[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 137 (Monday, October 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11411-S11437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the report will be
stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
4101), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their
respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the
conferees.
The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of October 2, 1998.)
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, pending before the Senate at this time
is the conference report on the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. We present this conference report for the Senate's
approval this afternoon.
The agreement provides total new budget authority of $55.7 billion
for programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture--
except for the Forest Service, which is funded by the Interior
appropriations bill--the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, and expenses and payments of the farm
credit system. This is $6 billion more than the fiscal year 1998
enacted level; it is $1.9 billion less than the President's request
level; it is $192 million less than the House-passed bill, and it is
$1.1 billion less than the Senate-passed bill level.
The changes that were made in conference on mandatory funding
requirements account for the overall increase from the fiscal year 1998
enacted level, principally reflecting a $2.6 billion lower estimate for
Food Stamp Program funding requirements, higher Child Nutrition Program
expenses, and a $7.6 billion increase in the payment to reimburse the
Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses. The conference
report also provides an additional $4.2 billion in emergency
appropriations to assist agricultural producers and others who have
suffered financial hardship due to adverse weather conditions and loss
of markets.
Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior
[[Page S11412]]
year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total
discretionary spending for fiscal year 1999 of $13.651 billion in
budget authority and $14.050 billion in outlays. These amounts are
consistent with the revised discretionary spending allocations
established for this conference agreement under the Budget Act.
It was a very difficult conference. As Members may recall, a number
of legislative provisions were added to the bill when it was considered
in the Senate in July. Not only did the conference committee have to
reach agreement with the House on these issues, but it had to resolve
funding differences within a more constrained discretionary spending
allocation for the conference than originally established in the Senate
bill.
Special recognition is due and deserved by the ranking member of the
subcommittee, my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers. In
addition, the chairman of the House subcommittee, Congressman Skeen
from New Mexico, and ranking minority member of the House subcommittee,
Congresswoman Kaptur from Ohio, turned in hard work and cooperated with
our efforts to make this conference agreement possible.
The report includes credit relief for farmers, a 6-month extension of
the Northeast Dairy Compact, sanctions relief for exports to India and
Pakistan, a waiver of the statute of limitations for certain
discrimination claims filed against the Department of Agriculture, and
a number of other legislative provisions that were included in the
Senate and House-passed bills.
In addition, at the request of the House and Senate Agriculture
Committees, chaired by Senator Lugar here and Congressman Smith in the
House, the conference report includes a moratorium on the rulemaking
authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission over swaps and
derivatives, as well as language requested by the administration
authorizing the creation of an Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs position at the Department of Agriculture. That
change also had the approval of the legislative committees with
jurisdiction over that subject.
During consideration of the bill in the Senate, an amendment was
adopted providing increased funding for the President's Food Safety
Initiative. A major portion of this additional spending was offset by
an ``assessment'' on the purchasers and importers of tobacco. This was
subsequently determined by the House Ways and Means Committee to be a
``tax,'' and therefore off limits to the Appropriations Committee and
was not included in the conference report. I am pleased to report to
the Senate, however, that the conference report provides increased
funding of $51.9 million for activities and programs which are part of
the administration's Food Safety Initiative.
In addition, the conference report provides $609 million for the Food
Safety and Inspection Service, an agency critical to maintaining the
safety of our food supply. That is $20 million more than the fiscal
year 1998 level, and $460 million more than the President requested in
his budget.
As most of my colleagues are aware, one of the major differences
between the House and Senate-passed bill was a House bill provision to
prevent fiscal year 1999 funding for the new Competitive Agriculture
Research Program established by the Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Education Reform Act of 1998. I did not support the proposal to
remove or prevent the funding going forward as directed in that
legislation. However, with a total discretionary budget authority
allocation for the conference that was $64 million below the level we
had for the Senate bill, it was a House position that the Senate
conferees had little choice but to accept.
Without that offset, drastic cuts would have been necessary in
funding for other discretionary programs and activities in the bill. In
view of this 1-year delay in funding for the new Agriculture Research
Competitive Grant Program, the conference provided increased
appropriations for existing agricultural research programs.
Here are some examples: There is an appropriation of $782 million for
the Agriculture Research Service. That represents a $38 million
increase from the 1998 fiscal year level, and it is $14 million more
than was included in the Senate-passed bill.
There is total funding of $481 million for research and education
activities of the Cooperative Research, Education and Extension
Service. That is $50 million more than the fiscal year 1998 level, and
it is $48 million more than was in the Senate-passed bill. Included in
this amount is a 7-percent increase from the fiscal year 1998 level for
payments under the Hatch Act, cooperative forestry research, payments
to the 1890 and 1994 institutions, including Tuskegee and animal and
health disease grants.
Also included is a $22.1 million increase for the National Research
Initiative Competitive Grants Program.
In addition, the bill recommends $434 million for extension
activities which preserves the 3-percent increase recommended by the
Senate for Smith-Lever formula funds, as well as extension payments to
the 1994 and 1890 institutions, including Tuskegee University.
Approximately $36.1 billion, close to 65 percent of the total new
budget authority provided by this conference report, is for domestic
food programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These
include food stamps; commodity assistance; the special supplemental
food program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and the school
lunch and breakfast programs. The Senate receded to the House-
recommended appropriations level for the WIC program because recent
data on actual participation rates and food package costs indicate that
this amount should be sufficient to maintain current program
participation levels in fiscal year 1999.
For farm assistance programs, including the Farm Service Agency and
farm ownership and operation loan subsidies, the conference report
provides $1.1 billion in appropriations.
Appropriations for conservation programs administered by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service total $793 million, $9 million more than
the House bill level and $1 million more than the level recommended by
the Senate.
For rural economic and community development programs, the conference
report provides appropriations of $2.2 billion to support a total loan
level of $6.2 billion. Included in this amount is $723 million for the
Rural Community Advancement Program, $583 million for the rental
assistance program, and a total rural housing loan program level of
$4.25 billion.
A total of $1.2 billion is provided for foreign assistance and
related programs of the Department of Agriculture, including $136
million in new budget authority for the Foreign Agricultural Service
and a total program level of $1.1 billion for the P.L. 480 Food for
Peace Program.
Total new budget authority for the Food and Drug Administration is
$977 million, $11.5 million more than the level recommended by the
House and $24.5 million more than the Senate bill level, along with an
additional $132 million in Prescription Drug Act and $14 million in
mammography clinics user fee collections. Included in the appropriation
for salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration is a $20
million increase for food safety.
For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $61 million is
provided; and a limitation of $35.8 million is established on
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration.
Titles XI-XIII of this conference report provide emergency relief to
agricultural producers and others who have suffered weather-related and
economic losses. As Members will recall, a number of amendments were
adopted to this bill when the Senate considered it in July to address
disaster-related requirements with the understanding that additional
relief would be necessary once actual losses were determined by the
Department of Agriculture and a supplemental request was submitted by
the Administration. No request was submitted to the Congress until
September 23. On September 23, the Administration submitted a $1.8
billion budget authority request to support $2.3 billion in emergency
agricultural programs. In the interim, the Republicans released a $3.9
billion relief package to assist agricultural producers. This emergency
agricultural relief package is included in this conference report,
along with additional
[[Page S11413]]
emergency supplemental appropriations, to make a total of $4.2 billion
in emergency assistance available.
A total of $1.5 billion is made available to assist producers who
have been hit by crop losses in 1998, and an additional $675 million
for producers who have suffered from multiple-year crop losses. Also
included is $175 million for emergency livestock feed assistance, and
$1.65 billion to assist producers with market losses. In addition, the
conference report provides temporary recourse loans for honey and
mohair; $5 million for cotton indemnity payments; an increase of $25
million for the Food for Progress program to help move more grain out
of the country; and expanded non-insured crop assistance for raisin
producers. Additional supplemental emergency appropriations provided by
the conference report include the $40 million to cover additional costs
to the Farm Service Agency of administering this assistance, $10
million for the Forestry Incentives Program; and $31 million in subsidy
appropriations to fund an additional $541 million in farm operating
loans.
Madam President, this conference report was filed on Friday and was
passed by the House of Representatives that day by an overwhelming vote
of 333 yeas to 53 nays. Senate passage of this conference report today
is the final step necessary to send this fiscal year 1999
appropriations bill to the President for signature into law.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report. Many of our
farmers and ranchers are facing the worst crisis in agriculture that
they can remember. The economic collapse in Asia has resulted in lost
markets. Producers in some states have suffered severe weather
conditions. Others have been hit hard by crop diseases. The farmers
need help now, and it is time to quit playing politics with disaster
relief and adopt this conference report.
Madam President, this is the last Agriculture Appropriations bill my
distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arkansas, will manage in the
Senate after serving on the Appropriations Committee for 20 years and
this Subcommittee for 13 years. Senator Bumpers has been an advocate of
American agriculture and a proponent of the programs in this bill to
improve the quality of life and help bring jobs to rural areas. His
expertise and many contributions to this process and this bill will
indeed be missed.
In summary, let me point out, Madam President, that there has been
raised the specter of a Presidential veto over this conference report
because of the inadequacy of the provision relating to disaster
assistance payments. I am very disturbed by that suggestion, and I hope
that it is more rumor than promise. I know the President spent some
time on Saturday in his weekly radio address speaking to that subject.
I recall that 2 weeks ago, I was asked to deliver the Republican
response to the President's weekly radio address, and my subject was
the need for a more aggressive and meaningful disaster assistance
program for farmers.
I think everyone can agree that both the President and the Congress
have been speaking out and making very clear the fact that we need a
helpful, sensitive, generous program of disaster assistance to help
deal with the realities of weather-related disasters that have struck
many parts of the country, market loss problems because of the Asian
economic crisis, and other factors that have worked together to make
this a very difficult year for agriculture.
The question is, Are we going to resolve this in a way that is
consistent with the legislative process that makes sense for farmers,
that serves to establish policies that are thoughtful and consistent
with the needs of American agriculture, or are we going to continue to
treat this as a political football and just kick it around and have us
skirmish every day or every week over this issue, leading to delay,
leading to uncertainties, leading to anxieties? Farmers in America
certainly deserve better.
I would like just for a moment or two to think back on the date when
we had the bill on the floor of the Senate and the subject of disaster
assistance was first raised. We adopted in the Senate a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution calling on the President and the Congress to work
together to come up with a proposal that would meet the needs for
emergency action to respond ``to the economic hardships facing
agriculture producers and their communities.'' The Senate adopted that
on July 15 by a vote of 99 to 0.
The next day, there was an amendment offered by the Senator from
North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, and others who suggested we establish a $500
million indemnity program to compensate farmers for income losses that
had been suffered due to various adverse conditions--weather and
otherwise--throughout the country, although mainly the benefits were
directed to the upper plains and other selected areas, not countrywide
benefits or a program designed to be national in scope.
During my remarks on that occasion, I recall on the Senate floor
saying that we needed to have the President and the Department of
Agriculture get involved and provide the Congress with a complete and
accurate assessment of the funds that were needed for a program of this
kind. We hadn't had a proposal from the administration for any specific
benefit program for agriculture, although there had been meetings on
the Hill with farm groups, with Senators and Congressmen trying to,
first, get the facts and get a sense of what the agriculture leadership
throughout the country thought would be an appropriate response by the
Federal Government.
There was no question at the time we were debating the bill that
there was great interest in developing a disaster assistance program to
meet the needs of American agriculture. As a matter of fact, during the
discussion, I asked Senators if they had any better ideas, if they had
suggestions for anything other than this $500 million indemnity
program, and no one came forward to offer any amendments and no one
expressed opposition to adopting that amendment. We checked with the
legislative chairman in the Senate, and others, and without objection,
we suggested that the Senate adopt the amendment of the Senator from
North Dakota on a voice vote, and that is what we did. We accepted the
amendment.
After that was done, it became clear that through gathering
information, that the situation was more widespread. I remember going
to Georgia, for example, with the distinguished Senator from Georgia,
Mr. Coverdell. I had an opportunity to meet with farmers in southern
Georgia and became convinced that we had a problem that was bigger than
the upper plains and Texas. Everybody knew about the drought in Texas
and the severe complications that were resulting from that for
agriculture producers and ranchers in that area. But I do not think it
was well known that in south Georgia, which had had a series of
weather-related disasters over a period of years, the agriculture
sector there was really hurting. And the $500 million indemnity
program, suggested by the Senators from North Dakota and others, was
not going to be sufficient to deal with that problem and others as
well.
I know in my State of Mississippi, for example, when I was home right
after we adopted this bill in July--we had a break during the August
recess--I had an opportunity to visit some areas of my State that were
devastated because of isolated weather patterns that had ruined corn
crops in the northwest part of Mississippi, and others had been damaged
to the extent that diseases were infesting the crops. Aflatoxin was
attacking the corn crops.
There was no provision in any Federal disaster assistance program for
yield losses, for crop losses. Those who were suggesting an indemnity
program based on lifting loan caps had to realize that was not going to
help somebody who had a total crop failure. It would not help them a
bit.
So we came back, started working on a new proposal, got with the
leadership of the House and Senate, and asked the administration they
were going to request supplemental funding. They did come back with a
$1.8 billion supplemental budget authority request to support $2.3
billion in emergency agricultural programs, without a lot of
specificity about how those benefits would be determined, how the
eligibility would be determined, who would administer the program. But,
nonetheless, it was a step in the right direction, and I applauded the
President for responding in that way.
[[Page S11414]]
But based on that supplemental request--and working with the
knowledge that other Members had generated from their States--we
proposed to the conference committee a $4.1 billion disaster assistance
program, and it was accepted in the conference committee with some
changes. We accepted some amendments proposed by House Members in
conference. We added some money proposed by the Senate in response to
specific amendments that were urged in conference to the managers'
proposal. So the end result was the conference committee agreed to
provide emergency benefits totaling about $4.2 billion.
So I come to the Senate today very pleased to be able to report that,
instead of a $500 million indemnity program that the Senate adopted as
a way to deal with the crisis in agriculture, working with farmers,
producers, and ranchers from around the country, and other Members of
the Congress, including the House, we now have a conference report that
is much more generous, much more responsive to the real needs that
exist in our country today in production agriculture, and designed to
more nearly bring farmers to a point where they can continue to operate
without going broke, without the devastating effects that would have
been the reality of the situation had not this package of changes been
agreed upon.
We hear now that the Democratic leadership has urged the President to
veto the bill. And I got a letter suggesting that he would if the
conference agreement on disaster assistance was inconsistent with the
proposal just recently made by the Democratic leader of the Senate to
remove the loan caps under the current farm program for the commodities
that are subsidized, in effect, by the Federal Government--no ifs,
ands, buts about it.
The letter said--and I took this up with the Secretary of Agriculture
to be sure I understood that that was the meaning--that the President
said he would veto the bill if the conference report was inconsistent
with a proposal made by the Democratic leader to remove the loan caps
for those commodities that are subsidized by the Government.
I am very disappointed by that. I certainly hope that there is room
for the President to change his mind on that subject, because it seems
to me that rather than argue over whether or not this program is really
going to do a good job and is thoughtfully crafted to try to put
farmers back on their feet who have been devastated by bad weather and
market conditions beyond their control, it just seems to me that this
is not an appropriate response for the President to be making, given
the other opportunities for positive things.
Here are some examples of positive things that I think could be done
which are beyond the jurisdiction of this committee today that brings
you this conference report. The House of Representatives just passed
recently a tax bill making a lot of changes in the Tax Code, but I
specifically recall that some of those tax changes are designed to
benefit farmers and farm families, and I am told that we are not going
to have a chance to vote on that tax bill here in the Senate because we
cannot get the bill cleared to bring up. We cannot get the House-passed
tax bill cleared.
So in order to bring it up, the majority leader would have to move to
the consideration of the bill, the motion would become debatable, and
then in order to get the bill on the floor for consideration and debate
and passage, 60 votes to invoke cloture would have to be undertaken
because the Democrats are promising to filibuster the bill.
Here are the changes that it bothers me we will not even get a chance
to approve that would help farmers.
There is a 5-year net loss carryback of losses that you can carry
back and set against income for 5 previous years. That is in the House-
passed bill. The House-passed bill makes permanent income averaging,
which permits farmers and ranchers to average income, high years
against low years, and even out the tax burden, which is very
beneficial to many.
There is a provision that makes deductible, to 100 percent of the
cost, health insurance premiums by those who are self-employed. If you
are in agriculture and you have a farm and you are your own boss, under
this change you will be able to deduct 100 percent of the cost of your
health insurance. That helps farmers. That helps farm families.
There is also an acceleration of the exemption for death taxes and
gift taxes. One of the most difficult things facing agriculture today
is the obligation to come up with cash money to pay the Federal
Government so-called inheritance taxes on the death of a family member
who has an interest in the land or the other property that goes into
making up the decedent's estate.
We have passed rules that phase in some higher exemptions for small
farms and for businesses. What this House-passed bill does is
accelerate the phasing in of those exemptions. That would be a big help
to many farm families who are going to have to liquidate assets in real
estate to pay death taxes.
Another thing that this administration has been slow to react to is
the trade problems that we are having in this hemisphere, with Canada,
with Mexico, and beyond, barriers to trade so that our farmers and our
exporters are having to deal with unfair tariff situations and other
difficulties that are erected to keep America from selling what we are
producing in the world marketplace and at the same time importing, in
violation of some existing rules, I am told, some foodstuffs, live
cattle, from other countries.
Finally the administration is beginning to act. We see the Trade
Representative engaging Canada in trade talks now about steps that can
be taken to solve the problems that have developed in that area. But we
were hearing this on the Senate floor and urging the administration to
take action. Being the chief negotiator in the executive branch, the
President has an obligation to assume some leadership. Frankly, there
has been a breakdown in leadership on that subject.
