[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 95 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8287-S8293]
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. DORGAN. Mr. President, in a few minutes Senator Conrad from North 
Dakota will send an amendment to the desk on behalf of himself and 
myself and some others that will deal with an indemnity program, an 
amendment that I think he has already described to Members of the 
Senate. I think this is one of the most important amendments we will 
vote on on this bill while it is on the Senate floor.
  I want to just describe again, as I think my colleague has and I have 
on other occasions, what causes us to feel the need and the urgency to 
respond to an agricultural crisis. The agricultural crisis is occurring 
in a number of States in our country in a way that is causing family 
farmers to lose their farms, to have the auction sales, to sell out and 
lose their hopes and dreams. We feel that because of collapsed prices 
and rampant crop disease, and other things which are not the farmers' 
fault, that we ought to do something to extend a helping hand and say 
to them that we want to help them over this tough period.
  I would like to show my colleagues a map that describes the problems 
we have had in North Dakota for family farmers. The red represents 
counties that have been declared disaster areas every year for 5 
straight years. All of these counties have been declared disasters 
every year for 5 years in a row. That means if you are farming here, or 
here, any one of these areas, you have been out there farming in an 
environment and in a climate in which there is, in most cases, a 
devastating wet cycle with you being prevented from planting because 
the fields are full of standing water that has not left and has not 
absorbed, and if you did get a crop in, you have had it devastated by 
the worst crop disease in this century in North Dakota.
  The orange have been declared disaster areas for 4 years out of 5 
years, and the yellow, 3 years out of 5 years,. The farmers in these 
areas have confronted a disease called scab. This picture doesn't mean 
much to a lot of folks. But it is the picture of a field of hard red 
spring wheat infested with scab disease. It is called fusarium head 
blight. But it is a devastating disease that decimates the quality of 
this crop, so that when and if the farmer gets a crop and hauls it to 
market, the farmer discovers it is worth very, very little.
  The cereal scientist, Bryan Steffeson, said, ``I have never faced 
anything as tough as fusarium head blight. Make no mistake about it. 
This is the worst plant disease epidemic that the United States has 
faced with any major crop during this century.''
  This is very unusual and devastating to the pocketbooks of family 
farmers.
  With respect to wheat, I just described the previous chart; with 
respect to barley, the same plant scientist says, ``North Dakota's 
barley industry is hanging by a thread, even though it is typically the 
leader in feed malting barley products.''
  As a result of crop disease and collapsed market prices, our farmers' 
incomes in North Dakota dropped 98 percent in 1 year--a devastating 
drop in income. And I think almost anyone can imagine if, in their 
neighborhood, or on their block, or among their friends, they had a 98-
percent drop in income, they would understand this is very, very 
difficult to live through. A lot of family farmers aren't able to 
survive it. The result is they are forced off the farm and forced to 
sell out.
  This was in the New York Times accompanying a story on July 12. 
``Across the northern tier, farmers' income drops.'' And it says we 
have a problem with farm income dropping in Montana, North Dakota, 
South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. The point 
of that is that this is a pervasive, difficult problem that requires an 
urgent response.
  The Fargo Forum in an editorial yesterday indicates that, ``The 
crisis in farming is for real. The social and economic damage piling up 
in farm country cannot be minimized. Politicians who believe the 
revolutionary Freedom to Farm law is working should spend some time in 
rural America, especially in the upper Midwest.''
  This is a paper, incidentally, that has editorialized in favor of the 
Freedom to Farm bill. They say that it needs some adjustments and 
changes. You can't ignore that.
  They say at the end of this editorial, ``The least Congress can do 
now, while in the longer term enlighten lawmakers to revisit and revise 
the Freedom to Farm, is to try to pass some type of supplemental 
legislation that would respond to urgent needs for some payments in 
farm country.''
  A number of us, led by Senator Conrad, and joined by myself and 
others, have worked on a program that would provide the opportunity for 
some indemnity payments, which is just another way of saying those 
farmers who have had their income washed away would be given some 
short-term interim help with the passage of this amendment. The 
amendment would provide up to $500 million for the Indemnity Payment 
Program.

[[Page S8288]]

