[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9413-S9416]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S9413]]

Senate

                  EMERGENCY FARM FINANCIAL RELIEF ACT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2344, and that 
the Senate proceed to its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk reported as follows:

       A bill (S. 2344) to amend the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act to provide for the advance payment, in full, 
     of the fiscal year 1999 payments otherwise required under 
     production flexibility contracts.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thought 
the majority leader and I were working on this. I am a little bit 
surprised he has chosen to call it up right now. We can object. But I 
would prefer that we continue to see if we can't resolve this matter. 
We have been cooperating all night.
  I guess I expected a little more reciprocation on the other side. I 
am disappointed that I was surprised in this manner, and at this hour 
under these circumstances it is uncalled for.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think the Senator would like to withhold 
that last comment about it being uncalled for. I don't do this lightly.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I was not informed this was going to happen.
  Mr. LOTT. I did it for a reason.
  Mr. President, if I could respond to the Senator's comments, this is 
not a controversial issue. This is an issue that I am sure that all 
agriculture Members would very much like for us to get resolved. There 
is no budget impact. All it does is say that this allows farmers 
suffering from drought, El Nino, fire, and other natural disasters to 
begin considering and receiving emergency transition payments that they 
are entitled to under the Freedom to Farm Act. As a matter of fact, I 
understand that it will allow them to get these benefits in October 
rather than having to wait until January. I did it for a reason.
  If we don't get it resolved before we get to a final vote, then 
objections later on tonight would make it impossible for us to get any 
consideration.
  If the Senator would indicate to me that there is some idea that we 
could get this agreed to tonight, I would be glad to work with him like 
I always do. But the timing was such that we have to do it now in order 
to get it considered, or it could be objected to after Senators have 
gone, and we would not get it completed.
  I am trying to complete action so that we can go through a long list 
of Executive Calendar nominations, so that we could complete some more 
of them tomorrow. If we don't do these two issues now, they are 
basically gone until September.
  I thought that--I understood there was an objection, but that we had 
worked through that, and that we would not have any problem in getting 
this cleared.
  I had talked to Senators on your side of the aisle that have 
agriculture interests that indicated they would not object to this.
  If there is some problem that we could resolve right quick, I would 
be glad to withhold. But we need to try to get this resolved, because 
it is something that is very important timewise to the Department of 
Agriculture and to the farmers that have been affected by drought.
  We have worked this year on both sides of the aisle on the 
agriculture appropriations bill to get considerations for farmers that 
have been impacted by these disasters. This is just one way to do that.
  Since there is no cost factor involved, it just gives authority for 
this to be moved forward.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object again, I 
was consumed, I guess, in assisting the chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee in working down the amendments. We have 
been working on that tirelessly all day. The majority leader and I have 
worked throughout the day on a number of issues. Not once did he raise 
this issue with me. That explanation would have been welcomed, would 
have been appreciated 5 minutes ago, a half hour ago, 2 hours ago. But 
he surprises me at this hour after we cooperated all week on an array 
of issues working over these appropriations bills amendment after 
amendment. And I guess it is very, very disappointing to me.
  I ask unanimous consent that an amendment that would provide $500 
million in indemnity payments to farmers and that was passed 
unanimously on the Senate floor during the debate on the agricultural 
appropriations bill be attached to the bill that is now under 
consideration, and for which the majority has asked unanimous consent.
  Would he accept that addition to the bill? Because, if he would, I am 
sure then that we could accommodate the majority leader and those who 
wish to pass this, as it was a surprise to the rest of us.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this comes as no surprise to Senators 
interested in agriculture on either side of the aisle. In fact, I did 
bring this subject up to Senator Daschle earlier today, standing right 
there.
  By the way, I have been working on amendments and Executive Calendar 
items while we have been having these last few votes. I have been 
talking to Senators on both sides of the aisle about nominations. I 
talked to Senator Dorgan who I know confers with Senator Daschle all 
the time about this