We hope we haven't waited too late to make changes and reach
agreements and work out problems in the trade area for the farmers who
have suffered this year. That is one of the reasons why we felt it
necessary to include direct payments that are bonus payments under the
transition.
We think the market transition program to compensate producers
directly for income losses due to the economic crisis and trade
problems that we have is very important. The administration does not
propose and has not suggested that as an appropriate step to aid
America's farmers.
I make those comments, Madam President, not to pick a fight with
anybody here on the floor of the Senate today, but to simply express my
concern that we not see this bill held up, delayed, postponed, vetoed,
whatever may happen to it, because of an interest in being able to say
the Democrats are for a $7 billion disaster program, the Republican
bill is only $4 billion. I bet it will be the same folks who said we
want $500 million in an indemnity program to help meet the needs of the
agriculture crisis. That is what the story was in July. We all agreed
at that time that was probably temporary, that more needs to be done.
So I am not belittling that suggestion. It was the suggestion on the
floor of the Senate at the time and no one had any better idea at that
time.
Since then it seems we have been engaged in a show of one-upsmanship.
The Republicans then come up with, with Democrat input in many cases,
this $4 billion program of disaster assistance. Now, all of a sudden,
that is not enough; we need $7 billion.
How much has the President requested? I have the exact amount: $1.76
billion in budget authority has been requested by the President for
agriculture producers and ranchers. That will support $2.3 billion
program level. The other suggestion is removing the loan caps. Then CBO
is called on to answer the question, what will that cost? The answer is
that will probably cost--and it is speculation, it is a guess, nobody
knows because nobody knows what commodity prices will be in the
future--it is guessed it will be $5.5 billion.
The proponents of that proposal say we are for spending $5.5 billion
plus $2.3 billion, so we are for spending almost $8 billion. So this is
a more generous plan. What is not disclosed is the effect that policy
change of raising the loan caps will have on prices of those
commodities next year or the next. The
[[Page S11415]]
fact is there are many who tell us that we are buying into a program
that is going to have a continuing depressing effect on market price of
these commodities that are covered by the loan programs.
I don't know if that is true or not. I don't think anybody could have
guessed that corn and wheat prices would have been as low as they are
right now a year ago. So nobody knows what the prices are going to be
in the future. I am told they will be lower because of that change in
policy. So are we doing farmers a favor by making that policy change?
It is really not a question, in my view, of who is willing to spend
more money on farmers, the Republicans or the Democrats. Both are being
very generous. That is the fact. Both are being very, very generous in
terms of where we started, existing programs, precedent, previous
disaster benefit efforts. The fact is the Democrats are in favor of
making a policy change and substituting a change for an existing farm
bill provision that set up the market transition payments and the
phasing in to a market economy. We are in the second year of that farm
bill. There are 3 more years left under the authority of the 1996 bill.
I m hopeful that we can find a way to provide the benefits to American
agriculture producers without rewriting or trying to rewrite portions
of the 1996 farm bill. So we have a difference of opinion on that.
Let me simply conclude my remarks by thanking everyone who helped us
write this conference report. It has been a very challenging
experience. I don't know that we had a more contentious or at least
long drawn out conference on agriculture appropriations since I have
been in the Congress. I don't recall having any more difficult time
putting the bill together. We had a lot of disagreements that were
discussed, but we worked them all out. We have a conference agreement.
That is the good news. The other body has passed the conference report
by a very large vote.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following members of the staff of the Appropriations Committee be
granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the
conference report to accompany H.R. 4101, and during any votes that may
occur in relation to this measure: Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott
Poindexter, and Rachelle Graves.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. KERREY. Madam President, first of all, let me compliment the
Senator from Mississippi for his usual articulate and persuasive
fashion--always a gentleman, always wanting to work with us, regardless
of momentary disagreements. I regret to say this is one of those
momentary disagreements.
I come to the floor today to offer arguments against this conference
report. I had initially intended to offer a motion to recommit the
report back to conference, but now that motion would be out of order
since the House has reported it. I prefer that it go back to the
conference rather than going on to the President.
I appreciate very much the President indicating he will veto this
bill. Perhaps if we can dispose of this conference report in a hurry,
get the President's veto, the conferees can direct their attention to
the objections the President has raised. Those objections are similar
to the ones I will offer here this afternoon.
Let me say, first of all, I do appreciate that there is bipartisan
agreement that rural America is facing a real crisis. That is very good
news. What the Senator from Mississippi said is quite right. There has
been, throughout the year, a process of developing proposals, but there
has been significant disagreement on one particular point; that is,
taking the caps off the loan rate. We voted twice on that. It did not
pass here in the Senate. I will talk about that later. I think,
unfortunately, that ideological argument is getting in the way of our
ability to be able to reach agreement.
This conference report, I believe, fails in two areas: First, it does
not achieve the goal of providing support, both to the farmers who grow
the crop who are in serious trouble due to the prices, and those who
are in trouble as a consequence of weather disasters. For livestock,
this conference report fails to put the law on the sides of the
producers and take action to make our markets work better.
First, as to the amount of income support for grains, it is simply
not enough. It is not targeted as it should be to the people growing
our food.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial
that appeared in the Lincoln Journal Star praising Congressman Doug
Bereuter, a Republican from Nebraska, who represents the First
Congressional District. Congressman Bereuter also objected to the plan
in the conference report as not sufficiently generous to meet the needs
of agriculture under current economic conditions; that the $4 billion
in aid should be closer to $7 billion in aid that the budget has
requested. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Lincoln Journal Star, Oct. 2, 1998]
Bereuter Path on Farm Aid Best Approach
First District Rep. Doug Bereuter has a sound, responsible
approach to helping farmers at a time when commodity prices
have plunged to lows not seen since the 1980s.
Breaking with his GOP cohorts, Bereuter said this week the
Republican plan ``is not sufficiently generous'' to meet the
needs of agriculture under current economic conditions.
House and Senate conferees Wednesday chose the Republican
plan, which would provide $4 billion in aid, over a
Democratic plan which would have provided $7.1 billion in tax
subsidies to farmers.
Agriculture was one of the first sectors of the economy to
be buffeted by the Asian financial crisis. Export markets in
some Asian nations have virtually evaporated. Now markets in
Latin America also are being affected.
In addition to providing a cushion against low prices, the
aid package under consideration in Congress is intended to
help farmers who have been hit by drought and other adverse
weather conditions.
Debate over the size of an aid package for farmers
unfortunately has bogged down in partisan rhetoric and a
running debate over the five-year Freedom to Farm act
approved by Congress in 1996.
The Republican aid package unfortunately also rejects other
measures that would provide substantial benefit to
agriculture. For example, it does not require mandatory price
reporting, which would allow cattle producers to know what
packing plants are paying for beef.
It also does not include a provision to require labeling
showing the national origin of meat. The measure would allow
consumers to select beef produced in the U.S. rather than
other countries. While pushing for more financial help for
farmers, Bereuter rightly resists a return to previous ag
policies that are part of the Democratic approach, which
would base subsidies for grain farmers on the so-called loan
rate.
Previous farm policy was based on a heavily bureaucratic
approach with strict government dictates. Proponents of the
Freedom to Farm act left more decision-making to farmers, at
the same time leaving them more subject to market pressures.
In the long run, the market-oriented approach under Freedom
to Farm will benefit agriculture, although it certainly
should be open for modification and improvement.
But now, while farmers are facing a double whammy of record
harvests and low prices, is not the time to get bogged down
in partisan debate over basic philosophy.
Providing aid under the payment system of the existing farm
bill makes sense. But, as Bereuter suggested, the amount
should be more generous than Republicans have agreed to so
far to preserve the stability and capability of the sector of
the economy that feeds the nation.
Mr. KERREY. Madam President, as to the income, the proposal in the
conference report would be, approximately, for corn, 7 cents a bushel.
That does not get the farmer much closer to either recovering the cost
of production nor providing his banker confidence to lend him money
again next year, and significantly, of all the tests that I trust as to
whether or not the President's proposal should be a part of the
conference report or not, economists will come forward and argue on
both sides of practically any proposal you come out with. The
Independent Bankers of America have endorsed taking the caps off the
loan rate, not because it provides more income, and by no means does it
provide a sufficient amount of income that we won't still have
significant people going broke, but because it is attached to a
marketing loan, it increases the chances that farmers who will need
operating loans will be able to get them.
Likewise, this conference report is inadequate because provisions
were dropped that were passed in the Senate
[[Page S11416]]
in July, which were to require price reporting for beef, and meat
labeling requirements as well. The conferees have said to farmers and
ranchers that they think the livestock markets work just fine. But I am
here in a brief period of time to say that the markets are not working.
Cattle feeders and ranchers have lost more than $2 billion in equity
this year, with millions more being lost every week. When I am home--
typically every weekend--the people in Nebraska are worried about their
financial stability and they believe that this Agriculture
appropriations bill, with the disaster package attached to it, will be
terribly important for their financial stability. More deeply than just
the money, they are worried about their way of life, because, in the
final analysis, this debate is about much more than just the size and
makeup of a relief package; it is about the future of rural America.
We can see the future of our small towns and rural areas very clearly
right now, and it doesn't look good, with prices low and economic
conditions as hard as they are on our farms and ranches.
Those who are not driven off the land in this crisis have already
found that their children are not interested in the life farming has to
offer. Two weeks ago, in Scottsbluff, I held a town hall meeting, and
60 people were in the room who are involved directly in production
agriculture. I asked how many of them had children who would take over
the farms, and I didn't get a single affirmative answer. Those with
grown children had already lost them to the cities. Others said,
``There is no opportunity out here.''
That is what this Congress has the ability to change, and we can
start with this piece of legislation. We need an agricultural sector
that offers some opportunity, but first we must bring some stability to
that agricultural sector.
Again, I am pleased the President is going to veto it. Let me talk of
the differences, specifically to our States. Again, I heard the
distinguished Senator from Mississippi talk about economists who are
saying taking the caps off of loan rates could have a depressing impact
on price. I have not come to the floor and said that Freedom to Farm
produced these lower prices. I think the lower prices are clearly there
as a consequence of a declining demand in the international
marketplace. Nobody is forecasting that demand is going to come back in
1999. Nobody expects the decline in exports to increase. I wish this
Congress had been able to pass fast-track legislation. I have supported
it in the past. I believe that, long term, it would help. But in the
short term, we see substantial declines in income that are there as a
consequence of this decline in demand and increased production that has
occurred here in America.
This package in the conference report versus what the President asked
for is substantially different. I pointed this out before, and it bears
repeating. In Nebraska, the difference is $434 million of income--this
does not go to State government or county government; it goes to
individual farm families--versus $177 million, almost a quarter of a
million dollars. In Mississippi, it is $145 million versus $71 million.
In Minnesota, it is $483 million versus $227 million.
I ask unanimous consent that this table, which shows the differences
between the package in the conference report and what the President has
asked for be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
DEMOCRATIC VERSUS REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS, BY STATE (CBO ESTIMATE)
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Democratic Republican Difference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................... 96 64 32
Arizona.......................... 39 19 20
Arkansas......................... 194 105 89
California....................... 227 142 85
Colorado......................... 120 53 67
Connecticut...................... 2 1 1
Delaware......................... 6 2 4
Florida.......................... 58 47 11
Georgia.......................... 218 147 71
Idaho............................ 127 37 90
Illinois......................... 527 186 341
Indiana.......................... 277 95 182
Iowa............................. 600 235 365
Kansas........................... 371 176 195
Kentucky......................... 65 30 35
Louisiana........................ 99 84 16
Maine............................ 3 2 1
Maryland......................... 21 7 14
Massachusetts.................... 1 1 0
Michigan......................... 109 47 62
Minnesota........................ 483 227 256
Mississippi...................... 145 71 74
Missouri......................... 205 81 124
Montana.......................... 160 71 89
Nebraska......................... 434 177 257
Nevada........................... 1 0 1
New Hampshire.................... 1 0 1
New Jersey....................... 5 1 4
New Mexico....................... 40 27 14
New York......................... 41 12 29
North Carolina................... 185 115 70
North Dakota..................... 431 316 115
Ohio............................. 197 64 133
Oklahoma......................... 170 109 60
Oregon........................... 74 14 60
Pennsylvania..................... 46 10 36
South Carolina................... 46 28 18
South Dakota..................... 363 214 149
Tennessee........................ 73 29 44
Texas............................ 896 813 83
Utah............................. 11 3 8
Vermont.......................... 26 11 16
Virginia......................... 39 19 20
West Virginia.................... 153 42 111
Washington....................... 12 2 10
Wisconsin........................ 139 60 79
Wyoming.......................... 10 4 6
--------------------------------------
Total.......................... 7,546 4,000 3,546
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. KERREY. Madam President, again, not only are our grain farmers
adversely affected, but cattle producers and cattle processors have
been as well. We have met extensively with our ranchers and our
feeders, and they say to us two things need to happen, and they need to
happen in order to improve our prices and increase the chances that we
are going to get a market bid that is higher than what we are getting
now.
The first is mandatory reporting of prices, regardless of whether the
prices occur in cattle that are owned by the feeder or cattle
controlled through formula feeding, or some other contract by the
packinghouse. Those prices today are not reported. We had extensive
debate here on the floor about that issue. Unfortunately, the conferees
dropped that. I believe that provision, all by itself, would increase
prices for cattle in the United States, for beef, and would have a very
positive impact as a consequence on our rural communities.
Likewise, the meat labeling requirement included in the Senate bill
was dropped by the conferees, and it is supported by almost all of the
cattle organizations. There is some dispute on price reporting,
although I think we can deal with the changes that we had in the
conference language. There is almost no dispute, from the standpoint of
the producer, on the need to put on the label information that allows
the consumer to determine from where that product came. It is allowing
the market to work. Rather than saying that the Government is going to
impose a solution, we say inform the consumer where the product came
from and let them decide.
I hope, as I said in the beginning, that the President's veto of this
conference report will lead to the conferees coming back quickly and
looking, as no doubt they will, for ways to improve it along the lines
of what the President has recommended. Not only are there tens of
thousands of farmers who will survive if we can get this legislation
passed and on to the President for his signature, as he has asked us
to, but it will give us a chance to take a step in the direction of
giving our rural communities a chance to survive.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is a custom in the Senate to speak
well of someone you are about to oppose. So let me speak well of the
Senator from Mississippi. We have worked together on a wide range of
issues. He is a very effective Senator and somebody I enjoy working
with a great deal. He has a very effective staff and we work on a lot
of issues together. But I come to the floor today opposing the
conference report and to do so as aggressively as I possibly can. I
want to explain to him and other Members why I feel so strongly about
this.
First of all, it is not the case that all that was offered in July
was the $500 million indemnity program that was introduced as an
amendment by Senator Conrad and myself. It is the case that we also
proposed, and had a vote on an amendment to increase the price supports
by lifting the caps on the loan rate. We did it then; and we did it a
second time. We lost twice in those efforts. We proposed a series of
steps, one of which was lifting the loan rate, and another of which
dealt with disaster issues.
I want to describe why I feel so strongly about this. I received a
letter from the head of the Farm Service Agency in our State. I asked
him, ``If things don't change, what should we
[[Page S11417]]
expect in the next few months in North Dakota with respect to family
farms?'' He points out that North Dakota in the judgment of the Farm
Service Agency, will lose over 3,500 farms by this spring without some
significant assistance. That is probably some 14,000 people. I assume
there is an average of three or four persons on each of those family
farmers, including a spouse and a couple of children. So at least 3,500
family farms will not get credit and will not be able to continue
farming this coming year. That means 12,000 to 14,000 North Dakota farm
people will be told that their dream is over. They tried, but they
failed.
Let me describe the reasons they are not making it. There are two
main reasons. One, is the disaster. We had the 500-year flood of the
Red River, and people know about that. They remember the flood at Grand
Forks. For a number of years we have been in a wet weather cycle in
eastern North Dakota. We have had massive quantities of standing water
that have inundated acres and acres of farmland in North Dakota. This
wet cycle has caused and exacerbated a crop disease known as fusarium
head blight, or scab. This combination has devastated the quality of
farm life in North Dakota.
I have a chart here. If you are a North Dakota farmer and you are in
these red counties on this chart in the eastern part of the State, you
have had 5 straight years of disaster declaration. The red counties are
not 1, 2, or 3, but every year for 5 straight years that these counties
have been declared a disaster. Why? Because of weather-related events,
and other events, their production has been devastated. So that is the
disaster portion of this problem. You can see that with the orange
counties and yellow counties, that these counties have had disasters 3
out of 5 years. In fact two thirds of the counties in my State have
been declared a disaster area 3, 4 or 5 years out of 5 years.
Now, in addition to the disaster, what also has happened to these
farmers is that Congress passed a new farm bill. The Senator from
Nebraska might be right that this might have nothing at all to do with
price. The new farm bill might not be related to the collapse in
price. But it might be; I don't know. I am not asserting that today, I
am just saying that we passed a new farm bill. This chart shows what
has happened to the price of wheat since Congress passed the farm bill.
It is down by almost 60 percent. There has been a 60-percent drop in
the price of wheat since Congress passed the new farm bill. The price
of wheat has fallen from $5.75 a bushel to $2.36.
Add together the significant disasters year after year and the
collapse of prices and here is what you have. In my State, in North
Dakota, which is the hardest hit, in 1 year there was a 98-percent drop
in net farm income. These are U.S. Government figures. We had a 98-
percent drop in net farm income. With respect to this group of North
Dakotans, their income has virtually been wiped away.
Is it any wonder they are in deep trouble? We are not a State of big
corporate agrifactories. We are a State largely composed of family
farms. When they suffer a loss of virtually all of their income, many
of them just do not make it.
The current farm bill doesn't provide a bridge across price valleys.
The philosophy of the current farm bill is that you ought to operate in
the free market. If there is a price valley, the farmer is told,
``Tough luck; try and find your way across the valley.''