  It is supported by President Clinton. We were meeting at the White 
House yesterday with President Clinton. My colleague, Senator Conrad, 
myself, and a number of others from farm country, received a letter 
from President Clinton that describes in writing what he told us 
personally yesterday during the meeting--that he supports the amendment 
we are offering now, and it is part of a three-pronged approach that he 
himself espouses: No. 1, a supplemental benefit program of the type we 
have described, an indemnification program; No. 2, compensation for 
farmers who have flooded lands; and, No. 3, extended authority for 
emergency livestock needs.
  Mr. President, I mentioned earlier--I want to say again--that this is 
not a political or a partisan issue. Out in the country they don't 
drive Democratic or Republican trucks. They don't pull Democratic or 
Republican plows. They are only family farmers trying to make a living 
in a very difficult set of circumstances. They are some of the hardest 
working Americans. They get up early, work hard all day, and go to bed 
late. They risk everything they have. Everything they have is on the 
line--all of their hopes, all of their dreams--and all of their savings 
are invested in a crop that might or might not grow. If it is grows, it 
might or might not yield them an income that allows them to repay the 
expenses they incurred to put in the crop.
  That is the nature of family farming. I think family farmers have 
always understood that risk and always accepted that risk. But they 
have always hoped. And they have sometimes been the recipients as a 
result of that hope that when times are tough, when the bottom falls 
out, when prices collapse, when they are hit with devastating crop 
disease, that somehow there would be a basic safety net to try to be 
helpful to them to allow them to get over those price valleys; some 
kind of a bridge to allow them to cross that difficult period.
  If you are a very, very large corporation, you can cross that price 
valley. Things get tough, you can tighten your belt, and you can 
survive. But the thin financial nature of a family farm often cannot 
cross that price valley. When prices collapse, or disease conspires, 
then there must be some kind of a bridge, some kind of mechanism of 
support that says, ``Let us step in and help.''
  That is what the amendment offered by Senator Conrad, myself, and 
others will do. It simply says, ``Let us step in and provide some help 
to respond to a growing and urgent farm crisis.''
  Mr. President, with this, I would yield the floor. I believe we are 
close to having the amendment in order to send to the desk. When we do, 
I believe that Senator Conrad, a couple of others, and I will make 
brief additional comments. We would hope very much that our colleagues 
will respond favorably to this.
  We think it is thoughtful. It is supported by the President and it is 
supported by the Secretary of Agriculture. Editorially it is supported 
by newspapers that support the Freedom to Farm bill, because the 
editorials, others, and family farmers recognize this need is urgent 
and the response to it cannot be delayed.
  Let me commend my colleague, Senator Conrad, with whom I am 
privileged to work. We work on a lot of issues together but none more 
important than the issue of trying to respond to and to help family 
farmers survive during times of crisis and times of urgent need. His 
leadership and efforts on this legislation are significant.
  I am pleased to be a part of the effort today to offer this 
amendment, and I hope for the favorable consideration of our 
colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 3173

  (Purpose: To provide funds for and improve the reserve inventories 
                                program)

  Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, who has been with 
us every step of the way in developing this amendment, in offering it 
to our colleagues and persuading others to support it, and in 
convincing the White House that this is an emergency matter.
  I am very pleased with the outcome of the meeting we had yesterday. I 
think there is a real sense of urgency not only by the President but by 
the Secretary of Agriculture and others in the administration who 
recognize that in many parts of the country we are simply faced with a 
collapse of income as a result of badly depressed prices, and in 
addition, a loss of production because of natural disasters that have 
taken many forms in many places--as I described earlier, monsoon 
conditions in North Dakota and Minnesota and parts of South Dakota, 
but, on the other hand, terrible drought in Oklahoma and Texas; and 
then perversely in the eastern part of the United States, hurricane 
activity that has had a devastating effect on North Carolina and 
Virginia. And I was just talking to a Senator from Pennsylvania; they 
have also been hard hit. So this amendment would move to provide 
resources to provide assistance to those areas.
  Now, some may say, gee, I thought we put crop insurance in place so 
we didn't have to have this kind of program. And that is precisely 
right. Unfortunately, what we have discovered is the Crop Insurance 
Program we put in place does not work when you have multiple years of 
disaster. And the reason for that is the formula. The formula in crop 
insurance looks at your last 5 years of production. If you have had 3 
to 5 years of disasters, whether it is drought, whether it is overly 
wet conditions, whether it is a terrible disease outbreak as we faced 
in North Dakota, or hurricanes as they have faced in the East, your 
base for crop insurance is so badly depressed it does not provide the 
risk management tool that all of us intended.
  I was just talking to the Senator from Idaho, who is one of the most 
knowledgeable members of the Agriculture Committee with respect to this 
matter, and he was saying what we see is that when the base goes down, 
crop insurance cannot provide the coverage we all intended.
  We are not going to get crop insurance reform this year, as much as 
many of us would like to do; that simply takes a longer effort. And so, 
Mr. President, until crop insurance gets fixed, something has to be 
there to allow farmers to survive. If we do not, we are going to have a 
calamity of staggering proportions.
  USDA tells us in North Dakota that we are going to face potentially 
the loss of 30 percent of our farmers in 2 years--30 percent. That is a 
disaster by any description.
  So what we have tried to do is work in a way that is not subject to a 
budget point of order, that does provide assistance to these farmers 
all across the country.
  We have now received a letter from the Executive Office of the 
President, the Office of Management and Budget, which indicates that 
this amendment would not be subject to a point of order, that this 
would qualify for an emergency designation, and the President supports 
an emergency designation for this legislation. We will submit that for 
the Record when we have a chance to actually submit the language. It is 
being typed now.
  We have it. The final provision is here. We will send that to the 
desk. We need to get copies distributed to our colleagues.
  The Budget Committee of the Senate has informed us this would not be 
subject to a budget point of order.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record the 
letter from the Office of Management and Budget, the Executive Office 
of the President, indicating that they, too, agree that this qualifies 
for an emergency designation and would not be subject to a budget point 
of order.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 1998.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: This responds to your request for the 
     views of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on whether 
     your proposed amendment relating to farm payments under 7 
     U.S.C. 1427a qualifies for the emergency adjustment under the 
     Budget Enforcement Act (BEA).
       Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the BEA provides that an adjustment 
     in the discretionary spending limits shall be made for 
     appropriations designated as an emergency by Congress and the 
     President. That section also

