatally flawed as they are old-
school agricultural economics and in the real world producers
see this for what it really is: political grandstanding.
Producers have liked their freedom to farm and it has helped
them realize that their income comes from the marketplace and
not from Washington.
Possibly the most unfortunate consequence of this entire
situation is that producers all across the country made
significant capital expenditures during this period of high
commodity prices and large transition payments in the last
few years. In fact, a number of these expenditures were
likely made to reduce taxable income. To address this
situation, Congress has proposed the Farm and Ranch Risk
Management (FARRM) program that would allow producers a five-
year window in which to defer up to 20 percent annually of
their taxable income. Income, however, could not be deferred
for more than five years. This is an excellent way to address
the highs and lows of farm income. It's just too bad that it
wasn't in place before now.
The best option in dealing with scab is still crop
rotation. Producers can also opt for chemical control, but
this makes little economic sense unless both yields and
prices are high. Increasing the loan rate for wheat will
only impede this need for rotation. Raising loan rates
will only serve to mute market signals and missed market
signals will certainly lead to lower farm income. Tweaking
the crop insurance program will help, but it doesn't do
much to address the fundamental farm economics of the
region.
One important element that should be arrived at based on
these discussions is that there just isn't a lot that
policymakers can do without distorting price discovery in the
marketplace. Yes, there is a regional farm income crisis in
the U.S. Northern Plains, but it is not a U.S. crisis. Also,
there are no easy answers. There is, however, a series of
steps over time that can be taken to remedy the situation
including opening markets and decreasing regulation.

Summary

Although it is probably unavoidable in an even-numbered
year, WPI deplores the demagoguery in agricultural policy at
anytime, but particularly when it occurs during a crisis
situation. It is quite clear that deficiency payments would
have been less than transition payments and that the 1996
Freedom to

[[Page S8118]]

Farm Act and little, if anything, to do with the Red River
Valley's unfortunate situation over much of the last five
years. it is the responsibility of agricultural policymakers,
however, to see that appropriate research funding is
available to eventually find a solution to the problem and to
develop a better safety net. However, there is a big
difference between a so-called safety net and a free
indemnity payment.
Local newspaper editorials written by farmers in this
region are not telling other farmers that if they can't
produce wheat at a $3.00-$3.25 per bushel breakeven point
they have a problem. WPI adds that, hopefully, these
producers have less of a problem growing something else
besides wheat. Ultimately, it will be the market which
decides whether or not there is a problem, or in other words,
whether this wheat really needs to be produced.
It is unfortunate that high commodity prices and government
payments have masked the severity of scab disease in this
region. While many farmers in other places were able to
recover financially as a result of these high prices, those
in scab country were just postponing reality. Some farmers in
this region appear to have been betting that the scab problem
would simply go away. It hasn't and these producers are now
in trouble.
In today's global wheat market, many U.S. regions and/or
producers would not fall into the low-cost producer category.
However, as of yet, WPI is not sure how well the market has
communicated this message. This message will eventually be
delivered and it may just be that wheat producers in the Red
River Valley are the first ones to receive delivery. There is
a siren blaring and it's calling for producers to rotate out
of wheat production. Producers need to be able to hear it.
They also need to make better business decisions.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the
excellent remarks of the distinguished Senator from Kansas. I think he
put in perspective the challenges that face American agriculture,
particularly out in the northern plains. But he also, I think, put in
proper perspective the legislative history and the effort that was
made, on a bipartisan basis, and with the approval of this President,
to authorize farm programs that meet the modern needs of farmers, do
not solve all the problems, but within the context of Federal
legislation give farmers an opportunity to operate their farms in the
context of a global economy, within the limits of the Federal budget
that has been constrained in recent years, and with a predictability
about the future, with rights of flexibility, with rights of choice on
the part of farmers as to what they plan and how they manage their farm
operation.
The distinguished Senator has been a very important leader in
agriculture and I think, in listening to his remarks, it is clear to
all of us why he has been chosen and why his advice is so often taken
here in the U.S. Senate and when he was chairman of the House
Agriculture Committee, and why he has been such an effective leader
throughout the country on agriculture issues. It also shows us that we
are in a situation now where we have to make a choice.
We have before us a resolution offered by Senators Harkin and Daschle
stating the problems in some sectors of the country in agriculture and
calling on the Congress and the President to take action in response to
these problems. I support the general tone and the general sense that
is contained in that resolution, and I hope the Senate will work its
will soon and adopt this resolution. If it has to be modified, let's
modify it and then move on to specific amendments. We have a list of
amendments.
As we started the consideration of this bill, which we had been
advised Senators wanted the Senate to consider, there were about 50
amendments. We have worked our way down to a point now where it is a
little less than 40. We have sent out hotline requests to Senators'
offices to let us know what their intentions are in terms of specific
amendments. Give us the benefit of the suggestions. Let us look at
them. Senator Bumpers and I will try to accommodate Senators' requests
where we can, and get the reaction of the administration to other
suggestions Senators make for amendments and work our way through those
amendments to final passage of the bill. We would like to get that done
tonight if we could. It is probably not realistic to expect to complete
action within the next 2 hours. But I would like to do that. Then we
could turn to other appropriations bills tomorrow.
The majority leader has already indicated that we will not be in late
tonight. Certainly we ought to be able to finish this bill at least at
an early hour tomorrow. But to accommodate the requests and the
interests that we all have in moving along expeditiously on the passage
of appropriations bills, we need to have the cooperation of Senators.
The first order of business is to deal with this sense-of-the-Senate
resolution.
I have suggested to some Senators on this side of the aisle that if
they have suggestions for changes in that resolution, let us know about
it, and we will take them up with the authors of the resolution and see
if we can pass that resolution within the next several minutes. I hope
we can do that.

Cosmetics

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to commend my friend, the
Senator from Mississippi, for his stewardship of this important bill.
I rise today to voice my great concern about FDA's recent announced
cutbacks in its cosmetic regulatory program. I ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Record a copy of the letter that I sent to the
chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee on April 23d
which details my concerns about FDA's proposed cuts in the cosmetics
program.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, April 23, 1998.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and
Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I wanted to bring to your attention a
matter concerning the funding of the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) regulatory program for cosmetics.
While I am mindful of how difficult appropriations allocation
decisions are given the discretionary budgetary caps we
enacted last year, I know that you have consistently worked
over the years to see that the FDA would have adequate
funding for its vital consumer protection mission.
It has come to my attention that FDA has recently informed
the cosmetic industry of its intent to decrease substantially
both the personnel and financial resources devoted toward its
cosmetics regulatory program. I am concerned that this
misguided decision will have untoward results for the
millions or our citizens who use these products literally
every day.
Let me just cite a few examples of the types of important
activities that FDA plans to reduce, or outright eliminate,
supposedly on the grounds that these activities are low
priority. On the chopping block is the voluntary registration
program whereby manufacturers currently register their
products and facilities so that FDA's compliance activities
are conducted effectively and efficiently. To eliminate such
a program--a program that was successfully implemented in a
spirit of voluntary cooperation between the regulated
industry and the FDA--in an attempt to capture relatively
meager short term budget savings may in practice only go to
prove the wisdom in the old adage ``penny wise and pound
foolish.'' It just seems to me that this voluntary program
provides vital information to FDA in terms of investigating
adverse reaction reports, noncompliant products, and dilatory
companies.
In addition, as I understand the situation, FDA has
indicated that it will essentially completely phase out its
consumer and manufacturer assistance program. Without this
capability to monitor and respond to the technical issues
attendant to cosmetics safety, I fear that the public health
could be jeopardized.
The FDA cosmetic oversight program has been characterized
by collaboration between the agency and the industry and this
spirit of cooperation has succeeded in helping the industry
sustain its strong record of product safety and consumer
satisfaction. Without the FDA's visible presence and high
standards, we may be unintentionally creating a climate that
the irresponsible and unscrupulous will find irresistible. To
allow FDA to backslide in the area of cosmetics can only
prove unfortunate to the consumers of these products.
FDA is charged with implementing one of the most important
consumer protection laws--the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.
We must not acquiesce to FDA's attempt to take short-sighted
budgetary actions that will inevitably diminish the
protection afforded consumers of cosmetics under this
longstanding statutory scheme. Congress should act to keep
``cosmetics'' prominent in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.
In its FY 1999 Justification of Estimates for
Appropriations Committees and Performance Plan to the
Congress, FDA ``zeroes out'' the current budgetary line item
for cosmetics with the following terse footnote: ``Cosmetics
monitoring is phased out in FYs 1998 and 1999. FDA will
continue its activities at the center level.'' I believe that
the best way to structure the budget is to target specific
funds for the cosmetic regulatory program in