So because we don't have that pricing bridge under this economic
philosophy, family farmers certainly don't get to the other side. The
head of our Farm Service Agency says 3,500 farms will not be in the
field next spring in North Dakota.
I am betting that if any other Member of this body had the same set
of statistics in front of them concerning what is happening to their
family farmers would also be here. They would be here with as much
energy and as much passion as I have to see if we can't change this
result and to do whatever we need to do to change it.
The underlying bill has disaster assistance. I am very appreciative
of that. We might argue about who provides more. But overall, frankly,
I think the underlying bill, and the administration, and virtually
everyone who is party to this has offered a fairly decent package with
respect to disaster assistance.
The Senator from Mississippi correctly pointed out that he and
Senator Lott accepted the $500 million indemnity program amendment that
we put into in the bill in the Senate in the first instance to deal
with the initial estimate of damages from the disaster in the Northern
Plains. That amendment was done prior to the almost complete collapse
of the cotton crop in Texas and the devastation in Louisiana, Oklahoma
and other States. At that time we all understood that the disaster
indemnity program was going to have to be increased at some point along
the way. The disaster package in this appropriations bill started with
the acceptance by the Senator from Mississippi to put in the $500
million indemnity for the Northern Plains. I appreciate that.
I am not here to argue about which disaster proposal for this bill is
better than the other. Both the President and the conference report
addressed this disaster issue in a very significant way. But, I am here
to say that is not enough.
On top of the disaster provision, as the Senator from Mississippi
indicated, the majority party added a 18-cents-a-bushel payment for
wheat. This additional AMTA payment really only means that farmers will
get 13 cents a bushel for wheat when it is all figured out. That is
because AMTA payments are made on only 85 percent of contract acreage
on the frozen historic yields. So the real assistance to deal with
price collapse in this bill amounts to 13 cents a bushel for wheat. And
it is not enough.
It won't allow farmers enough cashflow. It won't allow their bankers
to decide that they will get another loan to go to the fields next
spring to plant crops. They simply won't be able to do it. That is the
dilemma. This is not enough. And there isn't any way to argue to say
that it is enough, or that it will solve this problem.
If numbers are to be believed with respect to the estimates in North
Dakota, at least 3,500 farm families are going to be washed away. These
farm families are not going to be able to farm next spring. I am not
willing to accept that result. It is not a fair result. Family farmers
are not getting their share of this country's national income. They
should be expected to get a decent share of that.
Let me show you what family farms face. They are told that they
should just go ahead and operate in the free market and whatever
happens, happens. What is that free market about? Everywhere they look,
they confront near monopolies, or at least enormous concentrations of
economic power. The top four firms in this country control 62 percent
of flour milling. The top four firms in dry corn milling control 57
percent. In wet corn milling, the top four control 76 percent. In
soybean crushing, the top four have 76 percent.
If a farmer happens to produce livestock and he markets that cow, he
finds that 87 percent of the beef slaughter is controlled by the top
four firms. The top four control 73 percent of sheep slaughter. It is
60 percent for pork. Or, if farmers want to haul their grain to market
on a railroad--and most of them have to--they stick it on a rail car
somewhere in my State, and they get double charged at least because
there is no competition.
I have mentioned this before and I will say it again. If you put a
carload of wheat on the rail track in Bismarck and haul it to
Minneapolis, they charge you $2,300. If you put it on a car in
Minneapolis, and haul it to Chicago, which is about the same distance,
it costs you $1,000. Why do we get double charged? Because there is no
rail competition in North Dakota, while there are multiple lines
between Minneapolis and Chicago.
So it is not just concentration among processors. It is also the
transportation components of the grain trade that are highly
concentrated. This isn't a circumstance where there is a free market.
Yet farmers are told to operate in the free market. If prices collapse,
they are told tough luck, and we will give you 13 cents. If they can't
make it with that, tougher luck.
Those want to pass this bill also contemplate tax cuts that they say
will help farmers. Tax cuts don't help people without income. The
problem in
[[Page S11418]]
farm country is lack of income. The first thing we should do is to
restore income.
I happen to support most of those tax proposals that I have heard
about. In fact, some that the Senator from Mississippi described today
have great merit. I support fully deductible health insurance for sole
proprietorships and income averaging. I can go down a whole list of
proposals that I support. My point is that first we need to restore
income to these family farmers. They need to get a fair share of this
Nation's income.
The fact is that everybody who touches products produced by these
farmers is virtually making record profits. The railroads? You bet your
life they are doing fine. They haul the farmers' products. How about
the slaughterhouses? Are they doing fine? You bet they have solid
profits. They are the ones who slaughter the livestock that is sent to
market by those farmers.
How about the cereal manufacturers who put the snap, crackle and pop
into a cereal. They take a kernel of wheat, put it in a plant some
place, put it in a bright-colored box, ship it to a grocery store, and
sell it at $4 a box. The company that puts the puff in puffed wheat
makes far more than the person who gassed the tractor, planted the
seed, and harvested that wheat. In fact, the person that harvested the
wheat that they planted is going broke. And the people who are puffing
it, crackling it, and snapping it are having record profits.
I don't understand the notion that somehow, if we just do nothing,
things will work out. When we look at all of the evidence here, we are
going to lose tens and tens of thousands of family farmers across this
country unless this Congress does what it needs to do now. We need to
provide some decent price supports to get farmers across this price
valley.
I am not standing here asking that we tip the current farm program
upside down. I didn't vote for the current farm program. I am not going
to stand here and provide a litany of why I think it is not a good
program. I am not suggesting we tip it upside down. I am simply saying
what this farm program did in the big print it took away in the small
print. This farm program, passed by this Congress, said we would
provide farmers 85 percent of the five-year Olympic average price as a
price support in the form of a loan rate. That is what it said in the
big print. In the small print it said that the 85 percent of the five-
year Olympic average price would be capped. The small print says we
will put an artificial cap on it to bring the loan rates way down.
All we are saying is that we should take the artificial cap off. Do
what the big print said the farm bill will do. Get rid of the small
print that took away that help to the family farmers.
In North Dakota it means a $156 million difference just on the price
support mechanism. The difference for the farmers in my State alone is
$156 million. That could well mean the difference between making it and
not making it. It can mean the difference between succeeding and
failing.
A young fellow wrote to me recently. I have referred to his letter
previously in the last couple of days. His name is Wyatt. He is a
sophomore in high school at Stanley, ND. He wrote this plaintive cry
for help on behalf of his family farm. He is a young boy who loves to
farm. He knows his dad and mom do as well. He wrote me a letter that
says, ``My dad can feed 180 people. And he can't feed his family.'' He
was describing a circumstance where his family's income has been washed
out. Their family farm may not be able to make it and he wonders
whether that is fair, and whether that is good economic policy for this
country. The answer clearly is no, that is not fair. And clearly it is
not good economic policy for our country.
Both the independent community bankers in my State and the North
Dakota Bankers Association tell me that if we don't pass some
meaningful assistance this year these farmers won't be in the field
next spring. That is from the lenders.
This weekend, I was reading some of President Truman's speeches in
1948. I want to read a couple of pieces from President Truman in 1948.
Old Harry was doing a whistle stop tour on a train back then. I like
Harry Truman. Harry spoke plainly and never minced any words. I thought
maybe we would celebrate just a bit of what Harry Truman said about
family farmers and what this debate is about today.
Harry Truman said at the National Plowing Match in Dexter, IA,
September 18, 1948:
[I] believe that farmers are entitled to share equally with
others in our national income. [I] believe a prosperous and
productive agriculture is essential to [this country's]
national welfare.
He said:
Those who are wilfully trying to discredit the price
support program for farmers don't want the farmers to be
prosperous. They believe in low prices for farmers, cheap
wages for labor, and high profits for big corporations.
And then he said:
The big money [interests look] on agriculture and labor as
merely an expense item in a business venture. [They try] to
push their share of the national income down as low as
possible and increase [their] own profits. And [they] look
upon the Government as a tool to accomplish this purpose.
That was 1948, 50 years ago. Isn't it interesting that as we stand
here debating agriculture, in North Dakota there are probably 12,000 to
14,000 citizens who will not get into the fields next spring unless
this Congress does the right thing. At least 3,500 farms will go belly
up. That is 12,000 to 14,000 people, who will lose their livelihood
unless we do the right thing. Yet, surrounding those farmers are the
bigger economic interests that are all making money. There are the
railroads, slaughterhouses, grain trader, cereal manufacturers, grocery
manufacturers, and you can name all the others that are all making
record profits.
Does that say something about whether the system is fair? And you
might say, well, what business is it of ours? The business for this
country is that if we do not act, we will not have people living in the
country. We will not have people living out on the land. We won't have
yard lights illuminating those family farms. We won't have the
Jeffersonian notion of broad-based economic democracy in America if we
don't start caring a bit about whether we have family farmers in our
future.
Instead, we will end up having big agribusiness in control in rural
America from California to Maine. When they do that, the price of food
will go way up, and then they will have cornered everything. I guess
they can haul it, process it, slaughter it, and make money off of that
and then finally they can grow it because they got rid of mom and pop
on the family farm. You ask them, would that be good for the country? I
don't think so.
So this issue is very simple. Is what the conference committee
brought to the Senate floor enough? The answer is clearly no. It is not
nearly good enough. Do we have the resources in this country to do
better and do what we should? The answer is yes, clearly yes. For those
who believe in this as a priority, there are clearly enough resources
to make the difference. I hope that if the Congress falls short, the
President will veto the legislation as he indicated earlier. He should
send it back and say let us do better. We can do better and work
together.
We must understand that there are two components, one of which is a
disaster component. For that portion I commend the Senator from
Mississippi and the entire conference. But the second portion is the
price support component. These two components added together must be
enough to give farmers some hope and some opportunity. This bill falls
far short of that.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, it is not the case that
somehow the proposal to increase the price supports that are available
to family farmers has just emerged from some mysterious corner of
policy making. That is not the case at all. We have already had two
votes in the Senate on this issue of raising price supports. We have
lost by a handful of votes both times, and we may lose again. But, I
will be here through the last breath of legislative effort to see that
this Congress is persuaded to do the right thing for these family
farmers.
These 3,500 farm families deserve a chance. They didn't cause the
Asian financial crisis. They didn't cause the crisis in Asia which
means that this country can export fewer agricultural goods to Asia.
Family farmers didn't cause crop disease. Family farmers didn't cause
the collapse of grain
[[Page S11419]]
prices. Family farmers didn't cause the incessant wet cycle in our part
of the country that has helped exacerbate crop disease. Family farmers
didn't cause these problems. And this Congress should not say to family
farmers, ``Well, you deal with it. And if you can't, you don't
matter.''
This Congress ought to extend a helping hand to say to family
farmers, ``We want to help you over this trouble spot. We want to help
you survive because you are important to this country.''
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, first of all, I would like to start out thanking my
colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. Above and beyond his
ability as Senator, I think probably the best thing about him is his
civility, and I wish I wasn't in profound disagreement with my
colleague, but I am. I do wish to thank him for some of the good things
in this bill. In this appropriations bill, we are talking about farm
programs; we are talking about nutrition programs, forestry, and also
there is a great deal of research money. In particular, I am very
pleased that we are going to see additional funding for research of the
scab disease which is a terribly important problem for my State and
certainly for North Dakota as well. The faculty at the University of
Minnesota is doing some very important research in this area.
Madam President, I talked to our FSA director, Wally Sparby, and he
sent me some information that I might just start out with. Mr. Sheldon
Erickson from Roseau, MN at Border State Bank is talking about the
situation of bankers: 90 percent of his farmers can't repay in 1998; 25
percent he won't be able to lend to in 1999; he says more equity
lending is required but less is available. Percy Blake of Bremer Bank
in Crookston, MN: 75 percent of borrowers won't be able to meet their
obligations in 1998; 50 percent are in jeopardy of not being financed
in the coming year; he says that regulators are trying to pressure them
away from equity financing.
We have a plea and cry from not just family farmers in our
communities, but from the lenders and small businesses and from the
citizens, I say to my colleague from Mississippi.
I have here petitions from all over the State of Minnesota. People
who signed these petitions did this with some hope. It says:
We, the people of rural Minnesota, exercising our
constitutional right to petition the Government for redress
of grievances, hereby state and declare: That the
exceptionally low prices being paid for farm commodities in
the State of Minnesota constitute a dire threat, a crisis
imperiling residents, businesses and institutions of rural
communities who are demanding an immediate response from our
Federal Government; that without action by the Secretary of
Agriculture to increase the support prices for corn,
soybeans, wheat, small grains, hogs, cattle and dairy
products and to extend loans and increase loan rates and to
make crop insurance coverage effective, thousands of families
relying on farming and rural businesses will lose their
livelihoods; that the 1996 Federal farm bill must be revised
this year in order to restore an economic safety net for
family farmers and allow them to support rural small
businesses and community institutions; that these destructive
policies must be reversed to ensure healthy main streets,
full schools and full churches in rural communities of the
State of Minnesota.
I say to the Chair, I don't know how many signatures there are here,
but this is just a sample of the people. Let me show you those who have
signed their names to this with the hope that it will make a
difference.
Madam Chair, the differences between this bill's $4 billion package
and the $7 billion package that we proposed are ones that make a
difference.
Part of it has to do with the amount of assistance, but the big issue
is the price crisis. I am actually not going to speak that long on the
floor of the Senate because my colleagues, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska
and Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, have already spoken about this.
In many ways what we are struggling with is not just the wet weather
and not just the scab disease, but disastrously low prices. It is hard
to believe that we really want to have such a low cap as that in the
Freedom to Farm bill--I call it the ``Freedom to Fail'' bill--at a time
when prices are so low.
In our proposal we talked about taking the current cap off the loan
rate. As I hear from people in our communities--not just the farmers
but the lenders as well--this is the most direct and dramatic way that
we can get some income to these families. We would raise the loan rate
about 57 cents a bushel for wheat, about 27 cents a bushel for corn,
and over 20 cents a bushel for soybeans. That would be what would
happen if we would lift the cap.
What was not anticipated--I think my colleague from Mississippi would
agree with me on this point--when the Freedom to Farm bill, or
``Freedom to Fail'' bill, was passed, was that the prices would
plummet. I do not think Senators realized that, although I think
farmers have always known that prices go up and down. What happened is
we basically eliminated the leverage the farmers have in the
marketplace --where the loan rate helps them in their dealing with
grain companies. In addition there was a safety net that was extremely
important. At least it provided some direct assistance to people. We
have eliminated that.
I say to my colleagues today, I appreciate their work, but this
relief package will not do the job. It is impossible for me as a
Senator to come out here and speak for it or to vote for it. It is very
important that the President veto this. The President said he will. It
is important that we get back to negotiations and work out a package
together. It has to be a bipartisan package.
Just in terms of corn growers who currently are receiving $1.50 a
bushel for corn or less, they cannot cash flow on that. The same is
going on with our wheat farmers--low prices.
I think surely we will hear from Senator Feingold from Wisconsin.
Senator Kohl actually has just come out on the floor. Our dairy farmers
in the upper Midwest have been going under. We have a federal milk
marketing order system that is absolutely discriminatory, and there is
a legislative rider in this appropriations bill which effectively
extends that discrimination another half a year. That is completely
unsatisfactory, at the very time the Secretary of Agriculture has put a
process into effect to examine and reform this system. That reform
process is not enough for many of us, but we appreciate it as a
positive step, moving forward. Now that reform process will be
postponed for an additional 6 months under the provision of this
legislative rider, which in addition has the effect of extending for 6
months the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, another policy which has
a discriminatory effect upon dairy producers and the dairy industry of
the upper Midwest.
So, as a Senator from Minnesota, I cannot in good conscience support
an appropriations bill that will not provide the needed assistance to
family farmers in rural communities in my State. It would amount to
betrayal. People are in desperate shape. That is the ``why'' of all
these petitions. That is the ``why'' of all the meetings I have
attended: in Crookston, East Grand Forks, Granite Falls, Fulda,
Worthington. That is the ``why'' of grown men and women crying because
they are being driven off their farms. They work there, they live
there, it is everything that they have ever worked for.
Nobody can say we are talking about a group of citizens who do not
work hard, but this just seems beyond their control. Now we have an
appropriations bill that does not deal with the price crisis, that does
not get enough relief out there, that is not going to enable these
people to stay on the farms. It does not do the job.
I think family farmers in rural America know that. We have to do
better. Senator Cochran has done all that he can do. I think he has
pushed hard for what he thinks is right. But some of the rest of us
have to come out here and we have to fight hard for what we think is
right. The President has to stay strong, and he has said he will veto
this bill. We need to go back to the table and put negotiations on a
fast-track to get a farm crisis relief package that will do the job.
For my State, the differences between the two packages amount to a
quarter of a billion dollars. That is $250 million more for family
farmers and small businesses in rural communities. This is a decisive
moment for the State
[[Page S11420]]
of Minnesota, for agriculture and for family farmers.
In many parts of our country we hardly have a family farm structure
of agriculture any longer, where the people who live on the land make
the investments and work on the land. In the Midwest I think we
understand a very sound economic point, which is also, I think, a
social message: the health and vitality of our communities are not
based upon the number of acres that are farmed or the number of animals
that are owned. Somebody will always farm that land or own that land.
The question is, Are we going to have family farmers? The health and
vitality of our communities are based upon the number of farmers--I say
to the Senator from Wisconsin--the number of family dairy farmers.
We have a crisis, and that crisis deserves a strong and effective
response from the U.S. Congress. This appropriations bill--and I say
this not in a shrill way but in a very determined way--is not an
adequate response to that crisis.
Therefore, I will vote against it. I call on the President to veto
it. And I call on my colleagues please to work together and do better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to discuss the conference report
that is before us as well. I want to start by acknowledging the efforts
of the chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran. Senator Cochran, I
think, is really one of the most decent Members in this Chamber. He is
somebody I respect, somebody I like, somebody who has made a real
contribution in the Agriculture Committee in previous years as well as
being chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee. So I
acknowledge right up front he is someone, I think, who has the best
interests of American agriculture at heart.