[[Page S8289]]

     states that the designation is not available for 
     ``appropriations to cover agricultural crop disaster 
     assistance.''
       We have examined your proposed amendment, and we are of the 
     view that it qualifies as emergency relief under Section 
     251(b)(2)(A) and is not an appropriation to cover 
     agricultural crop disaster assistance. Your amendment would 
     provide funding for the reserve program established under 7 
     U.S.C. 1427a. That program is designed to establish a reserve 
     of certain crops through the price support program. The 
     purpose of purchasing the commodities is to hold a reserve 
     that then may be disposed of to relieve distress at a later 
     time. The purpose of the program is to establish a reserve of 
     crops for future use, not to make assistance available to the 
     producers from whom the crops are purchased. Thus, it is 
     OMB's view that the funding does not provide ``crop disaster 
     assistance'' within the meaning of Section 251(b)(2)(A), and 
     the adjustment provided by that section for emergencies may 
     thus be applied to the funding in your amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert G. Damus,
                                                  General Counsel.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are ready for any additional debate, 
and we are ready to move, after people have had a chance to speak, to a 
vote at a time that the chairman of the committee thinks is 
appropriate.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think we are at a point now where we 
can ask the question, What is the will of the Senate? Because that is 
the question. We have an amendment here that proposes a new program of 
spending based on an emergency of about one-half billion dollars. I 
think that is the number. Five-hundred million is the total projected 
cost of the bill, but it is based on an emergency that is declared in 
this legislation to exist in agriculture. We understand the President 
has agreed that there is an emergency, not specifically that this 
amendment describes that emergency, but that a response should be made 
by the Government to deal with this problem.
  Now, I know that there are Senators who are wondering, well, what are 
the criteria? How are farmers going to be declared eligible to 
participate in payments under this program? There are questions that 
are very legitimate and, frankly, this legislation does not tell us 
much about that. It is leaving a lot of discretion in the hands of the 
Secretary of Agriculture. That is very clear. And this amendment could 
be subject to the criticism that it is too much, there is too much 
discretion. I am confident the department would have to issue 
regulations and describe some program payment benefit scheme that 
farmers would have to be governed by in terms of applications and 
eligibility.
  So there are some legitimate questions that can be asked. I am 
willing to listen to the advice of other Senators and be governed by 
the will of the Senate on this issue. I do not want to reject this out 
of hand and say that it is not a good amendment. I think it is based on 
a legitimate interest in helping deal with very real problems that 
exist in certain parts of the country, primarily in North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Minnesota, where half the payments are projected to occur under 
the amendment, but there are other States as well. We know that Texas, 
Oklahoma, and Colorado would be eligible. We know that southern-tier 
States, parts of States in the Southeast, North Carolina, in addition 
to South Carolina; there are some parts of my State, I am told, that 
would benefit from the legislation.
  So it is time now in the consideration of this amendment for Senators 
to take a look at the proposal and come to some consensus on what to do 
about this. We can accept the amendment on a voice vote, the managers 
could accept the amendment, if that is the will of the Senate, or if 
some Senators want to have a record vote on the amendment, we could do 
that. I had been told earlier that this amendment would probably be 
subject to a budget point of order in that it would violate the Budget 
Act. But because of changes the drafters, the authors of the amendment 
have made within the language, I am advised that the Budget Committee 
staff director has told us there is no violation of the Budget Act. 
That could be confirmed by a statement from the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, and I would like for him to tell us that formally before we 
make a decision on whether a point of order would be made on the basis 
of the Budget Act.
  Those are my reactions to the proposal, and I will await other 
Senators coming to the floor to let us have some suggestions and 
guidance about how to proceed at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi, the 
chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, for the 
gracious way he has allowed us to work through this. He has been very 
patient, and we thank him very much for his patience. We also thank him 
very much for his open-mindedness. I think he does recognize there are 
real problems around the country. Unfortunately, we do not have the 
perfect tools to deal with them. The Senator from Mississippi raises 
questions that are absolutely legitimate questions: What kind of system 
would be used to use these funds?
  This is not a new program in the sense that this is replenishing a 
program and an authority that the Secretary has had. This is a program 
that the Secretary has utilized. And those funds are now depleted.