[[Page S9414]]

particular unanimous consent request within the hour.
  I don't believe there is anybody on either side of the aisle 
surprised by this.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am one.
  Mr. LOTT. As a matter of fact, we just discussed it a moment ago.
  If the Senator wants to object, he can go ahead and object. I think 
the implication here is that there is some sinister effort here. And it 
is certainly not true. This is something that is very noncontroversial. 
I don't know of any problem with it. I can't imagine why any Senator 
would object to it.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. With regard to his unanimous consent request, I have no 
idea of the ramifications of the unanimous consent request he just 
asked. I don't know what is involved there. We already passed the 
agriculture appropriations bill. There was action taken on that 
particular item.
  I would not be able to agree to that at this point without checking 
with Senators that have been involved in that legislation with that 
amendment.
  So there is no need in holding up the Senate any further. If the 
Senator wants to object, he can do so.
  I am going to also ask unanimous consent that he go ahead and move on 
the H-1B issue which has been worked out previously in conference by 
both sides of the Capitol by both parties. This is an issue that we 
need to get resolved.
  I thought that we had a reasonable resolution of the issue.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the basic reason I think this is so 
important is that the other body, the House, is going to pass this very 
same bill, and all it is, is one of the many steps that we need to 
consider and hopefully pass in regard to growing problems we are 
experiencing in farm country.
  There was a great deal of press last week about the intention of the 
House to provide something called ``advanced transition payments.'' All 
that does is provide the farmer an opportunity for a voluntarily 
decision which he can make as to whether or not he can accept next 
year's transition payments this year.
  It means a considerable amount of money. And if we are able to pass 
the Farm Savings Account that Senator Grassley has introduced, it will 
be of tremendous cash flow assistance.
  I thought it was not controversial. Since the House is going to pass 
it next week, since the House is out of session, it made a lot of 
sense, it seemed to me, and many others, for us to deem it passed, or 
to pass it.
  Farmers would then have, under the banner of consistency and 
predictability, the knowledge that they would have this as a tool.
  Now, I can't tell you what we are going to do in September with the 
$500 million that was referred to by the distinguished Democratic 
leader. That is a place hold, and it is sitting there, and as we go 
through the situation of judging what is happening with adverse weather 
all around the country--in Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, South 
Carolina, and the Northern Plains certainly--perhaps that number will 
change. We can take a look at it at that particular point.
  As a matter of fact, I was just going to give to all the 
distinguished Senators from the Dakotas a proposal that I have had in 
regard to crop insurance and see maybe if the $500 million could be 
increased somewhat and funneled through crop insurance to answer these 
indemnity payment questions that have been raised.
  But for goodness' sake, to object to this at this particular time--to 
give farmers the advance news that this is, as a matter of fact, on the 
table, that they can expect this, that they have some consistency, some 
idea of what is coming--I think is very untoward.
  More to the point, I think it has been agreed to in a tremendous 
bipartisan effort in the House and, I had thought, in this as well.
  Now, I understand that people perhaps don't get the word on each and 
every occasion, but I cannot imagine anybody objecting to this knowing 
full well in September we will get to the $500 million that the 
distinguished Senator has mentioned. I would certainly urge that we not 
object to this, we give the farmers a very clear signal, and we get on 
with the business.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator respond to a question?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would be delighted to respond if I can.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe the Senator from Kansas has been working on this 
issue. He knew we were trying to get it cleared tonight. I made a 
specific call to him to contact Senators on both sides of the aisle and 
discuss this issue. I assumed that he was doing that. I had the 
impression that it had been--any holds or objections had been cleared.
  Did it come as surprise to the Senator? Does the Senator think it 
came as a surprise?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I am always pleased, if I can respond to the majority 
leader, to be Garcia and run the trap lines for anything that could be 
proposed by the Senator and the distinguished leader of the minority. I 
have checked with a great many Senators. I thought it was pretty much 
common knowledge. I have checked with the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Ag Appropriations, the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, checked with Senator Dorgan, checked with 
Senator Conrad, and checked with others. I could go down the list. But 
I just did not anticipate that there would be an objection, and so 
consequently--or, more especially, when the very subject that Senator 
Daschle indicated is already in the Agriculture appropriations bill.
  As a matter of fact, I think if we fund it now, you could make the 
argument that later down the road, in regard to disaster assistance, 
there would not be any more forthcoming. I apologize if it is my fault, 
if in fact I was supposed to run the trap line and I didn't run all the 
traps. I am sorry, but I just did not anticipate that this would be 
this much of a problem.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we can 
play these games all night long, and there are a lot of people who are 
tired. This isn't the way to end what I thought was a fairly productive 
week.
  We are not going to object. Let's just quit playing these kinds of 
games. Let's just get on with it. Let's pass it. But let's all be aware 
of what we have done.
  You and I have a good relationship. We ought to keep it that way. I 
don't like being dealt with this way. I will accept it this time, but I 
wish we would work in the manner in which we have been working all 
week.
  This is a very serious, important issue. There are a lot of political 
ramifications, and we can play the political game. The fact is that 
there are a lot of people out there who want some help. This is going 
to be a little help. I wish we could pass the indemnity payment 
tonight. I don't see why we could not. The fact is that we would pass 
it unanimously, and that would be new money, $500 million in new money. 
I wish we could do that just as easily as we are going to agree to pass 
this thing that isn't going to mean that much. But we will pass it.
  But I must say, we shouldn't be doing it this way. I have been here 
all night. I haven't left the floor. Somebody could have come to me to 
say, look, we want to do this. Instead, what has happened is that this 
was sprung on me.
  Now, you don't have to apologize. Nobody has to apologize. It just 
isn't the way we ought to do business.
  So, Mr. President, we don't object.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact the Senator did not 
object.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object--I will reserve the right 
to object. Is this unanimous consent on advancing AMTA payments? Is 
that what is before the body right now?
  Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the unanimous consent 
before the Senate right now?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond, it is unanimous consent 
that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration 
of S. 2344, which is a bill that allows farmers who are suffering from 
the drought to begin receiving emergency transition payments that they 
are entitled to in October instead of having to wait until January.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would ask the proponents, I would ask the majority 
leader then, is this the unanimous consent