But he is not the only one to make the decisions. He has to make the
decision, not only in the Senate Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee, but in a conference committee. It is a conference between
the Senate and the House. And what has been brought back to this
Chamber is inadequate.
I represent North Dakota. North Dakota has been absolutely devastated
by what I call the triple whammy of bad prices, bad weather and bad
policy. That triple whammy has washed away farm income.
This chart shows the Government's own figures. From 1996 to 1997, we
saw a 98-percent drop in farm income in the State of North Dakota. That
is a crisis by any definition. It is a combination of terrible prices--
we have the lowest prices in 50 years--coupled with natural disasters--
we have had an outbreak of scab and other fungi because of continuing
overly wet conditions--and then we have, on top of it, bad policy.
The last farm bill, I don't know how else to say it, is bad policy.
It is its own disaster, because, in previous times, if prices would
have collapsed, there would have been an automatic adjustment
mechanism. That automatic adjustment mechanism has been taken away, and
the result is now, when prices collapse and you have a natural
disaster, there is not much there. The result is literally thousands of
farmers in our State being forced off the land.
When the Secretary of Agriculture came to North Dakota, his crisis
response team told him over the next 2 years we could lose 30 percent
of the farmers in North Dakota--30 percent. That would change the face
of our State forever.
We have no choice but to fight. We have no choice but to come out and
plead with our colleagues to do better and to do more, because if we
fail, there will be dire consequences, not only in our State, but in
other farm-belt States as well.
It is not just conditions in North Dakota, although we have had the
worst conditions. The price collapse is affecting everybody in the farm
belt. This chart shows what has happened to spring wheat prices over a
very extended period. This shows what has happened to prices from 1946
to 1998, 52 years of prices. You can see we are at an all-time low. In
52 years, this is the lowest they have ever been, adjusted for
inflation. This is it. At no time in 52 years have prices been lower
than they are today.
It is not just spring wheat prices. We lead the Nation in production
of spring wheat, or at least in many years we do. Barley is also a
major crop in North Dakota. Again, 52 years of history, and here we are
today, the lowest prices in 52 years. When I talk about the triple
whammy of bad prices, bad weather and bad policy, the bad prices are
abundantly clear. We have the worst prices in 52 years.
We have looked at spring wheat. We looked at barley. This chart shows
durum prices. Does it look familiar? It is exactly the same pattern,
the lowest prices in 52 years. You can look back on the whole period of
52 years, and prices have never been lower.
When we then look at what our colleagues have brought before us from
the conference committee, we can see that the Republican plan does not
measure up. The Democratic plan is $7.5 billion. Some estimates are as
high as $7.8 billion. The Republican plan is $4.1 billion.
I must say to you, Madam President, and say to my colleagues,
honestly, even the Democratic plan will not solve this problem. If you
go back to 1986, the Federal Government spent $26 billion because we
were faced with a similar farm economy.
We are not going to be anywhere close to that. We will be less than
half of that level of funding this year, even if the Democratic plan
passes. Make no mistake, the Democratic plan does not solve the
problem, but what our Republican colleagues are offering is totally
inadequate. It is not going to stem the tide. It is not going to
prevent literally thousands of family farmers from being forced off the
land.
I just had a series of meetings all across my State, and every town I
go to, there are large meetings of farmers. It is very interesting
because usually when I hold meetings like this, it is just farmers. Not
this year. Now it is Main Street businesspeople. The mayors and city
councilmen in the cities and the bankers are all coming to these
meetings, many of whom have never attended a farm meeting in my 12
years in the U.S. Senate, stopping me afterwards and saying, ``Senator,
there's something radically, radically wrong, and unless something is
done and done quickly, not only is that farmer going to fail, but the
Main Street businesses are going to fail and the towns themselves are
going to fail.''
For the first time ever in my experience, mayors and city councilmen
are coming to my meetings and telling me that the cities are going to
fail unless something dramatic is done and done quickly.
If we look at the constituent elements of the plan, the first part
involves support on the income side. The Democrats call for removing
the marketing loan rate caps. The Republicans call for increased
transition payments. There is a dramatic difference here. The
Democratic plan costs over $5 billion; the Republican plan, less than
one-third of that.
The difference here is the Democratic plan says that the loan rate
caps that were put in the last farm bill at a very low level,
artificially low level, especially on the commodities that we produce
in our part of the country, leave farmers in a circumstance in which if
prices collapse, they have no protection.
Some have said, ``Gee, you're going to give a loan to farmers who
have an income problem? Isn't that just digging the hole deeper?'' Let
me explain for those who may be listening that a marketing loan in
agriculture is not like a normal loan.
A marketing loan in agriculture works this way: A farmer gets a
loan--and in the farm bill, on wheat it is $2.58, but if the price goes
below that, if the farmer sells for not $2.58 but sells for $2, he
doesn't have to pay back the difference between the market price and
the loan rate. That is why it is called a marketing loan. He only pays
all of it back if prices exceed the amount of the loan level. This
doesn't build debt. This is a floor under income. It is to guard
against the kind of price collapse that we have occurring now.
Unfortunately, in the new farm bill, the loan rates were capped at an
artificially low level. They did that because of a budget
consideration. That is why these loan levels were set at such low
rates, because, frankly, agriculture was cut dramatically at the same
time the
[[Page S11421]]
new farm bill was put in place. In fact, much of the problem that we
are experiencing with the new farm bill is not the specifics of the
farm bill as much as the budget limitation that we were under when the
farm bill was written.
In fact, the support for agriculture was cut in half at the time the
last farm bill was written. In the previous 5 years, we had been
getting about $10 billion a year to support agriculture. Under the new
budget agreement, that was cut in half, to about $5 billion a year.
That is one reason we are in such desperate shape, because our major
competitors, the Europeans, are spending almost $50 billion a year, 10
times as much as we are to support our producers. It is not too hard to
understand that the Europeans are on the move, they are on the march,
they are gaining market share because they are doing it the old-
fashioned way: They are buying these markets.
Madam President, one thing we have to ask ourselves is do we want to
roll over, do we want to play dead, do we want to fly the white flag of
surrender when our major competitors are spending 10 times as much as
we are to support their producers?
I said at the time I thought it represented unilateral disarmament,
that the United States was making a profound mistake, because the
Europeans have a strategy and they have a plan. And, oh, how well that
strategy and plan are working. Their strategy and their plan is to
dominate world agricultural trade.
If you look at the trend lines in agriculture, you can see that their
strategy and their plan are working very well. They have gone from
being major importers to being major exporters in just 10 years. In the
United States we are going backwards. If you look at our world
position, it is slipping. And it is slipping in part because we are not
in this fight. We have ceded it to our competitors.
Why do they have a different view? In part, because they have been
hungry twice in Europe. They do not intend to be hungry again. But more
than that, they have decided it makes sense to have people out across
the land. They do not want everybody forced into the cities. And we
have to make a decision in this country. Do we want everybody to go to
the cities? Because if that is what we want, we are on schedule. We are
right on track because that is what is going to happen. We are going to
see the people from the farms move into the cities because you cannot
make a living on the farm.
So the first part of the difference between these two plans is on the
income side of the house. The Democrats have a plan of over $5 billion
of assistance. The Republicans are offering $1.6 billion.
If you look at the specifics between the two, you again see that the
Republican plan just does not measure up. The Democratic plan on wheat
would provide 57 cents a bushel.
When prices are at the lowest they have ever been--prices in my State
are down to $2.50 a bushel on wheat. That is the least they have ever
been, at least in the 52 years we have looked at putting these records
together--the lowest prices in 52 years. The Democrats have a rescue
plan of 57 cents a bushel. The Republican plan would provide 13 cents a
bushel on wheat. And 13 cents a bushel is not going to pay many bills,
very frankly.
When I tell the farmers back home that the Republican plan would
provide 13 cents a bushel, the reaction is a combination of
mystification, anger, and disbelief. They cannot believe in this
circumstance that the best we can do is 13 cents a bushel.
On barley, the Democratic plan is 23 cents; in the Republican plan it
is 6 cents a bushel.
On corn, the Democratic plan is 28 cents a bushel; the Republican
plan one-quarter of that, 7 cents a bushel.
And on soybeans, the Democratic plan is 28 cents a bushel; the
Republican plan is 2 cents.
Madam President, that is the income side of this proposal to deal
with the crisis.
On the indemnity relief plan, that part of the plan that is designed
to deal with the natural disasters that are occurring around the
country, the Democratic plan is $2.48 billion of money that would go
out to farmers; the Republican plan, $2.43 billion. And you can see the
differences in the two plans.
The Democratic plan has $935 million for multiyear loss indemnity;
$960 million for the 1998 loss indemnity--that would go primarily to
the South, the second part there, because those are folks that have
just suffered losses in 1998. In our part of the country, we have
multiple-year losses--3, 4, or 5 bad years in a row because of natural
disasters.
The third element of the Democratic plan is for noninsurable,
uninsured crops, $250 million. There is a fourth element, $50 million
for flood compensation. These are for folks who do not qualify for
anything. Their land is under water. And we have people in North
Dakota, northeastern North Dakota whose land has been under water now
for 5 years. They have no income --none. The Republican plan is silent
with respect to those people. They get nothing. They have been getting
nothing; they continue to get nothing. I guess there is at least a
consistency to that--nothing; that is what they get.
Those people--I just talked to one fellow who has put in everything
he has. He had an insurance settlement--put that in--and his lifetime
savings. This fellow used to be a world champion bull rider. He put all
his lifetime winnings in. Every single thing his family had he has put
into the pot. He is a remarkable, remarkable man. Five years in a row
he sees more and more of his land going under water, and his response
is really remarkable. He is just hopeful that something good is going
to happen. He is just happy to be alive. But he is really counting on
us to do something. The Republican plan does nothing.
Emergency livestock assistance, there is $200 million in the
Democratic plan. There is $31 million for farm operating loans. There
is $40 million for an FSA increased workload; $10 million for U.S.
Forest Service assistance; $10 million for tree assistance--for a total
of $2.48 billion. You can see the comparable elements to the Republican
plan, which is roughly equivalent.
Madam President, another way to look at this is to look at individual
farmers. What happens in these different plans? So we took three
examples from North Dakota and looked at individual producers with
individual situations and compared what the two plans would provide the
individual farmer.
Chart A relates to our first producer. We are not using names here
because we thought it would be more appropriate to label them A, B and
C. This chart represents a typical North Dakota producer who farms 500
acres of wheat, 300 acres of barley and is suffering only from low
prices. He has not been affected by the bad weather. And we look at
what he would receive under the Democratic plan, which is $12,630. In
the Republican plan it is about one-quarter of that. This is a
circumstance in which somebody has not been affected by bad weather,
just the very low prices.
Producer B represents a circumstance that shows a typical North
Dakota producer, what they can expect to receive from suffering not
only low prices, but also has repeated years of crop loss due to
natural disasters, such things as flooding or the crop disease scab. So
this is producer B who is suffering from low prices and from natural
disaster. And under the Democratic plan this farmer would get $22,130;
under the Republican plan they get $12,686.
Producer C is somebody who has really got the triple whammy. This
producer is not only affected by low prices, he has also had repeated
years of disaster and has flooded land. Under the Democratic plan they
would get $28,000 of assistance; under the Republican plan $12,686.
Madam President, these are specific examples of what people would
experience under the two plans. I say to you that neither one of them
are going to solve the problem. I mean, that is the truth of the
matter. This problem in my State is so deep and so serious that neither
of these plans is going to solve the problem. In fact, if we do not do
a lot more next year, there are going to be thousands of farmers who
never get into the fields because their bankers will not finance them.
If you are looking at what we are doing, we are shoring them up to
try to get them to next year, trying to allow them to survive the
winter. But the
[[Page S11422]]
hard reality is--the harsh reality is if we do not do something
dramatically more this year and next year, those farmers are not going
to plant because if you look at what the Republican plan does and what
the Democratic plan does, it provides money this year.
I guess we are all praying that prices increase. I hope that happens.
I hope that happens. But with the collapse in Asia, I think, frankly--
the collapse in Russia as well--it is probably unlikely that prices
will increase substantially. And that means when the banker looks at
the income statement for a farmer, under the Republican plan what they
see is that we have moved forward the AMTA payments. We all agreed to
do that. Republicans are providing 13 cents more a bushel this year in
assistance, but there is nothing for next year. The AMTA payments that
are supposed to be paid next year have been pulled into this year.
So when the banker looks at the income payments for the farmer for
next year, all he looks at are the price projections for the
commodities that are going to be produced on that farm. Bankers are
telling me they are not going to be able to extend loans to farmers
next year if either one of these packages passes because we are not
doing anything about next year. The families are going to their bankers
in February and March to get operating money for next year.
I had blown up a letter I got from a constituent back home that
explains it very well. This is from Steve and Stephanie Johnson.
Stephanie wrote the letter from Luverne, ND:
I am writing in hopes that it will encourage you to quickly
push forward the farm assistance program that is in the
works.
She goes on to describe that they are farming near Luverne, ND, they
have 90 head of cattle, 13 head of horses. They raise corn, wheat,
barley, sunflowers, and canola. She works as an RN outside the home, 24
to 40 hours a week, which pays part of their health insurance and most
of their bills. Her husband works usually 12 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a
week, and he works 24 hours a day during calving time in February or
March. He made $12,000 of farm income this year, of which $2,000 and an
income tax return of $1,000 went to pay part of the 1997 operating loan
balance. So that leaves her husband with $10,000 for the entire year of
1998. As she points out, that is $833 a month without benefits. That
amounts to $2.30 an hour. That doesn't include the labor that she and
her son have put into the farm either. She says:
The really sad part of this is we didn't have to take
operating loans in the 12 years my husband has been farming
until 4 years ago.
The cattle and the horses have helped us break even in the
past, but in these last few years we can't even do that.
She says in capital letters:
With skyrocketing production costs and plummeting prices it
is obvious that you can't quite break even. Something needs
to be done quickly.
Madam President, she goes on to say:
We are in no way asking for handouts, only fair prices. We
have to pay whatever price the retailers put on our products,
but we have no way to set our prices on our products.
She concludes by saying:
We are not sure if we will farm next year, my husband
doesn't want to lose everything he has worked for in the past
12 years. Nor do I think either of us can take any more
stress. We are losing numerous family farmers in our area, in
the past few years, 4 of our neighbors quit or were forced to
quit. Isn't it time to do something?
Madam President, it is time to do something and it is time to do
something that is much more significant than what is in this conference
report. The truth is, it is not going to solve this problem. It isn't
even a Band-Aid on the problem. At least a Band-Aid covers a wound. I
can say if this is the best we do, then we are consigning thousands of
farmers--thousands of farmers--to the auction block, because that is
exactly what is going to happen in our State.
Finally, to put this in perspective, this chart shows what we are
spending to support our producers and what the Europeans are spending
to support theirs. We are spending $5 billion a year; they are spending
nearly $50 billion a year. If we add $7 billion to that total, we are
still being outspent nearly 4-1. I submit that it is pretty hard to win
a fight when the other side is outspending you 4-1, much less the 10-1
that is currently happening.
I hope before we are done with this legislative session that we will
go back to the drawing boards and substantially strengthen the package
that is before the Senate. It is absolutely critically important to the
State I represent, and I think it is fair to say that there are many
other States whose farm producers are in much the same shape as the
people who are farming in North Dakota. Bedeviled by the triple whammy
of bad prices, bad weather, and bad policy--not much we can do about
the weather; perhaps not much we can do in the short run about prices;
we can do something about the policy that is passed on the floor of the
U.S. Senate.
I implore my colleagues to join with others of us who really want to
make certain that farmers have a fighting chance, a chance to get
through this winter, a chance to be out plowing those fields again next
spring.
I thank my colleagues for their attention and their patience.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 1999
Agricultural appropriations conference report. This bill would delay
reform of the current milk pricing system and extend the life of the
controversial Northeast Dairy Compact. Both policies would cost
consumers and hurt dairy farmers in the Midwest.
Most of the debate on this bill has rightly been about how we can
help farmers devastated by drought and low crop yields. But just as we
must act to help them, we should not act to harm the dairy farmers of
Wisconsin and other Midwestern states.
It is not as if there is support for the damaging dairy policies in
this bill. Twenty-five Senators have signed a letter opposing extension
of the current milk pricing system and the Northeast Interstate Dairy
Compact. The Judiciary Committee has requested that no action be taken
to renew the Compact without their review.
And it is by no means certain that the Compact could survive
scrutiny. The higher prices ordered by the Compact are leading to
higher consumer prices and a continued decline in fluid milk
consumption. Worse yet, these higher prices are primarily benefiting
large dairy farms. In Vermont the largest 7 percent of farms receive 30
percent of the Compact revenues.
As for extending the USDA's time to review the milk pricing system,
that is unnecessary. By delaying reform, this legislation does exactly
what the authors of the 1996 Farm Bill were trying to prevent. Congress
deliberately gave the job of reform to the Secretary of Agriculture so
it could be done in a more analytical and less political environment.
Our actions today put the antiquated dairy pricing system back into the
political arena that created it in the first place.
To many of you, this may seem to be an arcane debate with little real
impact. But in Wisconsin, and through the Midwest region, the current
inequitable pricing system is destroying family farms--not because they
are uncompetitive, but because of a system that closes off regional
markets and prices milk based on where it is made, not on its quality
or its cost. Our actions today punish a traditional and successful
industry. We are making the Midwest dairy farmers the victims of
regional infighting and inside-the beltway politics. That is wrong. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
long park dam
Mr. BENNETT. I would like to raise an issue addressed in the Senate
report language regarding the Long Park Dam in Daggett County, Utah.