  The way it was done in the past was to use actual commodities, but 
one thing we have learned is, it is really much more efficient to use 
money in that fund rather than commodities, because when we use 
commodities, we find that about 25 percent of what is used is used up 
in distribution costs, in handling charges, and the rest. So USDA, in 
examining this, has said it would be much more taxpayer friendly, 
really, to have money in this fund that is now depleted rather than to 
have commodities.
  We are using the same model we used for the Livestock Indemnity 
Program last year; that is, to give the Secretary broad discretion, 
because when you sit down and try to write the specifics here on the 
floor with this relatively short period of time, we have discovered 
there are a series of problems. One of them is, we would probably 
become subject to a budget point of order. So we find doing it this 
way, with the general authority of the Secretary that he already has, 
which is recognized, but we restore the fund, we replenish the fund 
that has been depleted so the Secretary has the ability to respond to 
these various circumstances around the country.
  It is not one set of events that is affecting us. We have one set of 
events in North Dakota and Minnesota and South Dakota, and the Senator 
is exactly right, we would get a significant portion of this. But other 
parts of the country as well--in Texas and Oklahoma it is a drought; in 
North Carolina, where they have been so badly hit, and Virginia, it is 
hurricanes. In Pennsylvania, the Senator from Pennsylvania tells us, it 
is a combination of factors. In Idaho, it is much the same thing that 
has been happening in these northern-tier States; they have, in many 
cases, overly wet conditions.
  But combining it all, we have a natural disaster and we have price 
collapse. What is happening is, we are left with dramatically reduced 
farm income that is forcing people off the land. The question is, Do we 
act? Do we do something? Do we provide the tools to respond? I think 
the will of the Senate will be, as it has been in the past: Yes, we 
should respond. We have a chance to do that.
  I also will indicate, in the amendment I sent to the desk, the 
original cosponsors are Senator Dorgan and Senator Cleland. I welcome 
other Senators. I am very hopeful this is a bipartisan enterprise. I 
have been talking to Republican Senators over the last several weeks 
about this matter, and I very much hope they join in and we make this a 
fully bipartisan effort. They certainly have contributed thoughts to 
what we could do here.
  So I hope, before we reach conclusion here, we have a healthy number 
of Senators on both sides of the aisle who cosponsor this legislation, 
that we join together and say, ``Yes, there are problems out there. 
Let's address them. Let's provide some assistance.''
  This does not mean we are voting on overturning agricultural policy. 
We have differences there. We recognize those differences. This is one 
case where we are rising above those differences to march together and 
try to help those who clearly are in need.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S8290]]


       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself, 
     Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Cleland, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3173.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 29, after line 21, add the following:

                          Reserve Inventories

       For the reserve established under section 813 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1970 (7 U.S.C. 1427a), $500,000,000: 
     Provided, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent that the President submits to Congress an official 
     budget request for a specific dollar amount 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.): Provided further, That the entire amount of funds 
     necessary to carry out this paragraph is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement under section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
       On page 67, after line 23, add the following:

     SEC. 7____. RESERVE INVENTORIES.