[[Page S8119]]

the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN).
Such a decision will send an unambiguous message to FDA that
Congress considers appropriate cosmetic regulation to be an
important FDA function, and that we expect appropriated funds
to be allocated for that purpose in the usual line item
fashion.
While I know that new funds--not reallocated funds--would
be preferable but difficult to secure, I hope that the
Subcommittee will conclude that a relatively modest
investment will go a long way for consumer protection in this
area. Specifically, I recommend that the Subcommittee
appropriate an additional $6 million in the FDA budget to be
earmarked for the cosmetic program in CFSAN. This sum may
represent a small fraction of the total FDA budget but it can
provide a great difference for the millions of consumers of
such commonly used products as soaps, shampoos, deodorants,
and makeup and fragrances.
I thank you in advance for your consideration of this
request. I want to work with you on this issue and I will do
what I can to help.
Sincerely,
Orrin G. Hatch,
U.S. Senator.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the bottom line of this letter was to urge
the Chairman and members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee
to increase funding for the cosmetics program to $6 million.
I am pleased that the Report accompanying the Senate bill encourages
the FDA to restore funding for this program to the funding levels of
previous years. Because nearly every American uses a cosmetic product
each day, it is important that the regulatory program for cosmetics in
the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's Office of Cosmetics
and Colors be adequately funded. I understand that our colleagues on
the House side have wisely provided an increase of $2.5 million to keep
this program at previous funding levels.
I would hope that we can work with our colleagues in the other
chamber to see that the final version of this bill that emerges from
conference does indeed contain the $2.5 million increase that the House
provides and would restore the cosmetic program to the $6 million
level.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Utah for his remarks. I can
tell him that we will try to do everything we can to restore the cuts
in FDA's cosmetics program.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma has
brought to my attention concerns relating to the Food Distribution
Program for Indian Reservation (FDPIR) program administered by the
Department of Agriculture. Specifically, USDA regulations prohibit
Oklahoma Indian tribes distributing commodity goods under FDPIR to
tribal members in population area that exceed 10,000 persons. I have
been made aware this prohibition does not exist in other states. As a
result, Oklahoma tribes are placed in a different category from tribes
administering FDPIR commodity programs.
To address the concerns raised by the Choctaw Nation, I would request
the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the appropriate
Oklahoma state agencies, review the current regulations with respect to
the FDPIR program in Oklahoma and take any necessary regulatory action
to ensure tribal members receive adequate commodity services from the
most appropriate provider.
Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the concerns raised by the Senator from
Oklahoma, and would make a similar request of the Secretary with
respect to this matter.

Motion to Waive Budget Act--Amendment No. 2729

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate voted on a motion
made by Senator Daschle, the distinguished Minority Leader, which would
have waived the Budget Act with respect to a point of order raised
against his tobacco amendment to S. 2159, the Department of Agriculture
appropriations bill.
I voted against the Daschle motion because I believe that, after
having debated tobacco legislation for nearly four weeks, the time has
come for the Senate to move forward on the pending appropriations
bills. Although I appreciate the Minority Leader's heartfelt desire to
see a tobacco bill enacted during this Congress, I also appreciate the
fact that that goal is not likely to be met in the few remaining days
before adjournment. Thus, prolonging this issue is not, in my opinion,
in the Senate's best interest.
Mr. President, while I could not support the Minority Leader's motion
to waive the Budget Act in this particular case, I will not, of course,
rule out supporting such a motion in the future. Should we, as the
minority Members of this body, continue to be effectively precluded
from offering amendments, I would then be willing to join my colleagues
in seeking to have those amendments debated on any available
legislative vehicle.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we begin consideration of the spending
bills for the next fiscal year, I commend the efforts of Chairman
Cochran, Senator Bumpers and other members of the Subcommittee in
putting forth this bill to fund the wide array of agricultural programs
within the U.S. Department of Agriculture and related agencies.
In the accompanying report, the Subcommittee stated its objective, to
closely examine ``[a]ll accounts in the bill'' and ``ensure that an
appropriate level of funding is provided to carry out the programs.''
Mr. President, I was delighted to read this statement. However, after
reviewing the bill and its accompanying report language, my delight was
brief at best.
It is painfully clear the subcommittee has not lost its appetite for
pork-barrel spending. This bill has been fattened up with vast amounts
of low-priority, unnecessary and wasteful spending. In fact, this
particular appropriations bill contains an astounding $241,486,300 in
specifically earmarked pork-barrel spending. This is over $60 million
more than last year's pork-barrel spending total for this bill, which
was only $185 million in wasted funds. In addition, the bill and report
direct that current year spending be maintained for hundreds of
projects, without being specific as to the amount.
To exemplify this egregious spending, I have compiled a lengthy list
of the numerous add-ons, earmarks, and special exemptions provided to
individual projects in this bill.
Many of the programs funded in this bill are laughable. Yet there is
nothing humorous about funneling Americans' hard-earned tax dollars to
parochial interests. This bill is rife with examples.
The subcommittee's recommendation for the Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service (CRSEES) blatantly typifies the way my
colleagues have irresponsibly put their own agendas ahead of national
priorities. For CRSEES research and education activities, my colleagues
added on $22,193,000 to the budget estimate. In fact, out of 106
special research grants for state universities, 99 projects were
unrequested and earmarked to serve specific regions of the nation, such
as: an earmark of $3,536,000 to Oregon, Mississippi, Minnesota, North
Carolina, and Michigan for the wood utilization project; $150,000 for
plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging in New Mexico;
$64,000 for nonfood uses of agricultural products in Nebraska; and, an
earmark of $84,000 to Georgia for Vidalia Onions. Mr. President, you
and I may love Vidalia Onions just as much as the next person, but an
$84,000 earmark to Georgia for Vidalia Onions is absurd in this era of
supposed fiscal restraint.
Let's look at the earmarks in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service funding.
The Committee directs the Department to continue funding at the
current level for cattail management and blackbird control in North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Louisiana. I would be surprised if there were
no problems with excessive cattail growth and huge blackbird flocks in
other areas of the country.
$800,000 is earmarked for rabies control programs in Ohio, Vermont,
and New York. Again, I am certain other areas of the country would
benefit from rabies control funding.
The Committee encourages the Department to consider grants to
Burlington, Vermont, and Anchorage, Alaska, to assist these cities in
developing public markets.
The Committee notes that it ``expects'' the Agriculture Department to
purchase surplus salmon, but only if there is surplus salmon at low
prices continue.

[[Page S8120]]

Mr. President, this type of locality-specific and special-interest
earmarking is blatantly unfair to the taxpayers. It sets the tone, so
evident in this bill, for a spending frenzy where honest hardworking
Americans' tax dollars are thrown away on unrequested, low-priority,
wasteful spending similar to the previous examples and hundreds like
it.
Similar flagrant violations of the appropriate merit-based review
process permeate the FY `99 Agriculture Appropriations bill and
report--a testament to my ongoing concerns about pork-barrel spending.
Mr. President, I raised concerns over earmarks in the FY 1998
appropriations bill, yet funding continues to be provided without
adequate justification for nonsensical programs and designated regional
benefits, such as: the perennial add-on of $3,354,000 for the Shrimp
Aquaculture project benefiting the states of Hawaii, Mississippi,
Arizona, Massachusetts, South Carolina; $150,000 for the National
Center for Peanut Competitiveness in Georgia; a $26 earmark million for
additional spending to benefit the Lower Mississippi Delta region.
Mr. President, most of the programs in this bill, such as grants,
loans and other types of technical assistance programs, would normally
be available to local, state and tribal entities in an open and
competitive process. Many projects of merit and national necessity
deserve to compete for the scarce funds gobbled up by wasteful pork-
barrel spending. But these projects will never receive fair
deliberation if this Committee pre-determines their fate by
``expecting'' and ``urging'' the Department to give special
consideration to certain projects over others.
This bill also continues the questionable practice of prohibiting
facility closures and designating funding for maintaining
administrative personnel. For example, an additional $1,400,000 is
provided to the Rice Germplasm Laboratory in Stuttgart, AR, for
additional staffing, and more than $20 million is provided to various
agencies and field offices in order to maintain personnel. The bill
also contains a section that prohibits the expenditure of any funds to
close or relocate an FDA office in St. Louis. The Committee does not
provide any justification on why we should be spending taxpayers
dollars to preserve unneeded bureaucracy. Nor does the report explain
why specific offices and laboratories are higher in priority than
others and more deserving of continuing funding despite recommendations
of closure.
Mr. President, I will not deliberate much longer on the objectionable
provisions of this bill. In closing, I simply ask my colleagues to
apply fair and reasonable spending principles when appropriating funds
to the multitude of priority and necessary programs in our
appropriations bills. I look forward to the day when we can go before
the American people with a budget that is both fiscally responsible and
ends the practice of earmarking funds in the appropriations process.