Daggett County is the smallest county in Utah, with a population of
just over 700 people. It is also the home of the Flaming Gorge
Recreation Area, which is host to over 2 million visitors annually.
I appreciate the committee's efforts to provide some assistance in
repairing the dam through the water and waste disposal loans and grants
program under RCAP. The city of Manila already has acquired a loan for
a new treatment plant for Long Park Dam water, which has now been put
in jeopardy because of the structural problems in the Long Park Dam.
The city has a very limited capacity to assume more debt to repair the
dam.
Once the repairs on the dam are completed, the city would use as much
as 50 percent of the water stored in Long
[[Page S11423]]
Park Dam. Given the size of the communities involved and the limited
ability to assume new debt, would it be appropriate to remind the
Department of the special circumstances in Daggett County and encourage
the Department to consider the community's current financial
obligations when it reviews the grant application?
Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator from Utah is correct that here are some
unique circumstances in this situation. I hope the Department will take
into consideration the impacts of visitation on the local communities
and the limited tax base in Daggett County, as well as the current
financial obligations of the communities involved. The Department
should be as flexible as possible when considering this application in
order to provide a safe source of culinary water for the community as
well as the visitors to the area.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chairman for his comments.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong
support of the conference report on H.R. 4101, which is being discussed
on the floor and has been discussed on the floor by my colleagues from
the northern plains.
I also rise today to express my serious concerns with President
Clinton's threatened veto of this conference report, the agriculture
appropriations bill--the bill that contains the spending for all of the
essential programs that are of great benefit to farmers and ranchers. I
want to pay, as my colleagues have, very deserved tribute to the
distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, who down through
the years has been a champion on behalf of America's agriculture
producers and basically serves as an oversight commissioner in regard
to the spending we desperately need for research and development for
our farmers to be competitive. He has done another outstanding job
under very, very difficult circumstances, because we are going through
some tough times in farm country. So I thank the Senator.
Madam President, it is not my intent to get partisan in this debate.
Goodness knows we have enough of that going around in this session. But
I do think it is time for a little candor. In so doing, I noticed a
report from World Perspectives, Inc., which is a publication that comes
out every day that provides Members of Congress and subscribers very
pertinent information regarding the global marketplace and worldwide
agriculture. There is a young man that writes for them by the name of
Gregg Doud. Last week, he pretty well summarized, I think, what this
debate is all about. He said this:
On the legislative calendar, Christmas doesn't always come
on 25 December. When a sector of the U.S. economy is
faltering or votes are up for grabs, it usually means that
politicians will come bearing gifts sometime before the
November election.
Now, that is a little harsh. I am not too sure I would buy all of
that. He went on to say:
This year's low commodity prices, world financial
difficulties, and serious drought means that both U.S.
political parties are currently in a bidding war over how
much to spend in farm country.
Obviously, we are doing that because we think we have severe
problems. Those are my words, not his.
In their minds, the votes will eventually go to the highest
bidder. As a result, considerations about an appropriate
strategy for U.S. domestic farm policy could end up last on
the list of a policymaker's priorities.
In other words, if we are going to provide emergency assistance to
farmers and ranchers, that is one thing in the short term. But for
goodness' sake, let's not turn the firehose on and let it get away and
destroy a policy that makes sense over the long term.
Then Mr. Doud pointed out the history of these two proposals that had
been discussed on the floor. He said, ``The announcement by
congressional Republicans of their package came only 2 days after
Agriculture Secretary Glickman''--Mr. Glickman of Kansas, my former
colleague, and my good friend--``announced that he was reversing his
stance to be in favor of lifting the cap on the nonrecourse marketing
loan rate''--that is the basis of the Democrat plan--and then stated,
``This flip-flop was likely an effort to avoid the appearance of
conflicting policy positions within the Democratic Party.''
He continues, ``Secretary Glickman's announcement was coordinated
with an amendment offered by Senator Tom Harkin''--my colleague and
friend in Iowa who is the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture
Committee and long a voice in regard to farm program policy advice and
counsel to his Iowa constituents and the Nation as well. But, at any
rate, that was ``. . . to the Interior Department's appropriations
bill.''
By my count, I think we debated this--I don't know how many hours had
been devoted on the other side, because in the northern plains the
situation is much more severe. I don't know if the Senator from
Mississippi has tallied up the hours. There must be 50, 75 or 100 hours
on this side. We have spoken to the issue probably not as much as we
should have. But this is an issue that has been debated. As a matter of
fact, I think we have had five votes. I think this is No. 5 in regard
to a vote that we are going to have on this issue. So we have done
quite a bit of debating.
I will continue with what I think is a candid assessment, and this is
in regard to the Democratic plan to raise the commodity marketing loan
rate.
Mr. Doud points out, however: ``It is not well suited to providing
disaster relief. How did the Government make a larger loan deficiency
payment to a farmer who hasn't raised a crop?''
That is a good question.
``In addition, this delivery mechanism does not reach livestock
producers and other nonprogram commodity producers.''
That certainly is a good quote.
Then he goes on to mention one thing, and this is sort of an aside. I
am going to have to skip over here to a point that has been made by
some of my good Democrat colleagues, more especially the distinguished
Democratic leader, who, to be very candid, has never been too
supportive of the current farm bill.
The Senator from North Dakota decried the fact that under the new
farm bill, Freedom to Farm, in what he describes as the ``Freedom to
Fail'' bill, ``farmers were told to plant fence row to fence row.''
As Mr. Doud pointed out, and others of us would like to point out:
``. . . but WPI thought farmers were told to respond to market signals,
rather than Federal programs.''
Let me point out that in regard to wheat, the farmers made the
decision. They made that decision. They responded to the market
signals, and we haven't gone fence row to fence row. What happened was
we had 11 percent fewer acres planted to wheat under the new farm bill
than the old farm bill. That means this fence row to fence row business
is not accurate.
What happened, of course, is the farmer put the seed in the ground,
and it was better seed. And with better farming practices and precision
agriculture, we knocked their socks off. We had great yields.
In the northern plains, they have all sorts of problems, wheat scab,
weather, unfair trading practices, across the board, border contagion,
you name it, they have had it. Quite frankly, a Federal farm program in
regard to sugar makes the land prices a little high and raises their
price and cost of production. It is high risk up there. Everybody knows
that. But not any of these things have anything to do with the farm
bill.
The extra production came that drove the market prices lower--from
China, 200 million bushels more in regard to wheat production; the
European Union was about 300 million bushels more. I don't know of any
U.S. farm law that can restrict China, or the European Union, or, for
that matter, Australia that has a record crop. It is not all in yet. We
don't know yet. But the global supply situation has changed
dramatically.
That has nothing to do with the current farm bill. It has everything
to do with our export strategy in regard to being competitive and using
all of the tools we would like to have in regard to the
administration's conducting an aggressive export policy.
As a matter of fact, the president of the Wheat Growers said we have
to quit taking a knife to a gun fight. We have to really get tough. And
we haven't done that. That is one of the problems. So I guess that
would be an accurate statement.
Let me get back to the article. This is by Mr. Doud, again:
Is the term ``crisis'' an appropriate way to describe the
situation in farm country today?
I will tell you one thing. If you are a farmer and you can't get a
loan from
[[Page S11424]]
your banker, and the price is about half of what it was several years
ago, it sure is a crisis. It is 100 percent.
``At least one question needs to be answered before deciding how
serious this situation really is.'' --I am back to Mr. Doud's
comments--``Will prices stay at the current (a 10-20-year low) level
into next crop year? If so, next year may bring reopened discussions,
leave no stone unturned, on a major overhaul of U.S. farm policy.''
I think that is appropriate.
And I will be right in line with the rest of the people who are
privileged to represent agriculture States, if, in fact, that is the
case.
We have the unfair trading practice. We can't get our exports
cracking. We don't pass the trade legislation that we should pass that
the President continues to sort of hunker down in the weeds in regard
to fast track and other things.
Then he went on to say: ``In a Congressional election year, the
debate isn't about whether or not money should be allocated to farm
country. It's about the delivery mechanism itself.''
Then he lists some information that ``. . . suggests that, even in
Washington, DC, terms, the amount of Government expenditures in farm
country this year is serious money.''
``The potential direct U.S. Government outlays to U.S. producers are
as follows:
No, it is not the $5.3 billion that showed up on the chart over there
from my colleagues. But, in September 1998, this year, the second half
of the transition payments will come to farmers.
Transition payments, called AMTA payments--that is the Agriculture
Marketing Transition Assistance payments.
I see the distinguished Senator from Mississippi raising his head.
The reason I wanted to point that out is that it has been ignored in
the debate. Hardly any Member on the other side mentions that we even
have transition payments. Everybody says, ``The bridge is washed out. I
can't swim. My farmers are on the other side.'' That is country western
music. It has the wrong notes. We have the transition payments here.
They ignore that.
``In September 1998, the second half of FY 1998 transition . . .
payment''--by the way, that transition payment is the highest of any
payment during the entire 6-year period of the farm bill. And I know it
is the highest as of this year because I helped write the bill. I
thought at the end of 2 years that we probably would be going through
some kind of a price swing. And I thought that assessment should be the
greatest in this particular year, and it is. How much? $5.7 billion is
the total with the first half having already been paid in December of
1997, or January of 1998.
``In October 1998, $5.5 billion will be made available in FY 1999
transition . . . payments.''
That is next year. Farmers probably wouldn't want to accept that. I
wouldn't, if I can get by with my lender and I can tighten up, because
of the world markets and the situation. I probably wouldn't want to
take that. But it is available. And that is $5.5 billion.
``Emergency assistance programs that are currently being discussed .
. .''
That is what this debate is all about here. That is in addition to
those two transition payments that many of my colleagues are ignoring.
That is going to be about $4.1 billion. You add that up.
Then our Senate Agriculture Committee chairman, the distinguished
chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Dick Lugar, recently put
the possible marketing year price tag for the loan deficiency payment.
I am not going to get into a description of that payment. As a matter
of fact, I talked about all of these payments. People wonder. My
goodness. How many payments are we making to farmers, and what kind and
shape and form? But those will be about $2 or $3 billion. And then,
finally, crop insurance for the entire marketing year is $2 billion.
According to Mr. Doud, that totals up to $16.4 billion. That is a lot
of money. Yes, the farm crisis is very serious. I understand that. But
$16.4 billion is quite an investment in regard to agriculture.
Let me see if I can find a closer here. In regard to Mr. Doud's
article:
Policymakers should not ignore the message this [debate]
sends to trading partners and the WTO regarding U.S. domestic
farm policy, particularly as it applies to the next round of
trade negotiations. Once again, [we want to emphasize] that
in an even-numbered election year, the debate isn't about
whether or not money should be allocated to farm country. It
is about the delivery mechanism and whether or not ``Freedom
to Farm'' will be maintained. U.S. agricultural trading
partners will be paying [very] close attention to see if
``Freedom to Farm'' survives.
Now, as the principal author of Freedom to Farm, I have an interest
in this, but I said it didn't come down from the mountain on any tablet
saying this was the only farm bill; if the farm bill didn't work, you
ought to change it. And I think once this emergency assistance is
provided, if we can see what happens in 1999--and I hope the global
contagion gets better and I hope all the other factors improve--why,
perhaps we won't have to do this. And if we can enact some of the
promises we made in conjunction with Freedom to Farm, we shouldn't have
to do it. But Congress has not done that and the administration has not
done that.
I want to now return to the threat of a Presidential veto.
The President has sent a letter to Congress stating he will not
support legislation that does not include agricultural relief
provisions similar to the plan to uncap loan rates as proposed by
Senators Harkin, Daschle, Wellstone, Kerrey, Conrad, Baucus, and
Johnson.
He, as a matter of fact, took time out in his Saturday radio address
to talk about two things--well, three; one, we have a serious farm
crisis. Right. Second, we need to uncap the loan rates. Wrong, because
of what it will do that will be counterproductive to long-term policy
to farmers and ranchers. Three, we ought to pass IMF. Yes. Yes, I am
for that. And I am just as unhappy with Members of my own party in the
other body who oppose that. I think we need IMF. So the President was
right about two out of three.
Let me talk about the plan that is promoted by the northern plains'
Senators--not trying to pick on them; they have a very legitimate point
of view--that would uncap the marketing loan rates and provide
approximately $1 billion in disaster assistance to the northern plains.
But the other side of the story is that their proposal provides less
than $500 million for the rest of the United States, from New Mexico to
Maryland, which has experienced drought, flooding, or a combination of
both.
I really find the President's arguments for his threatened veto
rather frustrating and difficult because the administration really
threatens to veto this package--I am quoting here.
. . . if the bill presented to the President includes
agriculture disaster provisions that provide inadequate
indemnity assistance or are inconsistent with the Daschle-
Harkin proposal.
It is obvious the President really believes we need to provide
assistance to our producers. I believe that as well. Yet he threatens
to veto a bill that provides $4.1 billion in assistance to our farmers
and ranchers.
And as long as we are mentioning vetoes, he has also threatened to
veto a House-passed tax bill that also provides very needed relief to
farmers and ranchers.
As to the two vetoes, one on the emergency assistance and the tax
bill, let me just list all of the provisions that have been passed by
the House of Representatives in its tax bill: 100 percent deductibility
of health insurance--every farm association I have ever been associated
with has passed this in their resolution; permanent extension of income
averaging for farmers--God bless Conrad Burns, the distinguished
Senator from Montana, for putting it in originally with a tax bill; an
immediate $25,000 expense deduction for small businesses; and an
additional net operating loss carryback period.
These are steps that, when combined with the $4.1 billion in income
assistance, would immediately put money in the pockets of farmers and
ranchers and, most importantly, they are positive answers for the long
term as opposed to the Democrat plan which I personally think would be
very, very counterproductive.
On several occasions earlier this year Secretary of Agriculture Dan
Glickman made the comment that trade is the ``safety net'' for
America's farmers
[[Page S11425]]
and ranchers, yet I am concerned that the Secretary and the
administration refused to support fast-track legislation when it was
considered in the House. I said they were AWOL during the debate. And
they even asked, as I recall, some of my colleagues across the aisle in
the other body to vote against the legislation. ``Not this time,''
``not the proper time,'' that was the quote, to pass fast track.
Meanwhile, our foreign markets for agriculture products have collapsed
and we know that. And, Latin American countries are waiting for fast
track to pass before entering into agricultural trade with the United
States.
I went with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to Latin America. Every
country we visited asked, ``When are you going to pass fast track? The
European Union is knocking on our door. And we need this particular
provision.''
I do not know; I would like to ask the President, if now is not the
proper time to open up new markets for our producers, when will the
proper time be?
I agree with him on IMF. I do not agree with the decision to hunker
down in the weeds with regard to fast track. And I must say the failure
to pass fast track holds the potential to become one of the most
serious U.S. agriculture foreign policy blunders since the shattered
glass embargo policy of the late 1970s and early 1980s. When we
withdrew, it may have been a mistake. And when it went down to defeat,
it was a terrible mistake.
Consequently, I should also add that I am not very happy with my
Republican colleagues over in the House of Representatives who decided
not to vote for fast track. That was a very bad mistake as well.
So the President apparently has refused to support these trade and
tax and income assistance initiatives that I believe will help our
farmers and ranchers in both the short and long term, but he continues
to support a proposal that will provide virtually no assistance to
producers who have suffered losses in 1998.
We can raise the loan rates as high as we want. As a matter of fact,
in the six or seven farm bills I have been associated with, there was
always the debate, do you use the loan rate as a market clearing device
or income support? And several farm bills ago we agreed that when you
raise the loan rate to the degree you really interfere with markets,
that is not the proper way to do it. And we used to have deficiency
payments to assist farmers during the tough times when their markets
would decline due to unfair trading practices or some other reason. We
changed those to transition payments.
What will raising a loan rate do for producers in Oklahoma, Texas,
Louisiana and Maryland who have lost all or most of their crop to some
kind of a weather situation? What about the farmer in Louisiana or
Mississippi who lost most of his rice crop due to drought and had his
cotton crop get hit with 16 inches of rain from a tropical storm
earlier this year and then was hit by Hurricane Georges in late
September? That was incredible. These producers are facing a serious
situation. They will receive virtually no assistance from higher loan
rates, and the Harkin-Daschle proposal provides less than $500 million
for 1998 losses, but it contains almost $1 billion for multiple year
losses in the northern plains. I am not trying to pick on them. But I
think it is skewed just a bit. I don't question the problems suffered
by producers in the northern plains in recent years, nor do I question
that prices are low. We have heard time and time again about the
painful crop losses experienced in the northern plains over the past
years, but, ``thank goodness, South Dakotans are expecting a good crop
this year--that is a welcome change--after the blizzards and flooding
of 1996 and 1997, scab disease, and unfair trading practices.'' That
quote comes from a September 1998 edition of the National Farmer Union
News. Thank goodness they do at least have a crop.
But let me get back to the plan that is within the Ag appropriation
bill and why I think it is the proper course. The plan to be included
will provide $4.1 billion to producers. Of this amount, $1.65 billion,
29 percent of the transition payments--the infamous transition payments
that are ignored and forgotten or somehow have disappeared in the
debate on the other side--will be provided to farmers as payments for
lost export markets caused by world economic pneumonia, the global
contagion, the Asian Flu. Not to mention U.S. sanction policies that
shut out our producers, out of world markets, and the inadequate
agricultural trade initiatives of this administration--compounded by
some in this Congress.
Any farmer who received AMTA payments--the transition payments that
do not exist, on the other side of the aisle--in 1998 will receive an
additional 29 percent of this amount. Those receiving payments will
include southern cotton, wheat, corn and rice farmers who had little or
no crop to harvest. The Harkin-Daschle plan leaves them empty-handed.
The plan in the agriculture appropriations bill includes $1.5 billion
for losses and $675 million for multiple year losses.
