[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.

                          ____________________