generic drug approvals

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, over the past several years, I have
highlighted my growing concern about the Food and Drug Administration's
failure to meet statutory deadlines with respect to a number of very
important consumer products it regulates, including medical devices,
food additives and generic drugs.
I would note that enactment of the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act (FDAMA) is intended to address some of those
concerns, especially with respect to innovator drugs.
But a very real concern remains about the generic side of the
equation.
My colleagues should be aware that, despite a requirement in the law
that generic applications be acted upon within 180 days, the review
time usually takes far longer. In fact, in its budget justification
submitted to Congress this February, the agency reveals that only 50%
of the applications receive final agency action within the statutory
deadline, and the mean review time is 25.6 months.
This is a matter of significant concern to me, and, I believe, to the
Congress as well. As the Committee noted in the report to accompany S.
2159:

In light of the fact that generic drugs provide important
cost benefits to consumers and the Federal Government, the
Committee also encourages the FDA to devote additional
resources to generic drug reviews in order to address the
backlog of applications and provide reviews within the 6-
month period required by statute.

Later, the Committee goes on to say:

FDA delays have significant implications for public health.
Each FDA delay extends the time it takes for consumers to
benefit from new products that provide significant
therapeutic benefits. The Committee believes that FDA's
statutory obligations to perform its core regulatory
activities must remain the agency's top priority.

The failure of the FDA to devote sufficient resources to the Office
of Generic Drugs is penny-wise but pound-foolish. Generic drugs can
provide significant benefits to consumers. They typically enter the
market at a price 30% below their brand-name equivalents, and decline
in price to 60%-70% below the brand product price over time.
Generic drugs have provided consumers with lower cost alternatives to
innovator drugs, and they will continue to do so in the future. Over
the next decade, a number of important pharmaceutical patents will
expire, with cumulative annual sales in the tens of billions of
dollars, and with the potential of tremendous consumer benefits. These
benefits could be significantly diminished if there are not adequate
abbreviated new drug application reviewers. It is as simple as that.
Last year, due to the concerted leadership of Chairman Cochran and
others, the FDA was directed to submit a detailed operating plan which
yielded an increase of $702,000 for the Office of Generic Drugs (OGD).
I was, and am, very appreciative of these efforts.
It is my understanding that the House Appropriations Committee has
provided an additional $1 million to OGD this year; I strongly support
the House mark and only wish it could have been even higher.
When the agriculture appropriations bill goes to conference, I hope
that conferees will build upon last year's record and will continue to
increase funding for generic drug reviews. I know that it is always
hard to find additional money given the budgetary constraints we face,
but a very small amount of money in Federal budget terms can have a
very large impact here, especially for those, particularly senior
citizens, who lack prescription drug coverage.

APHIS/Wildlife Services

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I strongly encourage the Conference
Committee for the FY 1999 Agricultural Appropriations bill to recognize
the need for a full-time APHIS/Wildlife Services district supervisor
position located in South Dakota for the protection of agriculture and
endangered species.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Agriculture
Appropriations bill, which includes essential funding to support our
American farmers, the most competitive farmers in the world.
It is imperative that the Agriculture Appropriations be passed out of
the Senate quickly, as our farmers will be forced to pay dearly for any
delays. The bill includes vital funding for scab research. This is an
essential project to counter what has become a major threat to wheat
and barley farmers. The bill includes many other important bio-genetic
projects as well. Long-term basic research is fundamental and must
remain a priority.
This bill also continues the crucial tools to help our farmers
promote their commodities at home and throughout the world. The bill
funds the Foreign Agricultural Service, which is a necessary component
in successfully identifying and reaching foreign markets. The Service
coordinates the formulation of trade policies and programs with the
goal of enhancing world markets for U.S. agricultural products.
Included are the CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program; the PL-480; the
Export Enhancement Program; the Market Access Program, and others. The
bill also includes full funding of the Federal Crop Insurance program,

[[Page S8121]]

the major risk management tool to come out of Freedom to Farm.
Today we will debate several amendments that are being touted as a
remedy to the current farm crisis that some states in the Upper
Midwest, including Minnesota, are currently facing.
I do not want to downplay the problems faced by Northern Minnesota
farmers. Farmers are hurting, but we must look for the best ways to
help them promote long-term solutions rather than take a costly
political approach.
There are multiple factors which have contributed to and exacerbated
the current circumstances facing many of our Upper Midwest farmers.
They include the Asian financial crisis, plant diseases, and surpluses
accompanied by low commodity prices. The combined effect has been
enough to put some farmers out of business, despite the fact that the
Market Transition Payments in the FAIR Act have provided our producers
with a much greater safety net than the deficiency payments they would
have received under the old program.
The current crisis cries out for an immediate answer--a quick-fix.
Scrap the intent of the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, some of my colleagues
are suggesting, and go back to the old-style, government-directed farm
policy we fought so hard to change.
Surely it is heart-wrenching to watch our neighbors lose their
livelihoods, but is the approach of the Minority amendments the right
one? Will it help farmers in the long run? I do not think so. These
proposals will not alleviate the problems. That much should be obvious.
These are serious problems and require serious legislative proposals
What the situation demands is more deliberate, long-range attention.
Furthermore, these proposals like a serious misdiagnosis exacerbate
the problem, not only for farming generations to come but for the very
farmers they would supposedly serve.
One amendment would be to extend the loan rates in order to allow
farmers the discretion of waiting for higher prices. Sadly, this looks
like a sure-fire method to lower commodity prices even further.
Extending the loan for an additional six months would give a farmer
incentive to hold onto the remainder of last year's crop, while at the
same time pulling in a new harvest--most likely a very large harvest.
The effects are obvious--an increased amount of grain on the market,
which pushes prices down.
There are other costs to this approach. Grain storage and
transportation issues continue to play a role in the overall problem.
Extending the loan rate will only make matters worse in that farmers
who hold onto their grain longer must have a place to store it, taking
up more space in the elevators. There must also be enough rail cars to
ship it. This also drives prices down.
Another ill-fated proposal would raise the cap on government market
loan rates. Again, we must beware of proposals--like extending the loan
rates--that would influence the market in such a way as to create
market distortions. That is just what this proposal would do. It would
create more commodity than the market could stand without devaluing it.
If loan caps are lifted, it tends to encourage a rational farmer to
withhold grain from the market, leading to more government-owned grain.
This also drives prices down.
Yet another proposal would authorize $500 million in payments to
farmers who have suffered repeated crop failures. But we decided to
avoid these types of measures in favor of the Federal Crop Insurance
Program, and similar risk management measures included in the Freedom
to Farm Act. And certainly $500 million spread over a number of hard-
hit states is not going to be enough to make a real difference for
farmers, even over the short-term. The better alternative is to
continue to improve the FCIP.
It is not difficult to put these band-aid proposals into perspective.
What is hard is the fact that they are being billed as steps that would
immediately help individuals who have supposedly been hurt by Freedom
to Farm, giving them false hope for relief--a magic elixir for
suffering farmers that won't work. With the benefits of Freedom to Farm
we agreed to accept the kind of market cycles other industries suffer.
When the cycle turns down, we must look at the best way to reverse the
downward cycle through sound government policies. We must continue our
efforts to seek new markets for our agriculture products, and to seek
alternative uses for them as well. We can replenish the IMF, pass Fast
Track negotiating authority, pursue unfair trade practices, and
continue MFN for China. We can oppose unilateral sanctions.
As Chairman of the International Finance Subcommittee of the Banking
Committee, I worked with Senator Hagel to pass the replenishment of the
IMF in the Senate. I regret it is still held up on the House side.
Without this kind of multilateral assistance, we cannot provide the
assistance needed to address the kind of crises we face in Asia, Russia
and many other areas. I urge the Administration to work out the
differences we have surrounding this issue in the House so we can
continue this kind of crucial assistance.
Fast Track negotiating authority is necessary to pursue new trade
agreements with other nations that will improve access for agriculture
and other products. While the Administration indicated it would pursue
this authority this year, that appears to no longer be a priority this
year. Yet, this authority would open markets to relieve some of the
commodity pricing pressure in the Upper Midwest. I have joined Senator
Hagel and others today in requesting Senator Lott to bring up Fast
Track this year as one of our top priorities.
Continuing MFN for China is another top priority of mine as well as
the agricultural community. China is a major market for the United
States, now, and even more in the future. Those who want to hold
agriculture hostage to solving many unrelated problems in China are
very shortsighted. Not only do we risk United States exports in the
short term, but the long term as well as the United States earns the
reputation of an unreliable supplier. Engagement through trade and
contact with the Chinese leaders and people is what gains us progress
on human rights, religious persecution and other issues--not cutting
off those relations.
Mr. President, I was pleased we passed the Farmer Relief Act last
week to exclude agriculture products from India-Pakistan sanctions. We
should have gone further to provide waiver authority and exclude all
the economic sanctions, but that battle will be fought another day. It
is clear to me that agriculture sales should not be included in any
sanction, and I will continue to support efforts to eliminate
agriculture from current sanctions as well as to prevent our farmers
from being targeted in these largely political battles. Farmers still
painfully recall the Russian grain embargo and other unilateral
sanctions that continue to shut off important markets. Cutting off
agriculture sales only hurts the people of the targeted country--not
the government we aim to punish.
I am a co-sponsor of the Dodd bill to remove agriculture sales from
current Cuba unilateral sanctions. The same arguments we make against
other agriculture sanctions apply here as well. It is time to make this
humanitarian, important change in the embargo.
I also am a co-sponsor of the Africa trade bill which I believe will
help our farmers in the long term as we work to expand trade
opportunities in that continent.
All of these current and pending sanctions--61 current and many
pending--cry out for passage of the Lugar Sanctions Reform Bill, which
I have co-sponsored. This will ensure that not only will we have a
sound basis to ensure that sanctions will have their desired effect
before we pass them, but also that they do not impose a higher cost to
our economy than we can bear. This legislation should be
noncontroversial, and it should be passed immediately.
Mr. President, I am convinced that pursuing trade policies that open
markets, not close them, will go a very long way in bringing higher
prices to farmers in my state and others. I challenge my colleagues who
have supported legislation to close markets abroad to take a closer
look at what they are doing and support American agriculture on these
important issues.
Mr. President, in passing Freedom to Farm, Congress recognized that
agriculture policy in this country must emphasize business acumen and
individual freedom--the principles that