       Section 813 of the Agricultural Act of 1970 (7 U.S.C. 
     1427a) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by inserting 
     ``of agricultural producers'' after ``distress'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``the Secretary or'' 
     after ``President or''; and
       (3) in subsection (h)--
       (A) by striking ``(h) There is hereby'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Use of funds for cash payments.--The Secretary may 
     use funds made available under this section to make, in a 
     manner consistent with this section, cash payments that don't 
     go for crop disasters, but for income loss to carry out the 
     purposes of this section.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Let me make two points that I think 
Senator Conrad and I and others would want to make. One responds a bit 
to some comments made earlier.
  The potential benefits of this amendment would be available to people 
in a range of areas of the country who have suffered, in one form or 
another, substantial income loss and are going through an agricultural 
crisis. That includes Texas, South Carolina--a whole range of areas of 
the country. But I want to make it clear, this is not simply an 
amendment that would target one or two or three States. Farmers in many 
other parts of the country who face similar circumstances and a similar 
crisis would be eligible.
  Second, and I think most important, while there has been a lot of 
discussion on the floor of the Senate about agricultural policy, I 
think it is important to make clear, this amendment is not a substitute 
for or a denial of the interest many of us have in some of the 
arguments that have been offered and proposed in recent days by others 
on the floor about the increased need for additional effort in trade. 
Some of our colleagues have stood on the floor and talked about the 
need for moving American grain overseas, for additional efforts in 
trade, additional use of the Export Enhancement Program, and other 
things. I support all of that.
  I think we ought to be more aggressive with respect to Food for 
Peace. I have mentioned that there are people starving around the 
world: A million people to a million and a quarter people face 
starvation in Sudan today. We can and should, in my judgment, with the 
quantity of grain we have, substantially increase shipments under title 
II and title III of Food for Peace.
  We can and should be more aggressive with the use of the Export 
Enhancement Program. We can and should be more aggressive with a range 
of other programs. The Secretary of Agriculture, I would say, has been 
very aggressive with the GSM program and others. But I would like our 
country to meet competition anywhere around the Earth. If the European 
Union wishes to deeply subsidize its grain and attempt to take markets 
away from this country, we ought to go to those markets and meet them 
and compete and win that competition. If that requires export subsidies 
to meet what the Europeans are doing, then so be it; that is precisely 
what we should do.
  So, those who insist on a much more aggressive approach in 
international trade will find no quarrel with me. I believe we should 
have a more aggressive posture with respect to trade issues. That is 
one, but only one, of the issues we need to address.
  Another of the issues we need to address is the issue of emergency 
response in times of crisis to farmers, particularly in some areas of 
the country that have seen almost a total collapse of their income. 
That is the purpose of the amendment we have sent to the desk.
  I, too, listened carefully to the Senator from Mississippi. I think 
he is an awfully good legislator. He is certainly fair. I hope we can 
achieve some bipartisan support here in this Chamber on this kind of 
legislation. I don't think there is any pride of authorship here 
either. My expectation is that in the coming period we will be able to 
discuss some of the specifics of this legislation and perhaps reach a 
conclusion on it.
  With that, I know my colleague from Montana is here, although he 
apparently is not going to speak at this point. Let me yield the floor 
to the Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, last night, after we had our last 
recorded vote, there were two amendments which we discussed and 
recommended to the Senate that we accept and they were accepted, one of 
which was offered by the Senators from Florida. Senator Graham offered 
an amendment, it was cosponsored by Senator Mack, and it dealt with 
disaster problems that exist in Florida because of the recent wildfires 
that we are all familiar with because we saw these vividly photographed 
on television. For days and days, fires raged throughout the State of 
Florida. As a result of that, the Senators are asking that emergency 
funds be made available to compensate victims of that disaster who were 
involved in agriculture. I invite the attention of the Senators to the 
record of the discussion of that issue last night.
  The proposal was to make available funds from the account that has 
been described by the Senators from North Dakota. There is no 
indication right now, from the Department of Agriculture, whether or 
not the disaster fund that is discretionary with the Secretary has been 
depleted to the extent that replenishment is necessary in order to 
compensate the victims in Florida. What I said during the discussion of 
the amendment involved an assurance that we would receive from the 
Department of Agriculture and the President a supplemental request for 
funds to replenish that discretionary disaster fund of the Secretary's, 
so that appropriate disaster relief could be made available to 
agriculture producers and others who are eligible for those funds. That 
satisfied the Senators from Florida, and, on that basis, the amendment 
was accepted by the Senate.
  I am prepared to make the same suggestion to the Senate on this 
amendment. There is no question that there are differences, however--
one of which is that farm producers would have to show that, out of 3 
of the last 5 years, there had been declarations declaring disasters, 
either by the Secretary of Agriculture or the President, in the areas 
where eligibility would be considered to have been established.
  At least that is what I understand the amendment provides.
  The point is this: The year is not over. This fiscal year that we are 
appropriating money for right now begins on October 1. We don't know 
what the full needs for agriculture producers around the country will 
be by the time we get to the beginning of the fiscal year.
  I am suggesting that it may be appropriate to take this proposal to 
conference with the House and await the receipt from the President or 
the Secretary of Agriculture of specific requests for supplemental 
funds beyond that requested in the budget that has already been 
submitted by the administration for next year that they foresee will be 
needed to replenish the Disaster Assistance Discretionary Fund of the 
Secretary to compensate disaster victims for their losses.
  There are other programs available to provide benefits, Senators 
realize. There are crop insurance programs, there are other assistance 
programs that are authorized in the 1996 farm bill.
  As I understand it, this does not create a new disaster assistance 
program,

[[Page S8291]]

and because it doesn't, it is not subject to a budget point of order.
  I am mentioning that idea that I have as an alternative way of 
considering this and would like to have the benefit of other Senators' 
thoughts on it, particularly those who chair the legislative committees 
on the budget and on agriculture legislation. It may be we can work out 
some way to take this amendment to conference. If that is not possible, 
then the question will be whether we move to table the amendment and 
bring this issue up later as a freestanding bill--that is a 
possibility. This legislative session doesn't end with the passage of 
this agriculture appropriations bill. There may be other opportunities 
to assess the disaster situation around the country.
  I thought since the similarity between the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Florida last night which was accepted by the Senator, and 
the presentation of the amendment which we have heard now from the 
Senators from North Dakota were so similar, that it presented us with 
the same alternative that we exercised last night.
  Let me read what I said on the floor of the Senate last night:

       . . .the Department of Agriculture advises us that they 
     cannot at this time verify whether available disaster money 
     has been depleted. I understand this has been a devastating 
     disaster for Florida and that other areas of the country have 
     also been affected by various disasters. We will work with 
     the administration and the House conferees to address the 
     needs of the areas affected by these recent disasters and to 
     determine whether these needs are being met through available 
     funds.
       It is my hope that the Department of Agriculture and the 
     Office of Management and Budget are assessing the need for 
     additional funding to meet the needs resulting from these 
     most recent disasters and that the President will soon submit 
     to the Congress requests for supplemental funds which are 
     determined to be required.