[[Page S9415]]

that would reopen the 1996 farm bill? Because the farm bill stipulates 
that a farmer could get half of the payment if he wanted to in December 
or January and could get the other half the next September.
  That was in the farm bill. As I understand it, this then changes what 
the farm bill provides. Is that correct?
  Mr. LOTT. It says, as I understand it, that they would get the same 
amount they would get either way. They would just get it earlier in the 
year instead of later in the year so they could begin to deal with the 
problems that they have had to face as a result of disasters.
  Mr. HARKIN. Further reserving the right to object then, this then 
would undo some of the provisions that were in the 1996 farm bill, 
because it changes the dates and circumstances under which the farmer 
could get the AMTA payment, as it is called.
  I understand that some people want to do that and they want to reopen 
the farm bill. That is fine. But I would remind my colleagues that a 
couple of weeks ago we offered an amendment to take the caps off the 
commodity loan rates. For a typical Iowa farmer with 500 acres of corn 
that amendment would have put about $20,000 of additional income in the 
farmer's pocket this fall. Not only does this bill involve 
significantly less money for that farmer, but it only advances money 
that he is already going to get anyway. As far as increasing income to 
the farmer, this bill doesn't do a darned thing.
  What we need to do is to get the indemnity payments through that 
Senator Daschle is talking about, $500 million. There are a lot of 
farmers out there who are hurting very badly. I have to tell you, there 
is a crisis in agriculture today. Farmers have been devastated by bad 
weather, by crop disease in the Upper Midwest, and especially in the 
Dakotas.
  We can pass the $500 million for indemnity payments tonight. Why 
don't we pass that measure by unanimous consent right now to get that 
$500 million in indemnity payments out to farmers immediately? Why 
can't we do that?
  I ask the majority leader, why can't we pass that?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this is a bill that has been offered. It 
provides help now. I know no Senator would want to delay that help that 
they were going to get anyway. We just get it earlier. This is a bill 
that is going to pass the House next Monday, probably unanimously, 
which would provide some more immediate help to these farmers.
  There is no effort to play games here. This is an effort to provide 
some help to the farmers who need it as soon as they can possibly get 
it. That is all there is to it. The idea we are playing games here--I 
will be glad to yield to the Senator from Idaho.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I had the privilege of working with Senator 
Conrad on crafting the indemnity payment. We cooperated with Senator 
Cochran in getting it in the agriculture bill. We are going to go to 
conference right soon. We think that will be in the new fiscal year. 
You talk about immediacy of payment? We hope that will be available by 
late this year to deal with some of these agricultural problems.
  But I must say, it has not been shaped to my satisfaction. Senator 
Conrad and I have talked about how we would work within the conference 
to make sure that it is a legitimate approach toward a true disaster 
environment. This is a broader approach that deals with more farmers.
  The definition under which Senator Conrad and I shaped that--he being 
the primary author--dealt with double, back-to-back disasters. It is 
narrower by scope. We may want to adjust that some. I would not think 
tonight we would want to just accept it as it was originally crafted 
with its narrowness. The problem is already much larger today than when 
we passed it, by character of the drought and heat in Texas and in 
other States. It is already broader. We will want to look at that 
again.
  It is not that I am objecting. I am saying I think we will be working 
together in the conference of the Ag approps to make that a viable 