[[Page S8122]]

have made our economy sound today. And we must provide the means
necessary to realize the potential of such a plan. The Agriculture
Appropriations bill continues to provide the means. I urge my
colleagues to stay the course and resist the short-sighted, politically
motivated, market-distortion mechanisms that the Minority amendments
would offer.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of discussion here
today about agriculture and the fix that it finds itself in, most of it
caused by forces not under the control of the folks who live on our
farms and ranches in this country, and in particular about our good
friends who live in North Dakota along the northern high plains that
stretch across the northern reaches of Minnesota, from Grand Forks to
Williston, and yes, even over into my home State of Montana. I went
through the 1980s as an auctioneer. I sold out some awfully good
friends in that era. And, there again, that was caused by forces that
were not under the control of those who make a living from our farms
and ranches across this country.
You know, we, some of us, might take this lightly. But we are talking
about something that involves every American. Every American has a
stake in this, because the second thing you do every day after you get
up is eat. I don't know what the first thing is because we have a lot
of choices, I guess, but the second thing is that we eat.
We understand the pain on the northern high plains because I have
experienced the same kind of situations and been around agriculture a
long time, in the business of ag business and, yes, on the land, too.
We understand that. We cannot write anything into legislation in the
way of farm policy of a one-size-fits-all. Each State is different.
Each county is different. Each region of this country is different,
producing different crops under different circumstances, under
different growing seasons, different soils, and that makes it a real
challenge to try to develop any kind of farm policy as far as this
Government is concerned from this place here in Washington, which I
refer to every now and again as 17 square miles of logic-free
environment.
What we did in the FAIR Act was to try to put agriculture into a
position where farmers can enjoy as much versatility and flexibility in
their cropping and making their decisions on how to market as each
individual producer or operator could have. Risk management--that was
part of it, part of it, making decisions on what to grow and when to
grow it, how to market it, and, yes, even having some say in
transportation.
We have heard a lot of people say this act is still a work in
progress, that there were some things that we should really do that
would facilitate the final policy of the FAIR: Farm savings accounts.
Do something about estate taxes. We don't need estate taxes. Something
has to be inherently wrong when you have to sell the farm to save the
farm. Capital gains--a reduction in capital gains has already proven
that, yes, it is an economic enhancer. We got income averaging for 3
years; now we need to put it in permanent law. And, yes, the sanctions
reform, of which we have heard a lot in the past week and during this
week --do that reform. And also reg reform.
Now, reg reform doesn't sound very big, but just this morning, in the
full Committee on Appropriations, there was a memorandum of the
Department of Transportation to deal with hazardous material with
regard to agriculture, the hauling of hazardous materials from the city
to the farm and from farm to farm with limited space and no reason that
this Federal Government should preempt State regulations on handling
those materials. Agriculture had enjoyed an exemption, when it comes to
production agriculture, in providing the services that are needed on
the farm and getting the crop back to the farm. Yet this Department of
Transportation wants to change all of that. They want to preempt the
States on how they handle hazardous material. It is just a little
thing, the requirement of a CDL, just to do farm work--commercial
driver's license, just to do farm work, not only putting the crop in
but getting it out and getting it where it can be transported to the
markets.

That is reg reform--the ability to use some pesticides and herbicides
on growing new crops that have been introduced into the northern high
plains, where we have competition from our friends in Canada where they
have 15 to 20 different kinds of herbicides and pesticides to grow 1
crop while we are limited to 5 and cannot get FDA approval to go on and
take care of the crop the way it has to be done.
One could also look at the situation, the terrible situation in North
Dakota, where they have the disease scab. There is regulation on plant
growth health.
We could also put together that same package of trade, trade, and
trade. We know the effect of the financial crisis in the Pacific rim.
Last January, we visited Australia. In talking to the Australians, they
didn't think it would affect their GDP at all. When I walked out of
that meeting in Canberra, Australia, I knew that these folks had really
misread the crisis in the Pacific rim. They had underestimated exactly
what was going to happen, when you have four major economies absolutely
go in the tank, and then the economy that was to ride in and help them
out can't do anything about it--and that is Japan. Those forces are
completely out of the control of the American farmer and the American
rancher.
So, fast track, normal trade relations to move our product into those
markets and have a shot at that market. Right now, with sanctions, we
are getting no shot at all. That is not right, and it is not fair.
I would probably say that sanctions have very little effect, if any
at all, on any kind of product. What happens when you put sanctions on
anything is, they will find the foodstuffs; they will find the grain.
They might pay a little more for it, a couple of pennies a bushel more,
and then we have to compete against the lower end of that market? That
is not fair either. So, sanctions very seldom work.
There is also another end of this that I haven't heard anybody talk
about in this country, and I do not know how to deal with this problem,
but I know there is a problem. The percentage of the consumer dollar
going back to the farm is the smallest it has been in the history of
agriculture.
What do I mean by that? If some of you go to the grocery store and do
your shopping, go down the cereal line and see what Wheaties are worth
per pound. I think you will find they are around $3.75 a pound. Cereal
is not cheap--$3.75 a pound. I want America to know--do you realize
that we cannot even get $2.50 for a bushel of wheat that weighs 60
pounds? There is more money in the box than there is in the wheat that
is the basis of the product. Something is a little out of whack. Yet,
we have some of our great agricultural processors and purveyors and
buyers calling themselves a supermarket to the world.
What we are saying though is: If you are such a good supermarket,
then give us more of the consumer dollar. You have an obligation, like
anybody else, to make sure the producer gets at least his cost of
production. That would help them stay in business, but it also helps
the processor to stay in business.
I noticed, there was a little letter that came this way from one of
the great processors in this country wanting to go back to the old way
of doing business. It makes sense to me. If I am out here buying corn
and soybeans and wheat, I can buy it very cheaply, yet the taxpayer
pays the profitable margin in this country to the farmer.
That is not right either. That should be paid at the marketplace, and
a percentage of that should go to production agriculture.
We are still a work in progress, and, yes, we have a situation on the
northern high plains with which we are going to have to deal and for
which we have an obligation to deal.
NAFTA, has it been good? Maybe for all America, but it sure hasn't
worked for us on the northern high plains. When you have 300 loads of
cattle a day coming across the wheat grass in northern Montana, and yet
we have a cattle market and you have $60 steers--I have a good friend
who lives over in Miles City, MT. Of course, he has a great sense of
humor, and it is a great thing. You have to have a good sense of humor
when you farm a ranch. He said $60 fat cattle, $40 hogs, and $2.50
wheat,