  I am prepared to suggest to the Senate that on that basis, we take 
this amendment to conference, but I will not make that suggestion 
without further discussing my idea with the appropriate legislative 
committee chairmen.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from 
Mississippi. I understand he wants to hear from other Senators. It 
seems to me that one of the suggestions he made makes a lot of sense. 
Having the opportunity to go to conference with a provision similar to 
this in the piece of legislation that comes from the Senate will put us 
in the position of sending a message to those areas that have been 
hardest hit, a number of areas of the country ranging from the 
Southeast, to the South, to the North, that we understand this is, in 
fact, a crisis; that we are responding as we did in the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution passed earlier this week without a dissenting vote, 
that the ag crisis is something that we are willing to address.
  I accept the point made by Senator Cochran that there may well, in 
the coming days or weeks, be a need to change the response. Perhaps the 
response will need to be more aggressive. Perhaps the response may need 
to be characterized differently. But it seems to me appropriate to go 
to conference with a provision of this type in the legislation, because 
it is, I think, telling the family farmers in this land that this 
Senate does care, does want to respond, and understands that there is a 
crisis in certain parts of the country.
  Again, I certainly respect the interest of the Senator from 
Mississippi wanting to gauge the reaction of a number of Senators on 
this subject, but I hope when the day is out and this amendment is 
disposed of that it will be disposed of in a way--I guess ``disposed'' 
of is the wrong word--I hope that it is resolved in a way that reaches 
one of the suggestions perhaps offered by the Senator from Mississippi 
that we can include it in this legislation.
  I must say that I have watched the Senator from Mississippi for some 
days on the floor. I have always felt he has the patience of Job. He is 
one of the most gracious and considerate Members of the Senate. I know 
this is a trying time. I am on the Appropriations Committee with 
Senator Cochran, and I am also someone who will sit here as a ranking 
member on one of the subcommittees. I know it is a trying time to bring 
a bill to the floor of the Senate and discover that a lot of folks want 
to address this bill with peculiar amendments on a range of issues.
  I know he understands, because of the vote earlier in the week, that 
we face very unusual and, in fact, very difficult times in some parts 
of the country. The crisis we have in our State is unparalleled. I 
can't think of a time when we have suffered a 98-percent loss in net 
farm income. It has been devastating. The Senator from Mississippi 
understands that is what has occasioned amendments to be offered to 
this bill.
  I must say, again, he has enormous patience. Even in exhibiting that 
patience, he has a graciousness and dignity that all of us appreciate. 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of the bill 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in further discussions with the Senators 
from North Dakota and others, I am prepared to recommended that we 
accept the amendment offered by the Senators from North Dakota and take 
the issue to conference under the same understanding that I read into 
the Record last night when I accepted, and the Senate agreed to, the 
amendment offered by the Senators from Florida, Mr. Graham, and Mr. 
Mack, who was a cosponsor of that amendment.
  The statement is as follows:

       The Department of Agriculture advises us that they cannot 
     at this time verify whether available disaster money has been 
     depleted. I understand this has been a devastating disaster 
     for Florida and that other areas of the country have also 
     been affected by various disasters. We will work with the 
     administration and the House conferees to address the needs 
     of the areas affected by these recent disasters and to 
     determine whether these needs are being met through 
     available funds. It is my hope that the Department of 
     Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget are 
     assessing the need for additional funding to meet the 
     needs resulting from these most recent disasters, and that 
     the President will soon submit to the Congress requests 
     for supplemental funds, which are determined to be 
     required.

  It is also my understanding that the proposal in this amendment is a 
new program. I had suggested that it was a description of an existing 
discretionary program of the Department of Agriculture, and that I had 
misread or misunderstood the proposal offered by the Senators.
  Nonetheless, I am prepared, under the same understanding, to 
recommend to the Senate that we accept this amendment. It has been, in 
this amendment, described as an emergency, which would require an 
emergency finding not only by Congress, but by the President, in order 
to avoid having an offset of the funds that are contemplated to be 
spent under the amendment. But because it does have the emergency 
declaration, it does not require an offset, and I am advised by the 
chairman of the Budget Committee that it is not subject to a budget 
point of order. On that basis, I recommend that the Senate approve it. 
I understand from my good friend from Arkansas that he has no objection 
to this recommendation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I 
have sent to the desk be printed in the Record. It is from farm 
organizations endorsing this amendment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    July 16, 1998.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: On behalf of the farmers and ranchers 
     of our organizations, we strongly support your amendment to 
     the agriculture appropriations bill which would

[[Page S8292]]