approach as we originally thought it ought to be.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me ask Senator Craig, if he would respond, do you think 
this bill, which is very limited, with no budget impact, would, at any 
rate, still provide some help quicker to the farmers who had been 
affected by these disasters?
  Mr. CRAIG. There is no question it does. Is it something new? No. Is 
it advanced? You bet it is. When the crops dried out in the field and 
the banker wants you to pay your bills and you can pay them sooner than 
later, then it is a big help. This is not opening up Freedom to Farm. 
This is advancing a payment that is already built within that 
structure. That is why there is the budget impact about which the 
majority leader spoke.
  I hope we can work together to resolve this, as we thought we had, so 
that this can move forward this week to deal with the problems that are 
very current in our agricultural sector.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object--but I do object to what has occurred here, in terms of the 
way we are dealing with each other.
  When I worked to put together an indemnity plan, I went to Members on 
the other side and I consulted with everyone. On this matter, there was 
no consultation.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President--did we not have conversations with Senators?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. No, no, I have reserved the right to object. I just say 
this: My name was raised as having been consulted; I haven't been 
consulted. I was not consulted. So, when my name is raised on the floor 
of this body and it has been said publicly that I was consulted, that 
is not the case. In fact, I heard a rumor that this was occurring and 
went to another Member.
  I am just saying, in terms of the way we treat each other here, this 
is not quite the way it ought to be done. I would hope we would truly 
work together to advance the interests of our farmers who, in many 
parts of our country, are, indeed, financially troubled.
  There is no question this proposal is of some help. It is no new 
money, but it is of some assistance.
  But I couldn't be silent when it is suggested people came and 
consulted with us. That did not happen. The Democratic leader is 
precisely right; there was no consultation, at least with this Senator.
  Mr. LOTT. We are late in the hour. I see a number of Senators from 
farm States who would like to speak, perhaps, on this.
  Senator Hutchison, I know her State of Texas has been affected by the 
drought. Is this a matter that would be helpful in your State of Texas?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if we let the perfect be the enemy of 
the good, we are going to let a lot of people down who are in 
desperation right now. This is a good bill. I think the debate can be 
legitimately waged, but, please, at this late hour, as we are leaving 
for a month, do not fail to let us have this relief. These farmers can 
get credit if they can get that payment moved up. It is no new money. 
But they need this help. This will help my State, which is the most 
drastically affected at this point with this drought.
  I urge you, for whatever other reasons it may not have been handled 
right, let this unanimous consent go through. It will be to everyone's 
benefit who has a stake here. Let's work out the other problems when we 
can. We are going into a month recess.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me say again, Mr. President, when you get to the end of 
a period of time like this, when you are fixing to go on a recess for 
an extended period of time, there are a lot of bills, there are a lot 
of issues we are dealing with, a lot of nominations we are trying to 
clear.
  I am either going to have to do it now or later tonight or tomorrow, 
when everybody else is gone. We wouldn't have been able to get this 
cleared, probably, tomorrow. But by doing it now, I think everybody 
will realize that this is something that will help. It is not that 
controversial, and we can get it done and we can move on to the recess 
and feel like we did something here that will be helpful. We will have 
other opportunities before the