[[Page S8123]]

and $9 oil. Remember, oil only costs about $9 a barrel at the wellhead.
That would tell me anybody who is in the business of producing a raw
product is not getting paid very much for their product, but the price
hasn't been reflected at the pump or at the grocery store. If they go
down for the consumer, I guess all of us can live pretty good. But I
said, ``Well, that doesn't sound too good.'' He said, ``Yeah, but
there's a silver lining--we've got a lot of it.'' And that is the kind
of attitude you have to carry into this business.
How do we deal with the northern high plains, victims of flood and
drought and those farm families that really just eke it out every year?
They are land rich, but they are cash poor. That has been the story of
agriculture for a long, long time. I am afraid that story is not going
to end with any action taken in the Congress.
Do we want the Government back in the grain business? Do we want
those huge stocks that cost the taxpayer a lot of money in storage? Do
we want those stocks to overshadow the market? This man who wrote this
letter saying we should go back to the old way of doing business thinks
it is all right, because he is going to get his supply from stocks that
didn't cost very much money. Yet, his end product is not going to go
down a great amount. In fact, it won't go down at all. They will always
say ``inflation.'' The percentage of the consumer dollar we don't have
any control over either.
Just remember that little illustration that there is more money in
the box that contains the Wheaties than there is in the wheat that is
the base ingredient of that great food, a percentage of the consumer
dollar. Going back to the old way will not cure the ills of what is
happening in the northern high plains.
I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and those of us
who have been meeting every day to open up markets and to deal with
sanctions, because it is trade, trade, trade. Just like in the business
of the real estate, when you buy, there are three main things:
Location, location, location.
We must continue to do that. This administration must use every tool
they have to open those markets and to move the product, whether it be
through Public Law 480, through EEP, or export credits. We must get in
the world market, and we must compete and move the products.
I thank the chairman, and I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from
Montana for his comments and his leadership. I don't know whether
Senators realize this or not, but he has been getting Senators together
on an invitation basis at his office to discuss the problems in
agriculture, bringing to the attention of all of us who are interested
in that subject some very serious challenges that we face now in terms
of trade policy and the other related issues that he has already talked
about this afternoon.

His comments to the Senate are very helpful as we put in perspective
what our challenge is and what our options are for responding to these
very real problems in agriculture.
Mr. President, I am also happy to be able to advise the Senate that
we have reached an agreement with the Democratic leader on the subject
of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution which was offered earlier today
and which has been the subject of a good deal of discussion.
There has been an agreement to modify the amendment, and I am ready
to propound a unanimous consent request with the clearance of both
leaders, and it is as follows:
I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 p.m. this evening, the Senate
proceed to a vote on amendment No. 3127, as modified, offered by the
minority leader. I further ask unanimous consent that no second-degree
amendments be in order prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Amendment No. 3127, As Modified

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment, as modified, 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;
Certain 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
immediate action by the President and Congress is necessary
to respond to the economic hardships facing agricultural
producers and their communities.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there are Senators who want to discuss
this or other issues, there is an opportunity between now and 5:15 to
do that. Pending such discussion, the distinguished Senator from
Arkansas and I have been able to review additional amendments, and we
are prepared to recommend to the Senate that they be accepted as a part
of this agriculture appropriations bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside for
the purpose of propounding these additional amendments for
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3142

(Purpose: To clarify a budget request submission regarding spending
based on assumed revenues of unauthorized user fees)

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

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself and
Mr. Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 3142.

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. . None of the funds appropriated by this Act or
any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses
of personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as
part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of
the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies that assumes revenues or
reflects a reduction from the previous year due to user fees
proposals that have not been enacted into law prior to the
submission of the Budget unless such Budget submission
identifies which additional spending reductions should occur
in the event the users fees proposals are not enacted prior
to the date of the convening of a committee of conference for
the fiscal year 2000 appropriations act.''

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that deals with what
is a perennial knotty problem for the members of this subcommittee. It
simply says that no funds may be used to prepare the budget for this
subcommittee that includes user fees unless those fees have been
previously authorized or under the budget identifies spending cuts or
revenue increases that should occur in case the fees are not adopted,
which they never are.
We invariably get these budgets. The President invariably sends a
budget over, and our subcommittee looks it over, and there is always a
bunch of user fees in there. This is about the eighth or ninth straight
year that user fees have been included, and the subcommittee never
agrees to them. The reason we don't is that the full committee and the
Senate would never agree to them either.
This amendment is designed to say in the future, don't send those
user fees

[[Page S8124]]

over here unless you are prepared to tell us, in case we don't adopt
the user fees, where you are going to find the spending cuts for it or
where you are going to find revenue increases. This is a 1-year
proposition. This provision will only apply to the budget year 1999. I
think this has been cleared on both sides.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join the distinguished
Senator from Arkansas in cosponsoring this amendment. He has identified
the problem. It really ought to be labeled the ``truth in budgeting
amendment,'' because it requires the administration now to acknowledge
when a proposal is made for user fees to be approved by Congress. In
the absence of such approval by the legislative committee, in the
legislative process a submission has to then show how much money should
be appropriated from the Treasury through the appropriations
process, not to continue to assume that there is this pot of money
there that has been generated by the enactment of user fees. I think
this will help everybody understand the process better. And we
certainly welcome this change in the law as proposed by the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas.

We know of no objection to the amendment on this side. We urge that
it be approved by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3142) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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. 3143

(Purpose: To establish a pilot program to permit certain owners and
operators to hay and graze on land that is subject to conservation
reserve contracts)

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of the minority leader, Mr. Daschle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] for Mr. Daschle,
proposes an amendment numbered 3143.

Mr. BUMPERS. 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, add the following:

SEC. 7____. PILOT PROGRAM TO PERMIT HAYING AND GRAZING ON
CONSERVATION RESERVE LAND.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible state.--The term ``eligible State'' means any
State that is approved by the Secretary for inclusion in the
pilot program under subsection (b), except that the term
shall not apply to more than 7 States.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(3) State technical committee.--The term ``State technical
committee'' means the State technical committee for a State
established under section 1261 of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3861).
(b) Pilot Program.--Notwithstanding section 1232(a)(7) of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3832(a)(7)), during
the 4-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act, on application by an owner or operator of a farm or
ranch located in an eligible State who has entered into a
contract with the Secretary under subchapter B of chapter 1
of subtitle D of title XII of that Act (16 U.S.C. 3831 et
seq.)--
(1) the Secretary shall permit harvesting and grazing on
land on the farm or ranch that the Secretary determines has a
sufficiently established cover to permit harvesting or
grazing without undue harm to the purposes of the contract
if--
(A) no land under the contract will be harvested or grazed
more than once in a 4-year period;
(B) the owner or operator agrees to a payment reduction
under that subchapter in an amount determined by the
Secretary; and
(C) the owner or operator agrees to such other terms and
conditions as the Secretary, in consultation with the State
technical committee for the State, may establish to ensure
that the harvesting or grazing is consistent with the
purposes of the program established under that subchapter;
(2) the Secretary may permit grazing on land under the
contract if--
(A) the grazing is incidental to the gleaning of crop
residues;
(B) the owner or operator agrees to a payment reduction in
annual rental payments that would otherwise be payable under
that subchapter in an amount determined by the Secretary; and
(C) the owner or operator agrees to such other terms and
conditions as the Secretary, in consultation with the State
technical committee for the State, may establish to ensure
that the grazing is consistent with the purposes of the
program established under that subchapter; and
(3) the Secretary shall permit harvesting on land on the
farm or ranch that the Secretary determines has a
sufficiently established cover to permit harvesting without
undue harm to the purposes of the contract if--
(A) land under the contract will be harvested not more than
once annually for recovery of biomass used in energy
production;
(B) the owner or operator agrees to a payment reduction
under that subchapter in an amount determined by the
Secretary; and
(C) the owner or operator agrees to such other terms and
conditions as the Secretary, in consultation with the State
technical committee for the State, may establish to ensure
that the harvesting is consistent with the purposes of the
program established under that subchapter.
(c) Relationship to Other Haying and Grazing Authority.--
During the 4-year period beginning on the date of enactment
of this Act, land that is located in an eligible State shall
not be eligible for harvesting or grazing under section
1232(a)(7) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3832(a)(7)).
(d) Conservation Practices and Timing Restrictions.--Not
later than March 1 of each year, the Secretary, in
consultation with the State technical committee for an
eligible State, shall determine any conservation practices
and timing restrictions that apply to land in the State that
is harvested or grazed under subsection (b).
(e) Study.--The Secretary shall make available not more
than $100,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
contract with the game, fish, and parks department of an
eligible State to conduct an analysis of the program
conducted under this section (based on information provided
by all eligible States).
(f) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue such
regulations as are necessary to implement this Act.
(2) Procedure.--The issuance of the regulations shall be
made without regard to--
(A) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(B) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; or
(C) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I think has a
lot of merit. It is a pilot program under which farmers who are
enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program can take a reduction in
the payments that they would otherwise receive under that program in
exchange for the right to bale hay and graze according to an agreement,
of course, that they would have to work out. But they would have a
right to forego certain payments in the Conservation Reserve Program in
exchange for the right to hay and graze on some of their CRP lands.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment on this
side of the aisle and find no objection to it. I urge it be approved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3143) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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. 3144

(Purpose: To prohibit the previous shipment of shell eggs under the
voluntary grading program of the Department of Agriculture and to
require the Secretary of Agriculture to submit a report on egg safety
and repackaging)

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senator Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for Mr. Durbin,
proposes an amendment numbered 3144.