The Daschle-Harkin plan provides approximately $1 billion for the
northern plains, $500 million for the south. Again, I am not trying to
criticize problems in the north. But the plan does not do much for any
grower suffering losses in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Florida, South
Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland--and the list goes on.
Senators from those States, wake up. Here is the real issue that is
now being debated. The northern plains Senators, and now the President,
have stated repeatedly that we have yanked the rug out from underneath
the producer--no safety net.
``Tough luck,'' I think it was described by my good friend and
colleague, the Senator from North Dakota. As they have said, there is
no bridge, nothing. But they fail to mention that the Government has
provided approximately $17.5 billion--$17.5 billion in transition
payments since the inception of the new farm bill in 1996 through 1998.
It is estimated the old bill, the old supply/demand bill, the old
command and control bill where the USDA would tell the farmer what seed
to put in the ground and maybe he would qualify for a subsidy--that
bill would have provide only around $10 billion during this time. That
is a difference of $7.5 billion. They are getting more money under the
new bill, less money under the old bill, but the new bill is the
problem? Hello.
It is estimated, as I said, the old bill would have provided only
about $10 billion during this time. They forget to mention the
estimated $4 billion the producers will receive in loan deficiency
payments in 1998. And, what about the $5.5 billion in advance 1999
payments? Again, if I'm a farmer I'd be mighty careful with that. And
if you add these together and include the additional $4.1 billion
included in the agriculture appropriation bill as put on the floor by
the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, total funding provided over
the 3-year period is $31 billion. Mr. President $31 billion; that is
nothing? That is tough luck? That is a bridge that has been washed out,
$31 billion?
Still, the Senators on the other side of the aisle from the northern
and great plains argue this is not enough. It may well not be, over the
long term. I understand that. If things do not improve, with all the
things that have gone wrong it may well not be. They say their
producers have been forgotten. They even cited this on the floor in a
Congressional Budget Office table. This is going to get a little tricky
here. The table that is called the CBO study showing a side-by-side
comparison of the two plans--we have all seen it in regard to this
debate. In addition, I think the CBO plan was sent with a letter
attached to numerous State Governors, certainly trying to gain support
for their plan. But there was only one problem with these actions and
this CBO study. It is my understanding, and I think I am right, it is
not a CBO study. In fact, CBO was not even involved in running these
numbers. Rather, they were put together by staff members of the
appropriate Senators who have proposed the Democratic plan.
I don't want to play this business of, ``How much is enough?'' I have
said before, the problem is very serious in the northern plains, and
for that matter all over the country, where we have had these
unprecedented problems in regards to farm country. But I thought
perhaps we should do some ``truth in
[[Page S11426]]
spending'' and take a look at the level of payments the States of North
Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa have actually
received under the 1996 farm bill. It may not be enough. But with all
of this talk about, ``no bridge, tough luck, you are just out of luck,
we are not going to support you''--Here we go: North Dakota in 1996,
North Dakota farmers and ranchers received $309.7 million; 1997 $245.1
million and 1998, $245.2 million. Total, $800 million. That is more
than nothing.
The yearly State average in Government payments in 1991-1995--the old
farm bill which has been defended saying this might be the foundation
for the next farm bill, this one is not working--what would have that
provided? That average, 1991-1995, $265.4 million.
In 1996 through 1998 the average was $266.6 million. In July, the
House Agriculture Committee estimated North Dakota farmers will be
eligible to receive $215.1 million in advanced 1999 payments. Again, I
am not sure I would take that, but some may have to.
The 29 percent bonus payments for 1998 crops will equal approximately
$71 million. Adding the 1998 payments to the 1998 bonus payments and
the advanced 1999 payments together, North Dakota farmers could receive
up to $531.3 million during the calendar year 1998, this year.
South Dakota, 1996, $161.8 million; 1997, $183.1; 1998, $161.3--
total, $506.2 million.
The yearly State average in Government payments in 1991-1995 under
the old farm bill, $149.7. The 1996 through 1998 average was 168.76
million--19 million more per year. In July the House Agriculture
Committee estimated South Dakota farmers will be eligible to receive
$160.7 million in advance 1999 payments. The 29 percent bonus payment
for 1998 crops will equal approximately $46.7 million. When you add
them all up, South Dakota farmers could receive $368.9 million during
calendar year 1998.
I am going to skip Montana. Nothing personal, I just think we ought
to shorten it up.
Minnesota, the Democratic Senator from Minnesota has been on the
floor indicating that times are tough in Minnesota. They are. It is a
crisis. He is entitled to say that. In 1996, $261.5 million; 1997,
$383.8 million; 1998, $322.6 million; total, $968.1 million--almost $1
billion. That is not nothing? Is that a double negative?
The yearly State average in Government payments in 1991-1995 under
the farm bill--you haven't heard one word on the other side about the
failures of the old farm bill and people standing in line waiting on
the USDA to issue all the paperwork so they could fill out the
paperwork to plant less, not at least respond to market signals but so
that they might get a subsidy. Not one word. That was $270.2 million.
In 1996 through 1998, the average was $322.7 million--over $50
million more. In July, the House Agriculture Committee estimated
Minnesota farmers will be able to receive $336.8 million in advanced
1999 payments. The 29 percent bonus for 1998 crops will equal
approximately $93.5 million. Add them all up, $753.08 million during
calendar year 1998. That is a lot of money. It is, perhaps not enough
for the dire situation they face and in absentia of other things that
we should be doing. The question is not how much is enough, but the
claim, again, by the other side, that we are not providing any
assistance.
Nebraska: 1996, $303.2 million; 1997, $490.082 million; 1998,
approximately $400 million. Total: $1.193 billion.
The yearly State average in government payments in 1991-1995 was
$349.9 million. That was back under the old farm bill.
The 1996 through 1998 average was $397 million; $349 million to $397
million, about $50 million more. I am not going to go through the
advanced payments and the 29-percent bonus. I will add them all.
Nebraska farmers, as well as being No. 2 in the Nation in football,
could receive up to $830 million during the calendar year 1998.
Iowa--Senator Harkin, my good friend on the Ag Committee who has a
very honest and sincere difference of opinion about the direction of
the farm policy program: 1996, $350.2 million; 1997, $680 million;
1998, $535 million. Total: $1.566 billion.
The yearly State average under the old farm program was about $449
million; under the new farm program, $522 million. Madam President,
$522 million is more; $449 million is less.
OK. Advanced payments, the bonus payment, add them all up: Iowa
farmers could get about $1.288 billion during calendar year 1998.
Madam President, I apologize to my colleagues for taking this much
time and going over all the figures. The facts are clear. The rug has
not been yanked out from producers in the northern plains. In fact,
these States have fared quite well under the 1996 act's payments. When
compared to the old farm bill--I realize we have extenuating and very
dire circumstances now--the farmers who need assistance the worst--
those without a crop--receive nothing--nothing--from higher loan rates.
Yet, this is the situation many southern farmers will face under the
proposal that is the alternative to the conference report.
I have made some remarks on the floor on several occasions against
the loan rate proposal, uncapping loan rates. I don't disagree with my
colleagues across the aisle that we need to provide assistance to
farmers; that is a given. But history has shown us that their plan will
not work, and I believe several myths should be addressed about their
proposal.
Myth No. 1: Higher loan rates will put more money into the pockets of
all producers and do not lead to excess stocks and lower prices in the
long run. It is also argued that higher loan rates will not eventually
lead us back to Government set-asides.
Contrary to these assertions, history has shown us that higher loan
rates lead to excess stocks, greater production, a long-run depressing
effect on price, and uncompetitiveness in the world market.
In addition, due to the difficulty in predicting budget outlays with
marketing loans, it inevitably leads us back to command-and-control
policies in an attempt to limit the budget exposure.
Again, some in the House and Senate do not feel we should spend $4.1
billion in emergency funding. How are we going to pay for $7 billion?
And, more to the point, if you encourage more Government stocks and a
tie-up of the transportation system and more production, you are going
to extend that loan beyond the 15 months and you are going to get into
more expenditures. We have been down that road before and farmers
overwhelmingly tell me they do not want to retrace the journey. I think
we should look forward and not backwards.
Myth No. 2: There is no safety net.
I have gone over the payment numbers. I have mentioned previously
that there is a safety net. How can an extra $7.5 billion, at a
minimum, over the last 3 years, compared to the old program, be hurting
farmers and ranchers? I want a safety net that is a trampoline, not a
hammock. If we go down this loan rate trail, it will be a hammock--we
will sag in the middle.
On the other hand, if we can get our export policy straightened out,
our trade policy straightened out, and our tax policy changes and
regulatory reform, and get cracking, it may well be a trampoline with
this assistance we are providing.
Myth No. 3: New trade markets will not help us get out of this
problem.
There are, indeed, some in this body who argue that trade is not the
answer to avoiding these problems in the future. How can you discount
the importance of trade when we have to export a large proportion of
our ag products? We must continue to work toward trade agreements and
sanctions reforms that do not continue to shoot our producers in the
foot and lock them out of world markets. And we must encourage
producers to maintain the flexibility that allows them to plant
according to the demands of the world market. Raising loan rates won't
achieve these goals.
Several weeks ago, Senator Craig--the distinguished Senator from
Idaho, who has been a very aggressive and constant champion of the
American farmer and rancher and all the commodities and all the
producers of those commodities in his great State of Idaho--and I sat
down, along with others, in a small group, and we made a list of what
we thought would be appropriate to address this farm crisis.
We decided on lost market payments and disaster payments. That is in
this
[[Page S11427]]
bill. We decided on crop insurance reform. Got some. Not enough. Need
to make it better. First order of priority in the next session. Wish we
could have done it this year.
We decided on tax relief. I have already mentioned that. It is in the
House bill. The President says he is going to veto it. That will be the
best long-term--perhaps not the best--one of the best long-term things
we could do for farmers and ranchers in 1999, 2000, and the year
beyond.
Trade expansion. I have gone over that. Folks, you have to sell it or
you are going to smell it, and we are smelling it right now. We need
fast track and normal trading status with China, we need IMF, and we
need sanctions reform. As I said before, we have to quit taking a knife
to a gunfight.
Full enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program.
The agriculture appropriations bill contains $4.1 billion in payments
and also protects the sanctity of crop insurance. The bill does not
include the important reforms that are needed, but I am pleased the
protections included in the bill, and we are going to work for that
reform next year.
I mentioned tax relief, and Senator Craig, who is on the floor now,
and I sent a letter to the Secretary requesting full enrollment in the
CRP program. This is an administrative action. The Secretary doesn't
need any congressional action. We don't need to debate this and delay
it. He can undertake it right now. It will provide an important tool to
address the problem of marginally productive land that repeatedly
suffers from natural disasters or disease problems, land like the
northern plains. One of the things he can do right away is enroll the
CRP in that part of the country. He can do it with the stroke of a pen.
Madam President, it appears that we will not be able to achieve all
of the goals that Senator Craig and others of us have proposed in this
Congress. However, this agriculture appropriations bill, combined with
the House tax bill and the trade tools the administration already has
available, will provide an important step in addressing the economic
problems throughout our rural areas. But the President must be willing
to step up and work with us, if he is serious about helping our farmers
and ranchers.
Webster's defines a ``statesman'' as one who exercises the political
leadership at his disposal wisely and without narrow partisanship. I am
hopeful that we will see the President and my colleagues across the
aisle act as statesmen on this issue and that we will not prevent
farmers and ranchers from receiving this much-needed assistance. This
agriculture appropriations bill is too important--too important--for
our producers. I urge the President to reconsider his veto threat on
this bill.
I thank my colleagues for their patience, and I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
conference report to the FY 1999 Agriculture Appropriations bill. This
legislation includes much needed economic assistance for Georgia
farmers. The disaster and market loss assistance proposal, which totals
over $4 billion, includes $1.5 billion for one time payment to person
with a crop loss in 1998, $675 million for multiple year crop loss and
crops impacted by disease, $175 million for livestock feed assistance,
$1.65 billion for a one time payment to offset financial hardship
caused by the loss of markets, and $10 million for tree farmers through
the Forestry Incentive Program.
I would like to thank the Majority Leader, Senator Cochran, Senator
Lugar, Senator Roberts, and others involved in the crafting of this
important legislation. For months I have been stressing the need for
Congress to address the current financial crisis facing farmers in
Georgia and across the nation. I am pleased that our collective efforts
bring us here to discuss this legislation. This disaster package is one
step in many that is needed to get these farmers back on their feet.
Under this proposal the Secretary of Agriculture is given broad
authority to define and implement these provisions. I am hopeful that
when deciding how to distribute these funds, the Secretary does not
forget Georgia farmers. President Clinton and Secretary Glickman should
not help farmers in one section of the country by neglecting farmers in
the Southeast. Georgia farmers have suffered disasters 2 out of the
last 5 years and should be eligible for assistance under the multi-year
losses program. In addition, the Secretary should include all crops,
insured and uninsured, when considering who should be eligible for
assistance under this disaster and market assistance proposal. Georgia
farmers who produce peaches, onions, blueberries, watermelons, pecans,
and other speciality crops, have just as much right to be eligible for
this disaster assistance as farmers who produce major program crops
such as corn, wheat, and cotton. Those who bought crop insurance should
not be unnecessarily penalized and left out of receiving any assistance
under this legislation. The current crop insurance program does not
work and needs to be completely overhauled by Congress. We need a crop
insurance program which is affordable and factors in the cost of
production.
Secretary Glickman needs to also look at ways to provide assistance
for peanut producers, either through a market loss assistance payment
or under one of the other disaster assistance programs. The cost of
production for peanuts continues to remain high while income for
farmers continues to fall. Disease, weather, government regulations,
taxes, increased costs for equipment and supplies, reduction in yields,
and other problems have all contributed to this situation.
I look forward to working with Secretary Glickman and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture in making sure these funds are distributed in
a fair and equitable manner.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the
agriculture appropriations conference report.
This bill includes critical assistance for farmers. It helps all
farmers, not just Midwestern grain farmers, and that is why I believe
that this is the right bill.
I urge President Clinton to withdraw his veto threat and to support
this critical disaster relief bill. It is outrageous that the President
is playing politics with the fate of American farmers. I was astonished
to see Jacob J. Lew, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, write that the President's ``senior advisers would recommend
that he veto the bill'' unless the House and Senate craft a bill for
the Midwest rather than for the whole nation.
I find it incredible that the Clinton Administration can oppose a
package that includes $4.3 billion for increased AMTA payments,
weather-related crop damage relief, ``multi-year'' disasters, livestock
assistance, and assistance for tree farmers. This is about farmers, not
politics, and it is time for the White House to put policy first.
This is a good bill for North Carolina and for all farmers. I
congratulate the Committee for a job well done.
Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise to express in part my profound
disappointment with the contents of the agricultural appropriations
conference report, recognizing that there are many in this body--in
particular, that there are numerous instances, thanks to the leadership
of the Senator from Mississippi, and others--who have brought together
a sense of bipartisanship on some key issues. And there are other
issues and other needs that I believe this body needs to address
outside of this agricultural appropriations bill, as my very good
friend and colleague from Kansas has made reference to a string of
extraneous other issues that are urgent.
On the issue of trade, I believe that there is fairly good agreement
in this body relative to where we need to go next. There is support in
this body for funding for the International Monetary Fund. That is
perhaps the single thing we could do that would have the greatest
immediate impact on stabilizing currencies and opening markets and
stabilizing economies in Asia, and increasingly in Russia and Latin
America. Unfortunately, that issue has been held up in the other body,
not this one; but it is an issue that should be dealt with before we
adjourn for the year.
My colleague raises the issue of fast track. On that issue I share
his concern that we ought to have fast-track authority. This body does
as well. The House does not. I think in all fairness, though, it ought
to be kept in mind
[[Page S11428]]
that if we were to pass fast track, that would have a consequence years
down the road but not next month, not the next 6 months. It would
simply put our trade representative back in at the negotiating table
for trade negotiations. That would bear fruit probably years down the
road from now, but it would not have an immediate consequence.
Certainly, in the case of relief of unilateral sanctions and the
sanctions reform legislation that our colleague, the chairman of our
Senate Ag Committee, Senator Lugar, has championed, we ought to be
moving forward with that. Unfortunately, we have not. But I think there
is broad-based bipartisan consensus that we ought to do that. And
certainly MFN, now having normal trade relations with China as well, is
something that we should go forward with.
I think all these issues are concurred upon by this President and by
the majority of both political parties in the Senate. Those are issues
we should proceed with. We should not use them, however, as an excuse
for a lack of action, for inaction on key disaster issues before us
today.
On the tax agenda, as well, I think that there is broad-based support
in both political parties for tax relief targeted to middle-class and
working families, certainly for those in the agricultural sectors of
our economy. But again in fairness, it ought to be kept in mind that
the tax package that arrived in this body from the other body is funded
100 percent out of the Social Security trust fund surplus. That is
unacceptable to a great many of us in this body. It is utterly
unacceptable to the President of the United States who has expressed
his veto intent if that were to reach his desk. I think there is a
great likelihood it will reach his desk, but if he were to veto it, he
would do the right thing.
And we talk about statesmanship, that is what we are talking about--
doing the right thing, rejecting what seems on the surface to be
popular, recognizing that in too many instances the underlying premise
that allows that action to go forward is, in fact, simply wrong.
Stealing money, raiding, plundering the Social Security trust fund is
not acceptable for any of us. Regardless of how great the crisis might
be that we have in agricultural today, how much we would like to have
tax relief for every sector of our economy, that is not where we need
to go.
To his great credit, Senator Daschle, with the help of numerous
others, has put together a tax package which provides most of the same
kinds of relief that my friend from Kansas was making reference to, but
is funded exclusively out of efficiencies, out of savings, out of the
closure of tax loopholes in the existing Tax Code and budget. So it is
not a question of whether we can have tax relief or whether we cannot
have tax relief; we can so long as it is carefully targeted, so long as
it is focused on those areas where it is most in need, and so long as
it is truly offset by savings, by efficiencies, by loophole closures--
other places--and not premised on a raid on Social Security.