[[Page S9416]]

year is out to provide more help as we go through the conference.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know there are a lot of Senators on their 
feet, but in an effort to try to be fair before I move for regular 
order, I am going to withhold so the Senator from North Dakota can 
comment and then the Senator from Georgia, and then I will ask for the 
regular order.
  Mr. DORGAN. I do not intend to object. I have no quarrel with this 
provision that is being proposed tonight.
  Mr. LOTT. Didn't I call the Senator and ask if there was a problem?
  Mr. DORGAN. You did call within the last hour or so. I indicated to 
you there was no problem with this provision, and I do not object to 
this provision.
  But I do want to make the point that the Senate has debated and 
passed an emergency provision calling for $500 million of indemnity 
payments. That is the only new money available. It is the only new 
money around in the appropriations process. If it is completed by 
October 1, then perhaps we may get money into the pockets of some 
farmers. We have seen prices collapse even further in recent weeks. It 
may get money into the hands of some farmers, perhaps in October--
unlikely--perhaps November, maybe December.
  My proposition is that to the extent that we have already debated 
this subject, the Senate, by 99 to nothing, has said we have an 
emergency in farm country. They have already passed a $500 million 
indemnity payment program. It makes eminent good sense to me that we 
would be able to pass that indemnity program this evening and move it 
to the House. Does the House want to deal with it? I don't know. But 
they won't have an opportunity to deal with it in any timely way if we 
don't proceed.
  I have no objection at all to what the Senator is requesting. I 
simply ask that he consider, and we consider, taking the $500 million 
we have already decided upon and see if we can't move that to the hands 
of family farmers, many of whom are desperately strapped for cash.
  As soon as the Senator has completed getting his unanimous consent 
and as soon as I am able to get the floor, I intend to ask unanimous 
consent the Senate will proceed to the bill providing the $500 million 
of agriculture indemnity payments, which was agreed to as an amendment 
to the agricultural appropriations bill, and the bill be read a third 
time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  If someone objects to that, fine. But I hope they would not object to 
it. We will not object to this. I think this may help. I hope you will 
not object to that, because I know it will help. It would help in a 
more timely way than will be the case if we wait until after recess, 
and farmers have to wait until November or December. Perhaps we can 
help farmers to get some help from that provision earlier.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I have just returned from a disaster 
area in our State. It is the most emotional difficulty, I believe, with 
which I have ever dealt. And I have dealt with a 1000-year flood and a 
500-year flood. Back-to-back crises like this are enormous.
  I heard the exchange between the majority and minority leaders. I 
understand the tensions of the day. I appreciate the minority leader, 
in deference to the issue involved, removing his right to object. I 
appreciate that.
  That removal of an objection will lead to the movement and option of 
farmers, in many States, to relieve their cash flow problem. They have 
an equity problem. The proposal that the minority leader has mentioned, 
about the $500 million, and others, is something for the broader issue. 
There are many issues we are going to have to bring to the table to 
deal with this crisis. That is one idea. It is probably not near 
enough. It wouldn't take care of Georgia and South Carolina, much less 
Alabama and Texas and the Midwestern States.
  We do have a major issue in front of us dealing with food and fiber 
and the Nation's security. I hope we could proceed this evening with 
that which does not require new funds and it is simply a logistical and 
administrative decision that will move money more rapidly.
  I say to the leader, I appreciate the chance to speak on this. Again, 
I thank the minority leader for removing his objection.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
considered read the third time and passed; that the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statement relating to 
the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 2344) was considered read the third time and passed, as 
follows:

                                S. 2344

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Farm Financial 
     Relief Act''.

     SEC. 2. SPECIAL RULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 PAYMENT UNDER 
                   PRODUCTION FLEXIBILITY CONTRACTS.

       Section 112(d) of the Agirucltural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7212(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Special rule for fiscal year 1999.--Notwithstanding 
     the requirements for making an annual contract payment 
     specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), at the option of the 
     owner or producer, the Secretary shall pay the full amount 
     (or such portion as the owner or producer may specify) of the 
     contract payment required to be paid for fiscal year 1999 at 
     such time or times during that fiscal year as the owner or 
     producer may specify.''.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
receives the House bill relative to H-1B, the text of which I send to 
the desk, the bill be deemed agreed to and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table. I further ask that if the text of the House-passed 
bill is not identical to the text just sent to the desk, then the House 
bill will be appropriately referred.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are objections on our side.

                          ____________________