Mr. BUMPERS. 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, add the following:

SEC. 7____. EGG GRADING AND SAFETY.

(a) Prohibition on Previous Shipment of Shell Eggs Under
Voluntary Grading

[[Page S8125]]

Program.--Section 203(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622(h)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Shell eggs packed under the voluntary grading
program of the Department of Agriculture shall not have been
shipped for sale previous to being packed under the program,
as determined under a regulation promulgated by the
Secretary.''.
(b) Report on Egg Safety and Repackaging.--Not later than
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, shall submit a joint status report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate that describes actions taken by the Secretary
of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services--
(1) to enhance the safety of shell eggs and egg products;
(2) to prohibit the grading, under the voluntary grading
program of the Department of Agriculture, of shell eggs
previously shipped for sale; and
(3) to assess the feasibility and desirability of applying
to all shell eggs the prohibition on repackaging to enhance
food safety, consumer information, and consumer awareness.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment codifies the Secretary of
Agriculture's prohibition on the repackaging of eggs packed under
USDA's voluntary grading program. This prohibition went into effect on
April 27. It directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and
Human Services to submit a joint report to the relevant congressional
committees on egg safety and repackaging.
The amendment has been cleared by USDA, by the Food and Drug
Administration, and the egg industry, and it is supported by consumer
groups.
The USDA recently reported, each year over 660,000 Americans get sick
from eating eggs contaminated with salmonella enterovirus. Illness from
this can be fatal to the elderly, children, and those with weakened
immune systems.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, this bacteria caused
more reported deaths between 1988 and 1992 than any other foodborne
pathogen. The estimated annual cost of illness from this particular
salmonella ranges from $118 million to $767 million each year,
according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
It sounds like a very good amendment to me.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it sounds like a good amendment to me,
too. We have checked on our side of the aisle. There is no objection to
the amendment. We urge it be approved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3144) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Amendment No. 3145

(Purpose: To provide funding for completion of construction of the
Alderson Plant Materials Center in Alderson, West Virginia)

Mr. BUMPERS. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of the Senator
from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for Mr. Byrd,
proposes an amendment numbered 3145.

Mr. BUMPERS. 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 31, line 8, after ``Provided,'' insert ``That, of
the total amount appropriated, $433,000 shall be used, along
with prior year appropriations provided for this project, to
complete construction of the Alderson Plant Materials Center,
Alderson, West Virginia: Provided, further,''.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that provides, from
available funds in the bill, $433,000 can be used to complete
construction of the Alderson Plant Materials Center in Alderson, WV.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3145) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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. BUMPERS. 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. 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, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment until the time scheduled for its vote, which I
believe is 5:15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It is 5:15. Is there
objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3146

(Purpose: To provide a safety net for farmers and consumers)

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

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself,
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Conrad, Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment
numbered 3146.

Mr. DASCHLE. 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, add the following:

SEC. 7. MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS.

(a) Marketing Assistance Loans.--
(1) Loan rates.--Notwithstanding section 132 of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7232), during
fiscal year 1999, loan rates for a loan commodity (as defined
in section 102 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 7202)) shall not be
subject to any dollar limitation on loan rates prescribed
under subsections (a)(1)(B), (b)(1)(B), (c)(2), (d)(2),
(f)(1)(B), or (f)(2)(B) of that section.
(2) Term of loan.--Notwithstanding section 133(c) of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7233), during
fiscal year 1999, the Secretary of Agriculture may extend the
term of a marketing assistance loan for any loan commodity
for a period not to exceed 6 months.
(b) Emergency Requirement.--
(1) Designation by congress.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
entire amount of funds necessary to carry out this section is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement under
section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902(e)).
(2) Budget request.--Funds shall be made available to carry
out this section only to the extent that an official budget
request that includes designation of the entire amount of the
request as an emergency requirement for the purposes of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2
U.S.C. 900 et seq.) is transmitted by the President to
Congress.
(c) Termination of Effectiveness.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the authority
provided by this section terminates effective October 1,
1999.
(2) Loan terms.--A marketing assistance loan made under
subtitle C of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7
U.S.C. 7231 et seq.) and subsection (a) shall be subject to
the terms and conditions of the loan during the 15-month
period beginning on October 1, 1998.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have discussed this matter procedurally
with our distinguished managers on both sides of the aisle and
appreciate very much their willingness to cooperate in terms of
expediting the consideration of these critical amendments.
The amendment that I have just submitted is one that Senator Harkin
and I and others discussed on the floor this morning.
The amendment builds upon what I hope will be a very significant vote
at 5:15 this afternoon. As we note, the first amendment hopefully
brings us together, Republicans and Democrats, in a way that allows us
to say: Yes, we understand there is a problem; yes, we have to respond.
Even though we may not yet have an agreement on how we might respond,
there should be a response.
That is, in essence, what we are saying with the passage of the
resolution

[[Page S8126]]

that we have just ordered a vote on. Now we go to the next phase: All
right, if we recognize there is a problem, then what we do we do about
it? As many of us noted this morning, we are offering a series of
proposals that we hope will allow us to respond in a meaningful way to
the situation that we find ourselves in in agriculture. A lot of people
already today have put excellent reports found in various publications
into the Record. The Chicago Tribune on June 21 of this year had a
report that I don't think is yet in the Record. The article is
headlined ``Harvest of despair.''
In the article, the very first statement says:

Falling prices, poor growing conditions, and government
deregulation are forcing thousands of family farmers to
abandon their way of life, perhaps the worst blow to the
rural Northern Plains since the bankruptcy crisis of the
middle 1980's.

Mr. President, I don't think there is an article that could say it
more succinctly than that. It goes on to explain the circumstances.
In 1996, for a bushel of wheat, farmers received $5.20 cents. In May
of 1998, they received $3.07--a $2.13 reduction in price on a bushel of
wheat in a 2-year period of time, a 40-percent-plus reduction in the
availability of price for farmers.
That is the problem. This precipitous drop in price is generating an
extraordinary crisis financially for family farmers and ranchers all
over America. It is not just wheat. I could give the same statistics
for corn. We could talk about livestock. We could talk about virtually
any commodity found in the northern Great Plains, or in the West today,
and you would see a situation that could be entitled ``Harvest of
Despair.''
So the question is, What do we do about it? I am one who believes in
the marketplace. But I also know that the market has many ways that
have been used, many tools that have been used, both public and
private, in an effort to soften these economic upturns and downturns.
We see it on Wall Street. We see it on Main Street primarily through
the Tax Code. We have seen it in agriculture for decades. We are not
suggesting in response to this crisis that we reopen the farm bill and,
in so doing, reopen the debate about all of the infrastructure that is
now in place dealing with the relationship that the people of the
United States have with farmers. We are not going to do that.
But what we are going to do is to suggest that there are some actions
that can be taken that would have profound benefits to farmers and to
ranchers to get through this crisis. And what we are suggesting is that
in many of those cases we put a time limit on it. We don't say for all
perpetuity now we are going to make these changes, because that would
be doing the very thing I said we weren't going to do. So the amendment
that I have laid down is a perfect illustration of just that.
The amendment says that the Government will take the average price
that we have seen for commodities over the last 5 years, drop the highs
and lows, and put in place a marketing loan at 85 percent of that price
that the farmers could avail themselves of, if they don't want to be
forced to sell their grain tomorrow.
Let's assume a farmer has a good crop. Let's assume that he is
suffering, with this remarkable chart showing that prices have gone
from $5.20 down to $3.07 in 2 years, and he doesn't want to settle for
$3.07. What does he do? He goes to the Department of Agriculture and
says, ``I heard about this marketing loan you all have. I would like to
take out a loan.'' For now it is 9 months. We are going to give them a
little more flexibility. We are going to say 15 months--1 year and 3
months--5 quarters--before he has to pay it back. He is going to say,
``I am going to take out that loan,'' betting their price is going to
turn around. So he does. The price goes up, he pays the loan, the
Government makes money, and the farmer stays in business.
Mr. President, that is what we are doing. That is what we are
suggesting here.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chicago Tribune
article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Chicago Tribune, June 21, 1998]