So, again, I think we ought to be able to find bipartisan agreement
before we leave here on those issues as well.
I want to say that we did reach some concurrence on some important
issues in this body. The pain and the hurt that is going on across much
of rural America today is too great to allow for the kind of finger
pointing and partisanship that too often characterizes the debate in
this Congress, especially as we draw near an election as we reach the
end of this Congress.
I am pleased that in this body we were able to find bipartisan
agreement on my particular amendment that was incorporated in the
Senate version of the agricultural appropriations bill on meat
labeling. The Senator from Idaho was a champion on the meat labeling
issue. And I was pleased that the chairman, the Senator from
Mississippi, was supportive of our concern in the conference committee
in that regard.
I am disappointed in what turned out to be a party-line vote from our
colleagues in the House of Representatives that thwarted the will of
the U.S. Senate in that regard--a measure which has the support of the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Farmers Union, the
American Farm Bureau Federation, and the American Sheep Industry
Association.
The underlying bill, which had the sponsorship of eight Republican
Senators and eight Democratic Senators, along with myself--this was a
bipartisan effort to, for the first time, allow consumers to know the
origin of their food products which they serve their families, much as
they do virtually every other consumer item that they purchase. Yet
even this commonsense measure was turned down in the conference
committee, to my great disappointment. And I want to confirm that this
issue simply will not go away. It will be revisited and revisited until
it becomes law.
We also found bipartisan support on the Senate agricultural
appropriations bill--again, with the support of the Senator from Idaho,
the Senator from Mississippi, and a great many others --in a bipartisan
fashion, to allow price transparency in the livestock industry to go
forward, to put our individual livestock producers on the same footing
as the packing industry to give them a better marketing opportunity.
And yet even that which would have seemed, again, to be common sense we
lost, unfortunately, on a partisan, party-line vote on the part of the
House conferees, over the objections of the Senate.
I want to express my disappointment at the loss of both of those
provisions which would not have meant night or day, would not have
turned around overnight the price crisis that we have in the livestock
industry, but we would have contributed, I think, in a very
constructive fashion to lay the groundwork for a long-term recovery,
and it would have been a constructive, positive step in the right
direction. We reached some bipartisan agreement, I think, in this body
early on, again, on the need for disaster relief.
I think we all recognized as time went on, as disasters struck the
South and the West, other parts of the country, that the amount of
money, the $500 million we had placed in the Senate agriculture
appropriations bill simply was not going to be adequate from anyone's
perspective, and that needed to be augmented in a significant way. I
think the President is right that if we are going to realistically
address the real pain all across rural America, that a final level of
disaster relief approximating the funding in the President's
recommendation rather than in the House proposal and imposed on the
conference report on ag appropriations is more appropriate.
I think we all recognize that there needs to be some give-and-take,
that the final version of whatever we do probably will not meet the 100
percent satisfaction of any of us here, should not be 100 percent what
the Republican leadership in the House was offering, probably will not
be completely what the President is offering; but we need to come
together somewhere in the middle in a way which more effectively deals
with the disaster that is national in scope and deals with it in a
meaningful way, all within the context of, obviously, a balanced
Federal budget.
I believe we can do that, but we need to take, I believe, some of the
direction that is coming from the White House to moderate the
provisions which have been imposed in the ag appropriations bill by our
House colleagues.
This should not turn into a bidding war. It has been suggested that
could occur. That would be wrong. That is not where we need to go. But
we do need to step back, and with some careful deliberation and some
care, evaluate the scope of the relief that needs to be made in order
to have a meaningful consequence in the context of this national
disaster.
One area where we were not able to reach bipartisan consensus in this
body--and I certainly respect the views of those who differ with me and
with many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle--is on the wisdom
of utilizing a strategy which would take the cap off the existing
marketing loan provisions in the freedom to market legislation.
Now, it is suggested by some that that is an attack on Freedom to
Farm, that this is on the part of those who would go back to the old
days of the previous farm bill. I think that simply is untrue. That is
a straw man that is easily knocked down but one that does not
characterize the goals and the perspective of those of us who believe
that it makes a lot of sense to take the caps off the existing
marketing loan. Keep in mind, the current bill has marketing loan
provisions in it. It is not a turning inside out of that legislation.
[[Page S11429]]
The problem with the existing legislation, the existing farm bill, is
that the loan rates established in that farm bill are unrealistically
low. They are too low to be meaningful given the kind of crisis that we
have today. And taking the caps off that loan rate and tying it to a 5-
year Olympic average is a moderate but responsible step in the right
direction. In fact, if we were to do that--and we are talking about
doing this for 1 year only, so it would have no consequence whatever on
planting decisions made by others because the crops have already been
planted and are about to be harvested--it would have a 57-cent-per-
bushel increase for wheat, 28 cents for corn, 28 cents for beans, if we
were to follow the proposal in the President's recommendation.
That won't make anyone rich, that won't bring the price back to
anywhere near where a lot of us think in an ideal world it ought to be,
but it will stave off in so many ways the crisis that is upon us. It
will give a decent return. It will treat renters more fairly than
alternative proposals would. It will not turn the clock back. It will
not abandon the existing farm bill. It will be done within the context
of that farm bill and we will preserve the marketing flexibility that I
think a great many of us value in that farm legislation.
I think there is room for bipartisan concurrence. This is not a
matter of one political party rolling the other or stiffing the other
or coming away 100 percent victorious. I think in good faith everybody
in this body wants to do what reasonably can be done to create the
framework whereby family producers can at least survive the current era
and emerge from the other side with an opportunity for prosperity in
the future.
If we do nothing and if we take steps that are simply wholly
inadequate, we are going to see the loss of thousands upon thousands of
agricultural producers both in the grain and livestock sectors of our
economy. The FSA leadership in my State tells us that we could lose as
many as a third of the farmers and ranchers in my home State of South
Dakota. That is unacceptable. That has consequences not only for the
lives of those families, many of whom have been on the land for 100
years or more, going back to homesteading days, but it has consequences
up and down the main streets of every community as well--not just the
small farm community but the larger communities--as well as the ripple
effect that takes hold, affecting the medium and large communities. I
think this has global consequences. We need to recognize that as we
address the situation.
I think we ought to avoid the pride of authorship and the temptation
to subscribe to partisan warfare and find the middle ground. It makes
meaningful, constructive, positive relief a ``doable'' sort of thing. I
am hopeful we can send this conference report back to committee, not to
emerge with a radically different approach, but to emerge with
something looking more like what the President has recommended, more
like what many of us on this side of the aisle would like to see
happen. The veto threat is there and people can argue whether it ought
to be there or not. I believe that the President is correct. I believe
that the President is doing the responsible thing and doing the
statesmanlike thing under these dire circumstances.
In the end, it is going to require both sides coming together. I
think that is what our constituents want to see. I think they want to
see us during these closing days of this 105th Congress reach that
consensus that would allow for some substantially higher level of
disaster relief than is currently being posed, utilized in a way that
more efficiently gets to the people who need it, which addresses the
national nature of the disaster which we face, and which sets a
framework for prosperity in future years rather than simply being a
Band-Aid for now.
Again, it is my hope that the issue of labeling country of origin on
meat products--a compromise version which the Senator from Idaho and I
subscribe to and went to great lengths to propose--could be revisited.
Secondly, it is my hope that price transparency in the livestock
industry can be revisited before we leave at the end of this week.
Much remains to be done. There is too much to be done to fall victim
to partisanship and to finger pointing. We need a greater level of
statesmanship, a greater level of cooperation than, frankly, has been
the case all these past months. We are dealing with the very lives and
the very future of thousands of hard-working, honest people in rural
America who want nothing more than an opportunity to survive the year
and to live by the sweat of their brow and the hard work of their
families in years to come.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, first of all, let me thank the Senator
from South Dakota for those kind words. I enjoyed working with him on
the meat labeling issue. While the legislation before the Senate
advances it only slightly through a study as it relates to the country
of origin, I do believe in this country the consumers have a right to
know. I believe the consumers have a right to understand whether they
are buying foreign or domestic beef. I think the livestock industry
deserves, also, that opportunity.
I thank my colleague from South Dakota for his leadership in the
area. We will continue to work on this. This is an issue that will not
go away. I certainly understand the difficulties of those in the retail
industry. We can work those differences out. The compromise the Senator
from South Dakota spoke to, that he and I worked on, moved a lot in
that direction. I am sorry that they finally, in the end, felt they had
to gang up on us a bit during the conference, but we will be back and
the issue will be resolved.
I must also tell you that I support a compromise in livestock
reporting. I think there must be a transparency in that market for all
the world to see. There isn't at this time. We are going to have to
work to get to that. I am disappointed that the bill delays the
implementation of a Federal milk marketing order reform that I
supported.
Now, while I have expressed my disappointment, I will stop with that
because those are the areas that I had some concern about. Let me
discuss the positive things that are in this very important bill.
First, I thank the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee of the full Appropriations Committee, the Senator from
Mississippi, Senator Cochran, for his leniency, his cooperation, his
understanding, but most importantly, his dedication to the American
farmer--whether in his State of Mississippi or whether in my State of
Idaho--in ensuring that there is fair play in the balance of
appropriating the Nation's resources, tax dollars, for the purpose of
American agriculture.
I do believe that this agriculture appropriations bill contains
important funding for America's farm families. I am proud of it. I will
vote for it. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the
same. It is an excellent effort on the part of the Senator from
Mississippi.
Compromise is what we work at. I am disappointed that the President,
at the last moment, would send a signal of veto. I am amazed that this
is a President who didn't say agriculture twice in his first campaign,
but promised to say it three times in his second campaign. He never
came with an agriculture policy, and now, in the last minute, after
they discovered there was a farm crisis 3 months ago, he wants to veto
an effort that has been underway for months to try to not only be
sensitive to the issues that are down on the farm at this moment,
causing great consternation, but would do so by saying, ``let's veto.''
The reason he says ``let's veto'' is because it is a habitual kind of
thing for the President to want to fall backward into old policy that
didn't work, that bound America's agricultural producers into a
lockstep Government program offering no flexibility to the marketplace,
but more importantly, having to ask the producer to turn to Government
every year to decide what they were going to produce and what they were
going to get in return.
Now, that is not what the American farmer wanted, and even today,
while those in production agriculture recognize the importance of some
adjustment, some change in the current program, they are still saying
leave the new farm bill program in place. Yet, this President is
threatening a veto because we will not fall back to the policy of the
old.
What does the bill do that we are talking about here on the floor?
Let me
[[Page S11430]]
tell you what it does and let me tell you what it does for my State of
Idaho. I will use it as an example. It funds research at America's
colleges and universities in agriculture, at a time when agriculture
and yields were dropping nationwide because we weren't investing in the
future of American agriculture.
Well, in my State of Idaho, the bill contains $500,000 for peas and
lentils research; $500,000 for grass seed research; $500,000 for barley
research; $550,000 for research on canola, a new and important crop in
our area of Idaho; $1.7 million for research in small fruits; and $1.2
million for research in potatoes and potato disease, the blight that
devastated production in the Idaho potato crops last year. Those are
all part of a new research initiative the Senator from Mississippi
worked to assure that we would get funded so we can invest in the
productive future of American agriculture. It funds food stamps and
other nutrition programs.
Very little has been said about that today by those on the other
side. Yet, that is critically important to America's poor and
disadvantaged. It funds conservation and environmental programs, and
some very good ones. It contains important biodiesel legislation, a new
program for a very important part of a new and emerging market for
production agriculture in the oilseed industry. It contains important
sanction reform legislation and exempts agricultural products from
sanctions on India and Pakistan.
Why, then, if all of these good things are in there, do we have a
President that threatens a veto? I have to believe it is because they
didn't come with a policy; they don't have one today, and they have
this habitual problem of wanting to fall back into the past. Freedom to
Farm is everything about the future and very little about the past.
That is where we ought to be.
Now, there is a problem in weather-related disasters. There are
certainly problems with world markets, as we increasingly tie
production agriculture and its profitability to the world markets. Well
over 40 percent of everything a farmer in America produces today has to
sell in the world market, and we have to be sensitive to that. When
those markets go south, prices go south. Does that mean the policy is
bad, or does it mean we have a world economic problem? I think it is
the latter. We recognize that and we have pumped billions of dollars
into that. It won't go to the trader and it won't go to the exporter;
it goes right to the bank account of the American farmer--$2.35 billion
in disaster-related programs, weather-related programs.
We turn to the Secretary of Agriculture and say: You have the tools,
you implement it. We even gave him money to hire more staff to do so--
$1.65 billion in income assistance directly to the farmer. This
assistance will help provide America's farmers with economic stability
that they need to talk to their banker this fall and to talk to their
banker next spring, to get a line of credit to put the seed in the
ground. And the cycle goes on.
What does it mean in my State of Idaho? I will break it out for you.
Today, the price of wheat at the Port of Lewiston, ID, is $2.75. So in
the 1998 crop-year, if you add the transition payment of 65 cents,
another transition of 45 cents, a loan deficiency payment of 55 cents,
and the aid package I just talked about of $1.65 billion, that is 19
cents--that is $1.85 per bushel, Government assistance, to a $2.78
price at the Port of Lewiston today. That is $4.62 per bushel, and
$4.62 is, under the current domestic and world market situation, a fair
if not a good price in Idaho for wheat.
Idaho wheat hit the bottom in early September when the price hit
$2.26 at the Port of Lewiston--although the price was lower further
inland in my State, which is more dependent upon rail traffic. Today,
wheat is sold at $2.78; that is up 50 cents from its low. The market
has assessed the production, and it is making its adjustments. We are
helping stabilize that. That is probably why the bill that I am talking
about, the current legislation, is supported by the National Farm
Bureau and a majority of Idaho's farmers. Is it enough? Well, it is
enough to get by on, especially when Government should not be the sole
provider of the well-being of production agriculture. But it should
understand when there is a crisis and respond to the crisis. That is
what we are doing. That response is $1.84 a bushel in assistance.
Now, some keep talking about the loan caps. We voted and voted, and
we voted once again on that issue. A majority of Congress said leave
the loan caps alone. I believe that the farmers don't want current
policy changed. And while some would agree that the loan caps ought to
be changed, when I talk to my farmers back home and we walk them
through all that this appropriation bill offers, they say: That is
fair, Senator. That is as much as we could expect you to do, and thank
you for doing it.
We have worked hard on this bill. The Senator from Kansas explained
the coalition that came together before the July 4 break. We met with
all of the commodity groups and asked, ``What do you need?'' They said,
``Don't change the policy, but we have to have some transitional
assistance.'' Times are tough, and we understood that. Many of us went
home in August and listened to our farmers and came back with the mind
of putting a package like this together to offer assistance.
The President wasn't listening then and he wasn't focused then. Mr.
President, why did you quit your travels and come back this week and
say you are going to veto the bill? I don't understand that. I don't
understand why you have not been focused on this; yet, all of a sudden,
it is time to veto it. You said, ``I support Senator Harkin's
programs''; yet, you offer a supplemental that is billions of dollars
less. You have taken two positions on the issue and now you have a
third. You say, ``I will veto what you send me.'' I don't understand
that. I don't think America's farmers understand that very well.
Government isn't the end-all to production agriculture. It should be of
assistance when assistance is needed. It should care, and it should be
concerned, and that is what this bill is reflective of this evening. We
should knock down the political barriers and boundaries to enhanced
trade. What has this administration done this year? They have not sold
or given away one kernel of wheat in the name of humanity. Yet, they
have hundreds of millions of dollars to buy wheat in the world and move
it into the world hunger areas. Mr. President, why are you not doing
that? Why do you come home from your world travels and political
travels and say it is time to veto this effort? I don't understand
that, Mr. President. I don't understand it.
What we do understand, what Congress understands, and what this bill
is reflective of is that you don't change policy; you work to adjust
it. You make it fit the marketplace. When there is a national
environmental or weather-directed disaster, when there is a downturn in
world markets, you make adjustments, you care about production
agriculture, and you darn well make sure the money gets home to the
bank account of the farmer.
That is what this appropriations bill offers. That is why the House
voted on it 333 to 53. That is a big bipartisan vote for the House.
Somehow there has to be some good in this legislation, if it drew that
kind of a vote in the House. I hope it draws a bipartisan vote here
when we vote on it. It deserves it, because it is reflective of the
concerns of the current agricultural situation in our country, and,
most importantly, it is reflective of the concern of production
agriculture when production agriculture says don't change the policy
over some transition, make sure that you are sensitive to what we are
concerned about.
But what is important to all of us is that we listen to production
agriculture. And we know that there are times when a safety net is
necessary. This year, as in past years, we have offered one of the
largest safety nets in the history of our Government, and we will
continue to do that. But let us not change the policy and drive our
Government into the business of being the partner of production
agriculture, drive it into the business of not ever determining the
acreage that should be farmed, or the amount that should be farmed, but
into the business of knocking down political barriers, into the
business of working as a partner in selling in the world markets
instead of simply sitting back with hands folded saying, ``Oh, gee, we
have an agriculture problem.''
[[Page S11431]]
I think we ought to do something about it. We ought to control
production. We ought to squeeze down on production in the rest of the
nations of the world, save time to gear up and time to increase our
acreage. If we are going to pull away, if the United States is going to
pull away from its spot in the world market, we are going to fill it.
That is what the policies of the past offered, and we had to fight for
decades to gain them back.
I hope that in the end, when the rhetoric cools, when the President
develops an understanding of production agriculture--and I give him 24
hours to do it--that he will sign the bill, offer up the kind of
assistance that this bill recognizes is important for our producers,
and get on with the business of being a cooperating partner with
production agriculture, and not a barrier, or not a hindrance, or not a
Johnny-come-lately.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Iowa is
recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Yvonne Byrne and Maureen
Knightly, members of my staff, be granted floor privileges during the
debate of the agriculture appropriations conference report and the vote
that is taking place at 5:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I was listening to what the
distinguished Senator from Idaho was saying. He raised one question. He
asked the question, What do farmers want? That is a fair question. But
there is an answer.