     provide supplemental assistance to those producers who have 
     suffered multiple years of crop losses.
       Your amendment is tailored to provide urgently needed 
     assistance to those farmers who have purchased crop 
     insurance, but are unable to obtain adequate coverage, due to 
     multiple years of disaster.
       The amendment would help over 45,000 producers. While there 
     are regions in every state that would be eligible, it is 
     especially important for Oklahoma, Texas, North Carolina, 
     Virginia, Mississippi, western Pennsylvania, Idaho and the 
     Upper Plains states.
       The supplemental assistance will not only help the 
     individual producers, but will also provide a critical boost 
     to the rural communities in which they reside, which are 
     suffering from the severe losses.
       Our organizations share a strong commitment to 
     strengthening the crop insurance program to allow producers 
     to stay in business, even in times of disaster. This 
     amendment will go a long way toward improving coverage for 
     those producers who have purchased crop insurance.
           Sincerely,
     American Soybean Association.
     National Farmers Organization.
     National Farmers Union.
     National Sunflower Association.
     North Dakota Grain Growers Association.
     United States Canola Association.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3173) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, would the Senator from Idaho like to be 
included as an original cosponsor?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Idaho, Mr. Craig, be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
his help with this amendment, and the many others who participated in 
these deliberations. I especially thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, 
and the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, who helped us with this 
amendment.
  I think we are moving in the right direction. Obviously, we will have 
additional opportunities to fashion a final package, as we all 
understand this will have to go to conference. Again, I thank, very 
much, the chairman and ranking member and all those who helped.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleagues from North 
Dakota for the sincere effort they have made and the willingness of the 
chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to review this 
and help them shape it and accept it.
  Certainly, as we get to conference, there is going to be every effort 
made by this Senator and others to provide what can be provided, and to 
resolve, as best we can, this impending farm crisis. We clearly 
understand the problem, the growing problem, and we know that certain 
actions here can be very, very helpful. I am pleased to be a 
participant in this, to be supportive of it. I am sure we will be 
looking at other packages that we will want to bring together in a 
total effort to help agriculture during this time.
  Let me say in my closing comments that our actions here on the floor 
have consequences. Every Senator who is on the floor now joined with us 
were active participants last Thursday when the Senate of the United 
States voted 98-0 to drop the sanctions against Pakistan and India. The 
Presiding Officer at this moment, the Senator from Kansas, led that 
dramatic effort to show that this country would stand united and not 
use food as a tool of foreign policy.
  Just moments ago the Senator from Kansas and I had calls from the 
Ambassador of Pakistan. They have tendered an offer now of over a 100-
million-ton purchase from the United States. It is my understanding 
that they will make an effort at a nearly 300,000-tons purchase within 
the next several months. That is significant, and those tonnages will 
be purchased from the United States.
  Our actions here have consequences. If we want to be players in the 
world market, with and for our producers, we cannot throw up the 
artificial barrier of politics. We tore that down last Thursday in this 
instance, and the nations involved are responding.
  I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there are a number of issues we find 
strong agreement on today on the agricultural matters. And the matter 
that was just spoken about by the Senator from Idaho regarding 
sanctions is one in which I have very strong agreement with him, and 
also with the Presiding Officer, Senator Roberts of Kansas. All of us 
agree that it doesn't make any sense at all to use food as a tool of 
foreign policy and to tell farmers to pay the costs of sanctions, and 
so on. So I am very pleased that we were able, on a bipartisan basis, 
to work together to resolve that issue. I think we have done that in an 
effective way.
  I am also pleased that the amendment which we have just offered and 
was accepted and cosponsored by the Senator from Idaho. We have worked 
with the Senator from Idaho and others, including the Senator from 
Kansas, Senator Roberts, in discussions on a wide range of income 
issues dealing with family farmers. The reason I sought recognition is 
just to make one final point; that is, this amendment now becomes part 
of the agricultural appropriations bill. It then goes from the Senate 
to a conference with House of Representatives. That is likely, between 
now and sometime in September, as this agricultural crisis continues to 
emerge, to occur in a way that may require some changes and some 
adjustments. We all understand that.
  But I think this is an enormously important and a helpful first step 
to say to family farmers who are struggling that we recognize that this 
is, indeed, a crisis and we want to respond to that crisis.
  I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his leadership, and the 
Senator from Arkansas for his leadership as well, and I thank my 
colleague, Senator Conrad, who is as determined and effective and tough 
a legislator as there is to work with. I am pleased to have joined him 
in working on this amendment as well.
  I think this is an important step, and it will be viewed as good 
news--not necessarily the final answer, but good news by family 
farmers, that on a bipartisan basis the Congress recognizes a crisis 
and is prepared to respond effectively to it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Daschle, Senator Harkin, Senator Baucus, Senator Hollings, and Senator 
Wellstone all be added as original cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I also thank my colleague who is in the 
Chair, Senator Roberts, for his good advice to us as we proceeded with 
this effort. I want to tell him that we look forward to working with 
him as we try to craft a bipartisan, long-term solution to the problems 
that we face. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Montana, Mr. Burns, be added as a cosponsor to the Conrad 
amendment that was previously offered and agreed to by the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are now moving toward the point where 
we are wrapping up the consideration of amendments on the agriculture 
appropriations bill. A number of Senators have advised the managers 
that they do not intend to offer amendments that they had originally 
proposed to the bill. We are encouraged by that, and with some effort I 
think the Senate can complete action on this bill very soon. We are 
awaiting the arrival in the Chamber of Senators who have suggested that 
they will offer amendments. We encourage them to come to

[[Page S8293]]

the floor, offer those amendments, and let's debate them. If we can 
agree to them, we will recommend that to the Senate. We appreciate very 
much the cooperation and assistance of all Senators who have been 
helpful to us in this effort.