Harvest of Despair

(By Greg Burns)

Hillsboro, ND--Years of farming the rich black soil near
this town of 1,462 never quite prepared Scott Kraling for his
new occupation.
Instead of wearing his customary blue jeans and dusty cap,
he fidgets in the striped shirt and electric-blue shorts of a
uniform. Instead of a trusty pickup truck, he rolls past
wheat and sugarbeet fields in a yellow delivery van marked
Schwan's Delicious Ice Cream.
His farming days are over. ``I'm a Schwan's man now,'' the
38-year-old father of two said.
Kraling is among thousands of North Dakota farmers who have
quit over the last few years in what's being called a
``stealth'' farm crisis.
Unlike in the mid-1980s, bankers aren't forcing them out.
No one is making a major motion picture about their plight
and singer Willie Nelson isn't staging any benefits.
Kraling arranged the auction of his tractors and combines
himself last year because, truth be told, he was sick of
farming. ``You can't keep liking something that keeps going
against you,'' he said, taking a quick pull on a cigarette.
``I really don't think there's a future in it.''
Across the Northern Plains, low grain prices, poor growing
conditions and government deregulation are driving many
farmers off the land.
Remote prairie countries that once supported a dozen or
more independent dirt-scratchers now have just a few, as the
survivors take on more acreage to seek elusive economies of
scale.
In the last two years, 2,511 of North Dakota's farmers have
given up, leaving fewer than 30,000, the lowest number since
World War I, according to Richard Rathge, state demographer.
Another 1,807 are expected to quit by the end of this year, a
recent study indicates.
So far, the farm woes barely have dented the overall
prosperity of this premier wheat state No. 2 in production
behind Kansas. Ex-farmers such as Kraling are finding plenty
of jobs available in town.
A bigger blow is being dealt to the rural culture of the
Northern Plains, as a century-old pattern of life slips away.
``It affects all of us,'' said Margaret Bruce, pastoral
minister at St. John's Catholic Church in Grafton, ND.
``Grafton is a farming community. When you're looking at a
fourth- or fifth-generation farmer leaving the farm, that's
sad.''
Since May, Bruce's church has distributed thousands of
green ribbons to be worn in support of surviving farmers.
``This isn't just about dollars and cents,'' said Sen.
Byron Dorgan (D-ND). ``The country will lose something very
important. Family values roll from family farms to small
towns to big cities.''
Yet many folks in these parts have come to accept that
market forces will eliminate even more family farms. As in
other sectors of the economy, tradition has fallen by the
wayside as the nation embraces global commercial competition.
``Will there be fewer farmers? Yes,'' said North Dakota
Gov. Ed Schafer. ``It hurts. It changes the character of the
state. [But] it's a return-on-investment decision.''
In Washington, DC, momentum is building for some relief.
Still, a major bailout of producers is unlikely.
Since the 1996 Farm Bill, Uncle Sam has moved in the
opposite direction, lifting restrictions on farmers while
also reducing the safety net of government handouts. Dorgan,
for one, wants to restore part of that safety net, but even
he expects ``a struggle.''
Speaking to some 1,100 North Dakotans earlier this month,
Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman dangled only a few modest
initiatives--a crop-insurance break here, a credit relief
program there.
The ``demoralized'' air of the farmers in attendance
shocked him, Glickman said afterward. ``It is almost
frightening to see the faces,'' he said. ``The situation in
the Northern Plains is bleaker than I've seen in agriculture
in a long time.''
Farmer Mike Kozojed of Galesburg, N.D., came away from
Glickman's talk expecting little relief. ``There's no light
at the end of the tunnel,'' he said.
Last Thursday, Tim Eisenhardt of Grandin, N.D., joined the
ranks of ex-farmers, as auctioneer Scott Steffes went to work
selling his trucks, combines, sprayers, swathers, and grain
carts.
Under a cloudy sky, dozens of farmers from at least three
states stopped around the muddy barnyard hunting for
bargains, as Eisenhardt and his father, Fred, greeted
neighbors at the edge of the crowd. ``That's the way she
goes,'' Fred remarked as the auction proceeded.
Barnyard auctions are becoming everyday events in North
Dakota. Steffes had 11 scheduled for last week, nine for the
coming week. ``We're having sales for farmers who are
discouraged and don't feel there's any opportunity,'' Steffes
said. ``Pretty soon, we're going to run out of people to sell
for.''
Nature is responsible for much of the hardship.
Years of poor weather and plant disease have made
conditions tough even in the rich Red River Valley along the
eastern edge of the state. The arid boondocks to the west,
with thin soil suitable for only a few crops, has had it even
tougher.
``If it's bad in the Red River Valley, it's bad
everywhere,'' said commodity analyst

[[Page S8127]]

Bill Biedermann of Allendale Inc. in McHenry, Ill.
Because of its short growing season and reliance on the
single crop of wheat, this region has leaned heavily on
government programs now being phased out. Under the 1996
legislation, farmers no longer will receive ``deficiency''
payments if prices fall below target levels, or automatic
disaster aid-if crops fail.
The supposed benefit of the Farm Bill--the freedom to plant
any crop the farmer sees fit--is a bigger boon in areas where
a greater variety of crops will grow.
The legislation came about as soaring exports to the
booming economies of Asia pushed prices higher. These days,
Asia's demand for U.S. agricultural products has fallen along
with its nations' currencies.
In addition, foreign competitors, inspired by the higher
prices, brought more land into intensive production. Bumper
crops around the world have pushed wheat prices down nearly
20 percent in a year.
A healthy national economy has cushioned the trouble's
financial impact across the Northern Plains, but many
business leaders worry about the future.
``It has an effect on all Main Street businesses,'' said
Jim Williams, general manager of a farm-implement dealer in
Arthur, N.D.
Sales at his 108-year-old Arthur Mercantile Co. have
declined as much as 20 percent annually for two years
running, and he expects the pinch to spread beyond the grain
elevators, fuel stations and others who deal directly with
farmers, he said. ``It's kind of grim.
Lenders, too, are concerned. On the plus side, most farmers
quitting these days have positive net worths, and those
remaining borrow more money because they have bigger farms,
explained Ken Knudsen, chief credit officer at Fargo's Farm
Credit Services. Yet lending in small towns has become
riskier as populations dwindle below sustainable levels.
``When they leave the farm, they move to Fargo or Bismarck
or Grand Forks or Minot, not the town of 400,'' Knudsen said.
In fact, North Dakota's 17 towns with populations of at
least 2,500 now account for 56 percent of the population, up
from just 27 percent in 1950, according to demographer
Rathge. Meantime, 99 of the state's 100 smallest towns have
lost population in the 1990s. And the number of youths under
18 living on farms has plunged by 5,000, to 12,000, since
1990.
Some of the most progressive farmers are feeling intense
pressure too. Many rely on side businesses to boost their
incomes, even as they're taking on more acreage.
Dakota Growers Pasta Co., a co-op that makes private-label
pasta for supermarkets and food-service firms, has thrived as
farmers have sought to diversify. For every share they
purchase in the venture, farmers can sell the co-op one
bushel of wheat and receive a dividend based on the company's
profit.
Similar ventures are springing up all over, said Tim Dodd,
company president. ``There's been co-op fever in North
Dakota.''
All the same, surviving farmers such as Kozojed, a
mustachioed 41-year-old who farms 3,000 acres, predict the
business will only get tougher. ``Three years from now, we'll
probably be farming 5,000 acres if we're still doing it.'' he
said, digging into a plate of steak and eggs at the Country
Hearth Family Restaurant.
But isn't farming always cyclical? Wouldn't one good year
make a big difference? Kozojed stabs his toast into an egg
yolk and grins. ``I'd sure like to find out.''

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on an emergency basis we give the
President the opportunity to deal directly with the crisis that we are
facing right now in farm after farm, in rural community after rural
community. It only goes into effect in case of an economic crisis. It
gives the President the discretion to control the extreme and
persistent income losses by lifting the loan caps and extending their
terms this year only. This authority expires this time next year.
Regardless of how my colleagues feel on lifting the caps, this
measure would probably do more than any other I can think of in
providing immediate help--immediate relief--to farmers who are the
victims of the ``Harvest of despair''.
I know a lot of my colleagues have said, ``Look, we don't want to get
back into that. We have had those battles.'' I understand that. But I
also understand, Mr. President, that we have very few options. And
almost categorically when we talk to farmer organizations, and farmers
themselves, they say, ``We have to have some other option than to force
our grain on the market when it is this low. Give us an opportunity for
some breathing space. Give us some room.'' So that is what we are
doing.
Wheat loan rates would increase 64 cents a bushel--from $2.58 to
$3.22. Corn loan rates would increase 36 cents a bushel--from $1.89 to
$2.25. Soybean rates would increase 7 cents a bushel--from $5.26 to
$5.33.
Keep in mind that we are talking about the 85 percent average over
the last 5 years.
They have flexibility. They have a little more certainty about what
they are going to get for their crop going into the market this fall.
Mr. President, that is as good as we think we can do under these
circumstances.
Would I like to see a higher loan rate? Absolutely. Would I like to
see even more substantive ways in which to ensure a better price?
Absolutely. But after very careful consideration, we said, ``Look,
let's do something that is reasonable. Let's do something that we
believe the administration and most Members of Congress would recognize
to be prudent and responsive to the problems we are facing in
agriculture today.''
I know that we are scheduled to vote at 5:15. I know the
distinguished Senator from Iowa wanted to address this matter as well
prior to the vote.
Just as soon as he appears in the Chamber, I will yield. I would like
to yield the remainder of that time to the distinguished Senator from
Iowa.
Mr. President, the ``harvest of despair'' needs to be addressed. All
we are asking is an opportunity to address it in a way that is very
prudent budgetarily, that very carefully addresses the emergency nature
of the situation farmers are facing today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first I thank our leader, Senator Daschle,
for really taking the bit here and moving ahead aggressively to answer
a real concern and a real need that we have in rural America. Well, I
would go beyond that--a crisis in rural America. Senator Daschle has
always been the leader in recognizing and understanding what is
happening in our farm economy. This time is no exception, so I thank
Senator Daschle personally for his leadership in this effort.
I thank the managers of the bill, both Senator Cochran and Senator
Bumpers, for working with us on the language. I understand that we have
the language worked out in an agreed form on the sense-of-the-Senate
resolution. I am happy that we can come to a good resolution on that,
and I guess that is what we will be voting on here at 5:15. I hope it
gets an overwhelming vote because it will send a strong signal, I
think, to rural America that we do, indeed, recognize there is a
crisis, a crisis of immense proportions, as it does say the total farm
debt for 1998 is expected to reach $172 billion, the highest level
since 1985.
And so the sense of the Senate is just that. We recognize there is
the problem. Now, the amendment that Senator Daschle has just laid down
then takes that recognition of the problem and begins to do something
about it. By taking the caps off the loan rate and by extending for 6
months the period of the loan, it will at least give our farmers a
little bit more, a little bit more in what they can get for their crop
this fall, and then give them the ability to market it in a more
orderly fashion over the next 15 months.
I have to say at the outset that this amendment is a modest
amendment, I mean a very modest amendment. I know that many farmers and
others in rural America will look at this and say, gee, this is not
nearly enough. This doesn't come anywhere near the cost of production;
it doesn't come anywhere near what I need. Well, I recognize that. It
should be more. I think I heard Senator Daschle say that, too. But we
have to face the reality of the situation.
I am just hopeful that this very modest amendment to raise the loan
rate and put it back where it was under the 1990 farm bill will get
overwhelming support. If we cannot even do this, if we cannot even give
our farming sector this much support in an emergency situation, well,
then I guess what we are going to do is say, well, we recognize there
is a problem out there, but we are not going to do anything about it.
We are just going to leave you farmers out there to take the brunt of
El Nino and take the brunt of floods and take the brunt of low prices
and take the brunt of the Southeast Asian economic collapse and this
Government, this representative Government of yours cannot do anything
about it.
I hope we do not say that. I hope we say two things: I hope we say,
yes,

[[Page S8128]]

there is a crisis out there. And then I hope we follow it up by saying,
yes, we are going to do something about it. We are going to lift the
caps on the loan rate and at least give a few pennies--a few, a little
bit--to farmers to hopefully get them through the crisis they are
facing this fall. And again, Mr. President, it is a crisis. It is a
problem of having the safety net there.
I am hopeful we can repair that safety net with just a few modest
proposals we have.
I understand the vote is set at 5:15. Is that the idea?
Mr. COCHRAN. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3127, as modified

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am delighted we were able to work out a
modification to the Daschle amendment. It is the pending business. I
urge all Republicans to vote for the sense-of-the-Senate resolution
indicating that there are problems in agriculture; they need the
immediate attention of the President and the Congress.
Mr. BUMPERS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3127 offered by the Democratic leader, Mr. Daschle. 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 Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]

YEAS--99

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

NOT VOTING--1

Glenn

The amendment (No. 3127), as modified, 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.
Mr. ROBERTS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the Senator consider withholding
that so we can offer and agree to a noncontroversial amendment?
Mr. ROBERTS. I would be delighted to.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator.

Amendment No. 3147

(Purpose: To clarify the eligibility of State agricultural experiment
stations for certain agricultural research programs)

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of the Senators from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Dodd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for Mr. Lieberman,
for himself and Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered
3147.

Mr. BUMPERS. 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, add the following:

SEC. . ELIGIBILITY OF STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT
STATIONS FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
PROGRAMS.

(a) Fund for Rural America.--Section 793(c)(2)(B) of the
Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 2204f(c)(2)(B)) is amended--
(1) in clause (iii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) a State agricultural experiment station.''.
(b) Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.--
Section 401(d) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7621(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) a State agricultural experiment station.''.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am privileged to join today with my
senior colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, to offer an amendment
to the fiscal year 1999 agriculture spending bill to correct an
oversight which threatens the ability of the Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station to continue its important research activities.
The Station has a long and proud history. It happens to be the first
state agricultural experiment station in the country, dating from 1875,
and also happens to be the only state agricultural experiment station
not affiliated with a university. Consequently, it is not eligible to
apply for competitive grant funds from the Fund for Rural America or
from the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. The
amendment we offer today makes a minor technical correction to allow
the Station to compete for these grants just like every other
experiment station across the country. We're not asking for any special
consideration here. All we are asking for is an opportunity to compete.
The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station conducts research on
plant pathology, horticulture, biochemistry, genetics, as well as many
other science-based research projects. It also researches important
public health issues, as well, such as Lyme Disease, which is a
particular problem in our region, and now, nationwide. This important
research should continue, and that is why we have brought this issue to
the attention of the Senate today. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague from
Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, to do something here in the Senate that
will help the farmers back in our State.
As the Senate began debating the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for
FY1999, it came to our attention that the Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station was not eligible for certain federal grants under
the 1996 Farm Bill and the Agricultural Research, Extension and
Education Reform Act of 1998.
The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station was established in
1875 as the first agricultural experiment station in the country. The
station's mission is to put science to work for farmers and society.
The work of this agriculture experiment station includes research
projects on such issues as plant diseases, plant breeding, soil
problems, and insects.
The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station is the only state
based station not affiliated with a land grant university in the
nation. Unfortunately, the way the legislative language is written,
this station would be excluded from grants available to every other
agricultural experiment station in the country. Therefore, I joined
with Senator Lieberman today to offer a technical correction amendment
that would remedy this situation.

[[Page S8129]]

This amendment will allow the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station to be eligible for these competitive federal grants. Allowing
this station to apply for grants will help our farmers, our citizens
and our students who have questions or concerns about such topics as
plants, insects, soil and water.
I thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural
Development of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran and the
ranking member Senator Bumpers for their help with this amendment.
I hope that this amendment will be approved by the Senate.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station is the oldest experiment station in America. It has never been
a part of the land grant college, and under the research bill that we
just passed not too long ago, there was a provision that you had to be
a land grant college in order to be qualified for these.
As I say, the experiment station in Connecticut has always received
these funds. But because of that, nobody was thinking about that
experiment station at the time. This bill corrects what really was an
omission.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this
side of the aisle.
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank both the manager and the ranking
member for their support. Senator Lieberman and I are very grateful.
This was really a technical amendment to correct this situation, and it
allows us to continue to qualify, as the Senator said.
We appreciate their support very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3147) 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. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3146

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m.
on Wednesday, July 15, the Senate resume consideration of the Daschle
amendment numbered 3146 regarding marketing assistance loans. I further
ask that there be 3 hours for debate equally divided on the amendment
and that, at the conclusion or yielding back of the time, Senator
Cochran be recognized to move to table the Daschle amendment. I further
ask that no second-degree amendment be in order prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________