                1998 LOUISIANA DROUGHT AND CROP DISASTER

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I call to the Senate's attention the 
serious and significant drought which has occurred in Louisiana this 
year. The combination of a prolonged lack of rainfall and persistent 
high temperatures have resulted in a natural disaster of historic 
proportions. For those affected, damages have been hard-hitting.
  As we debate the 1999 agricultural appropriations bill and amendments 
to it which respond to severe agricultural distress throughout the 
nation this year, caused by weather-related damages and low commodity 
prices, I urge my colleagues to keep in mind the situation in 
Louisiana.
  On June 18 of this year, Governor M.J. ``Mike'' Foster and 
Commissioner of Agriculture and Forestry Bob Odom wrote to Agriculture 
Secretary Dan Glickman about the drought in Louisiana.
  Though adequate production records were not yet available at the time 
of their letter, Governor Foster and Commissioner Odom told Secretary 
Glickman substantial losses were expected in the state and that they 
expected to be requesting a disaster declaration as soon as adequate 
production information could be obtained.
  Various row crops and pine and hardwood seedlings have been affected 
in Louisiana by the drought, they said. Cattle have been affected 
because of severe hay and pasture shortages. Poultry losses also have 
occurred due to the high temperatures.
  Illustrative of the drought's historic character, they pointed out 
that records have been set for the least amount of rainfall received in 
the month of May, with rainfall records going back more than 100 years.
  Though Congressionally-authorized programs are in place at USDA to 
respond to disasters, I urge the Senate to be prepared to respond 
further and promptly as conditions and impacts would worsen.
  Mr. President, we know that production disruptions brought about by 
the drought will cause economic disruptions for producers. In addition, 
the communities in which our producers live also will be affected. It 
is for these reasons that I urge close attention to crop disasters and 
low prices and a readiness to act as warranted.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, earlier today I voted for Senator 
Grassley's Sense of the Senate amendment that urges prompt action on a 
number of trade, tax, and regulatory issues in order to help the 
American farm community. I think our farmers are experiencing serious 
problems, and I believe that prompt action on many of the initiatives 
contained in the Grassley amendment will help expand U.S. agricultural 
export markets and improve farm profits.
  The amendment Senator Grassley put before the Senate recommended that 
the Senate act on S. 2078, the Farm Ranch Risk Management Act, which I 
have cosponsored. It urges action to provide full funding for the 
International Monetary Fund; I believe action to increase the capital 
of the IMF is essential to address the economic crisis in Asia and the 
current situation in Russia, both of which have enormous impacts on 
U.S. agriculture. It urges Congressional approval legislation to 
continue normal trading relations with China, which I also support. It 
calls for estate tax reform, reduced regulations on farmers, and use of 
the Commodity Credit Corporation and Export Enhancement Program at the 
Department of Agriculture, all of which are worthy of prompt attention 
by the Senate.
  Notwithstanding my support for the general objective of Senator 
Grassley's amendment, however, I do have one major reservation 
concerning his amendment, and that has to do with fast-track trade 
negotiating authority.
  Senator Grassley's amendment urges providing the President with new 
fast-track negotiating authority. I oppose giving the President that 
authority at this time, for both practical and philosophical reasons. 
As a practical matter, fast-track, and any agreements it might 
ultimately lead to, will only provide benefits to American agriculture 
in the distant future, not in the near term. In fact, the only possible 
trade agreement on the horizon is with Chile, and that agreement, even 
if it were put into place tomorrow, would be unlikely to have any 
significant impact on the economic health of American agriculture.
  Moreover, granting the President fast-track authority is not 
currently warranted because of the total lack of consensus on American 
trade policy for the future. Large parts of the rest of the world 
cannot discern any consistent set of underlying principles governing 
U.S. trade policy decisions. Congress and the Administration have not 
come to an agreement on a trade policy framework, and in the absence of 
that framework, decisions are all too often made on an ad hoc basis.
  Granting the President fast-track authority requires the Congress to 
delegate much of the trade authority given the legislative branch by 
our Constitution to the President. It is no less a delegation of 
Congressional authority than the line-item veto. Fast track is 
therefore an issue of the utmost importance institutionally and 
Constitutionally to the Congress. In the absence of real consensus on 
trade policy within both the executive branch and the Congress, I 
cannot and do not support this kind of diminution of Congressional 
authority over trade.
  My support for the general objectives of the Grassley amendment does 
not represent any change in my view of the fast-track issue. In the 
absence of a consensus on a new trade policy architecture that includes 
not only the Congress and the President, but also American agriculture, 
labor, the business community, and the American people generally, I 
oppose providing the President with new fast-track negotiating 
authority.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I voted for the Grassley sense of the 
Senate amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill because I 
support nine of its ten provisions.
  I do not support the provision stating that we should enact the bill 
S. 1269, which reauthorizes fast-track trading authority for the 
President.
  It is premature and disruptive to endorse fast-track legislation now, 
before resolving questions about its effect on jobs and the 
environment. These are very controversial and complicated problems, and 
so far we have not figured out how to deal with them.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire 
is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________