A poll was prepared by Rock Wood Research, a subsidiary of the Farm
Journal, Inc.--we are all familiar with Farm Journal--for the Nebraska
Wheat Growers Association, the American Corn Growers Association, and
the Nebraska Farmers Union. It was a widely disseminated poll. It was
done between September 4 and September 10 of this year. And 1,000
farmers, actual producers, were interviewed--500 corn growers and 500
wheat growers.
There were a number of questions. One of the questions asked was
whether Congress should lift loan caps and raise loan rates 59 cents
per bushel on wheat and 32 cents on corn, and 72.5 percent of the
farmers polled said yes, they wanted the loan rates raised; only 19
percent said no.
So if you are asking the question about what farmers want, I have a
scientific poll done of 1,000 farmers, a pretty good cross section, and
72.5 percent said they wanted the loan rates raised.
Another question: A farm program should retain planting flexibility,
including farmer-owned and farmer-controlled grain reserves; 85.9
percent of the farmers interviewed said they would support that
proposal. Only 9.9 percent opposed it.
Yet the Republicans in this body and in the House would never vote to
give farmers a farmer-owned and farmer-controlled grain reserve. We
have had that in the past. I, for one, happen to be in favor of
reinstituting it. But, obviously, the party in power will not
countenance that. So when you ask what farmers want, it is here in this
poll; it is as plain as can be. If we were voting on what farmers
wanted, we would have lifted the caps from the commodity marketing
assistance loan rates and we would have a farmer-owned and farmer-
controlled grain reserve.
So much for that question.
It has also been said that our marketing loan proposals are
undermining Freedom to Farm. That is not so. What has undermined
Freedom to Farm is external events, which is weak export demand from
the Asian markets, along with the strong dollar, generally favorable
weather and bumper crops in many areas. Those are the factors that have
undermined the hoped-for success of Freedom to Farm.
Actually, the proposal that we have made would in some ways help
Freedom to Farm. It is kind of odd that I find myself, who was opposed
to Freedom to Farm because of its lack of income protection, saying
that our proposal probably will help save it more than what is being
done in this conference report. But, be that as it may, I still think
that, looking at it both in the short and the long term, raising the
caps on the marketing loans is the way to go.
One other point that I wanted to raise is that I really take issue
with any suggestion that Secretary of Agriculture Glickman has flip-
flopped on loan rates. I don't believe that assertion is supported by
the facts. Secretary Glickman for some time has talked about the need
to restore a farm income safety net. In fact, he said that when the
President signed the 1996 farm bill into law. He was not saying that he
opposed taking the loan rate caps off; he just said there needed to be
a safety net. When a specific proposal to lift the caps on loan rates
was made, he endorsed it, as did President Clinton. So I can't see that
as any kind of a flip-flop.
A lot has been said here about generosity and how generous the
Republican proposal in the conference report is for farmers, for
disaster-related assistance. I divide the conference report in this
regard into two areas. There is the part that goes for the natural
disaster assistance and the part that goes for the income losses
related to commodity prices.
On the disaster side, the proposal that we offered in conference
would provide $2.486 billion in disaster assistance. The conference
report has $2.350 billion. Actually, the proposal that we offered would
have been more generous overall to farmers suffering from disasters
than the conference report in front of us.
Mr. President, having said all of that, I must also say that there
are many good features in this conference report. I commend the
distinguished chairman and ranking member for their outstanding work
under very difficult constraints to pull this conference report
together. It has a number of provisions important not only to my State
of Iowa but to the Nation that I am pleased to see included. So there
are a lot of good things in the bill.
But there is one overriding shortcoming in the bill that will, of
course, compel me to oppose the conference report. And that is what we
have been speaking about most of the afternoon, those of us who have
been on the floor; that is, what I feel to be the lack of adequate
assistance to help our farmers--our farm families--deal with the worst
economic devastation in over a decade. It is a matter that is simply
too important to let go. I regret that I must urge my colleagues to
vote against the adoption of the conference report.
Again, just to refresh my colleagues about the seriousness of the
crisis facing American farm families and rural communities, in July,
when this legislation was last on the Senate floor, 99 Senators voted
in favor of a resolution recognizing the severity of the crisis that
confronts us in agriculture and calling for immediate action. What was
bad then has become even worse since.
Commodity prices have fallen even further. In the period of 11 weeks,
corn and soybean prices at Central Illinois Terminal Elevators have
declined 39 cents a bushel for corn and $1.49 a bushel for soybeans. At
Iowa Interior Elevators, prices have fallen by similar amounts to about
$1.53 a bushel for corn, and about $4.65 a bushel for soybeans. And on
the livestock side, hog prices have continued at low levels, remaining
at or below $30 a hundredweight in southern Iowa markets since early
September. Country elevator prices are expected to fall even lower as
the fall harvest gets fully in swing. Cattle prices remain low. Wheat
prices have been depressed for a long time and are expected to continue
so.
In addition to the low commodity prices, farmers in several regions
of the country have suffered devastating losses from damaging weather,
crop diseases, and other natural disasters. There has been severe
drought in the South, Southwest, Southeast, and now followed by
devastating hurricanes.
In the northern plains, several years of crop disease have put
farmers on the ropes. As a result of all of these forces, farm income
is falling drastically. It is estimated that this year net farm income
will be down by more than $11 billion from last year.
That is over a 20-percent drop in farm income in 1 year. Again, this
loss of income is having a horrendous effect on farm families and their
communities. And there appears to be no relief in the market on the
horizon.
[[Page S11432]]
We are all talking about the market. The theory of Freedom to Farm
supposedly was that farmers can plant for the market. Well, there is no
market to speak of now. We have too large a quantity of commodities for
the market. We have a glut on the market, and our Asian markets and
other markets are suffering. I don't know when they are going to come
back. So if the response is that farmers can plant for the market, I
assume the advice to farmers is not to plant because there is no
market.
Well, how can that be when the farmer has his fixed costs. He has
land. He has his equipment. He has all this money tied up. He has to
plant. He has to plant his crops to try to make something. In fact,
economically, that farmer will try to plant more. He will try to get
more out of his fixed asset base to make up for his losses. He will try
to get more production out of his fixed base to make up for lower
prices. Therefore, we look again next year for another bumper crop
coming on and continued low prices. The Asian economy is not expected
to turn around quickly, the Russian economy is in the tank, and the
relative strength of the U.S. dollar means that other exporting
countries can offer more competitive prices than we can.
So we are now in what appears to be a prolonged period of low
commodity prices. And unless we take some action, action that is truly
effective, we are headed into another round of farm foreclosures and
families forced out of business and off the land.
A recent Iowa State University study, for example, concluded that 2
to 3 straight years of low prices could push as many as a third of Iowa
farmers into restructuring or liquidation with disastrous consequences
for Iowa's economy.
I want also to underscore the broad ramifications of this farm crisis
on the wider economy. Agriculture is the largest industry in my State
of Iowa, as it is in a number of States. When agriculture is in a
downturn in Iowa, the entire State economy feels it.
If we consider the drop in corn and soybean prices alone this year,
leaving aside the precipitous drop in hog prices, Iowa's economy this
year is going to take a hit of about $1.4 billion. Chopping that much
out of Iowa's economy could cost upwards of 26,000 jobs, jobs that we
can ill-afford to lose in my State.
Again, I want to make it clear exactly what part of the conference
report I disagree with--the part dealing with loss of income caused by
low commodity prices.
Again, I am not opposing that part of the conference report dealing
with disaster assistance, although I did point out that what we had in
our package was a little bit more generous to those farmers hard hit by
the disasters than what is in this conference report.
We had worked, Senator Daschle and a number of my colleagues and I
had worked on an emergency request sent up by the administration. We
made some modifications and additions to the administration's request.
We came up with what we considered to be a well-balanced bill. The
emergency package that we put together would have provided about $130
million more in disaster-related assistance than the provisions now in
the conference report.
The other essential part of the package, apart from the disaster
assistance, is to restore some of the farm income safety net. If we
consider those two aspects of the emergency package in tandem, then
every State in the United States would have come out better under our
proposal than under what is now in the conference report, and that
includes the States hard hit by natural disasters.
Let me explain further why what is in this conference report is
inadequate to deal with the problem of low commodity prices. The
conference report includes $1.65 billion that would be added to the
Agriculture Market Transition Act, otherwise known as AMTA, payments
that farmers will receive for fiscal 1999. I understand that these
payments would mean an addition of about 19 cents a bushel for wheat
and about 11 cents a bushel for corn when considered on the basis of
program payment yield.
Keep in mind there are no payments directed for soybeans or oilseeds
in this conference report even though soybean prices have dropped
dramatically.
Also, keep in mind that actual yields are greater than the program
payment yields used for calculating the AMTA payments. So if we
consider the actual production on farms, the conference report would
provide about 13 cents a bushel for wheat and about 7 cents a bushel
for corn. Again, no direct assistance for soybeans.
These levels of assistance are totally inadequate. In fact, a
spokesman for one Member of this body said it better than I could. He
said the proposal is a ``slap in the face'' to farmers. Well, it really
is. I likened it to giving a person dying of thirst a thimbleful of
water; it might relieve suffering momentarily but it really doesn't
solve the problem of the person dying of thirst.
The proposal that Senator Daschle and I along with others put forward
is different. This proposal, which has been talked about by others this
afternoon, simply would lift the caps from the commodity marketing
assistance loan rates. If that was done, our proposal would add about
57 cents a bushel in added income protection for wheat, compared to 13
cents in the conference report, 28 cents a bushel for corn compared to
7 cents a bushel for corn in the conference report, and about 28 cents
a bushel for soybeans compared to zero for soybeans in the conference
report. I might also point out it would provide higher loan rates for
both cotton and rice.
Our proposal obviously was rejected in conference. That is very
unfortunate because it goes much further than what is in the conference
report toward addressing the devastating loss of farm income due to low
commodity prices. Again, if we have low commodity prices caused by a
glut, bumper crops, combined with the loss of foreign markets we are
going to have to enact some reasonable income protection to help
farmers make it through this economic disaster--a disaster not of their
own making. I know there has been a lot of discussion about fast track
as though that is the magical solution to everything that is wrong in
the farm economy. If only we had fast track, it is suggested,
everything would be beautiful. Let's be honest and let's be real about
it. Fast track could help us 5 or 7 years from now, which is how long
it took to get the Uruguay Round completed. But fast track doesn't help
us now. Not in any way does it help the farm families who face
foreclosure in the next few months. I say that as someone who has voted
for fast track in the past, who voted for NAFTA and voted for the
Uruguay Round agreement. I defy anyone to come to the floor and tell me
how, if fast track were passed right now, it could possibly help
farmers who are in dire straits this year and next year. So fast track
may have some benefits down the pike, depending on what comes out of
the negotiations, but none in the immediate future.
Again, I and others who have proposed lifting the caps on marketing
loan rates have been accused of going beyond the scope of the farm
bill, of reopening the farm bill. Well, the fact is marketing loan are
in the farm bill. The bill set a formula for loan rates, but then put
an arbitrary cap on the loan rates for budgetary reasons. Taking off
the caps and letting the formula already in the bill work, as we are
proposing, is not really reopening the farm bill. We are simply taking
what is in the farm bill, a tool that is in there, and using the tool
to enhance the farm income protections within the basic structure of
the 1996 farm bill--simply by removing the caps. That change, combined
with extending the loan period, will help farmers well into next year--
and next year and the year after if the policy were adopted for the
long term as I believe would be desirable. Added AMTA payments will go
out this year, and that is it. A lot of the new AMTA payments will go
to farmers who will not be farming next year. A lot of that AMTA
payment will go to farmers whose landlords will seize the opportunity
to increase the rent and take it back in rent payments. So basically
the AMTA payment is sort of a one-time payment to farmers, but it
really is not going to solve the problem.
Again, I would like to illustrate the difference between the
conference report and what the Democratic plan was. For a 650-acre corn
and soybean farm in Iowa with 390 acres of corn
[[Page S11433]]
base, 260 acres of soybeans, the conference report will provide a
$4,230 payment to that farmer. The Democratic proposal, in removing the
marketing loan caps, would provide increased income protection of
$18,455 or a difference of $14,225 to the farmer with 390 acres of corn
and 260 acres of soybeans in Iowa.
So again, that is a very substantial difference, and it is a
difference that would carry through into next year because of the
improved income safety net aspect of the marketing assistance loan. The
small AMTA supplement is a short term one-time payment.
So again, I just ask my colleagues from the Corn Belt whether 7 cents
a bushel paid out now, but soon gone, is anywhere near enough to
address severe farm income problems. Is 13 cents a bushel enough even
to begin to address the economic devastation in wheat country? And I
ask my colleagues whether a proposal with no direct support for
soybeans is adequate to address the steep decline in soybean prices.
So that is really the question today. The question is whether or not
those very small cash payments are going to be adequate for the
tremendous farm income problems that are out there. I do not believe
so. I do not believe that will help nearly enough--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold, the hour of 5:30
having arrived, the clerk is to report the motion to invoke cloture on
the motion to proceed to H.R. 10.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I just be
allowed 3 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask for 1
additional minute at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from
Iowa before the rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, this conference report needs to be
rejected and sent back for further work to restore farm income
protection by removing the marketing loan rate caps. There are also two
other areas in which the conference report is not acceptable.
I would mention the labeling of beef and lamb for country of origin.
The House Republicans rejected this idea. It is too bad, because under
the WTO it is allowed, to have country of origin labeling. It is not
just for our beef and lamb producers in this country. I believe our
consumers have the right to know, when they buy a steak or chop or
other cut of beef or lamb at the meat counter, what its country of
origin is.
Second, we had mandatory price reporting in the Senate bill so
livestock producers will have information to help them evaluate packer
bids for fairness. The conference report converted that bill language
into weak report language. We have had study after study after study on
pricing practices in the livestock and meat business and the need for
more openness and transparency. It is time we have real action, not
another study on that.
For those reasons I believe the conference report ought to be
rejected and sent back for further work. If it is not, then I am afraid
we will have a one-time payment to farmers this fall and we will be
back again here next year with fewer farmers and even more economic
devastation in rural America.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
``Suggested Changes in Farm Policy for the 21st Century,'' submitted by
Dr. Neil Harl of Iowa State University, and I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Suggested Changes in Farm Policy for the 21st Century
fine tuning ``freedom to farm''
(By Neil Harl)
Farmer-owned storage program for major commodities.
Long-term land idling (up to 20 years) in marginal areas
(contracts terminate if prices rise above a specified level).
Standby authority to implement acreage set aside (if prices
remain for a specified period below a designated level).
Adequate funding for FSA direct lending and loan guarantees
for limited resource borrowers.
Continue LDP and marketing loans with slightly higher loan
rate (not higher than cost of production on marginal lands).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia, under a previous
unanimous consent request, is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to express my surprise and dismay
about what occurred in the conference committee on the agriculture
appropriations bill.
During debate on this bill in July, Mr. President, the Senate
accepted an amendment I offered to waive the statute of limitations for
discrimination complaints filed by many small and minority farmers
against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This amendment addresses an
urgent and shameful problem, Mr. President, and we worked with farmers,
the White House, the USDA, the Department of Justice, and the
Congressional Black Caucus to develop language that would protect the
legal rights of farmers' and be implementable by USDA.
Mr. President, similar language was included in the House bill, but
it was drafted more quickly and with less consensus. It was more
narrowly defined and had less aggressive time limits for USDA to
resolve discrimination complaints. And it cost $5 million less.
And even though Representative Maxine Waters, the chairman of the
Congressional Black Caucus lobbied the conferees in support of the
Senate version of this amendment, Mr. President, the Senate lost on
almost all counts.
To give my colleagues some background, the investigative unit at
USDA's Office of Civil Rights was abolished in 1983. Farmers whose
complaints were pending at the time were led to believe their
complaints were still being investigated, when they were not. Farmers
who filed complaints after the abolition of the unit were also led to
believe that their complaints would be processed and investigated,
despite the fact that the USDA had no resources with which to conduct
such investigations. The bottom line is that none of these complaints
were ever considered--but none of the farmers were told that was the
case.
When Secretary Glickman learned of this problem, Mr. President, he
directed that the complaints be resolved quickly. In fact, I offered an
amendment to last year's appropriations bill to fund the investigative
unit.
But when USDA was finally prepared to enter into settlement
agreements on some of these cases, Mr. President, the Department of
Justice stepped in to claim that the statute of limitations for the
complaints--despite USDA's deception in the matter--had expired. The
amendment I offered to this year's appropriations bill eliminates this
legal obstacle and allows farmers to pursue their claims of
discrimination. It allows them to have their day in court, so to speak.
As we approached conference, however, I learned through staff that
objections to accepting the Senate version of this amendment were
raised based on cost. Our version was scored at $15 million, while the
House version was scored at $10 million. Mr. President, there's no
question the two amendments were slightly different. But the $15
million in the Senate amendment was to compensate Americans for
discrimination perpetuated by their own government. It was a figure
determined by CBO, conferring with USDA, about which of the pending
complaints would have likely resulted in legitimate and provable cases
of government discrimination. It is money that our government owes to
farmers who have been treated in such an unjust and morally
reprehensible manner.
Mr. President, during conference deliberations, I learned that the
House conferees objected to the scope of the Senate amendment. As I've
alluded to before, the House version addressed only discrimination
complaints against the Farm Service Agency. My amendment addressed
complaints filed against not only the Farm Service Agency, but also the
Rural Housing Service. We know that discrimination has occurred in both
agencies, and study after study has clearly illustrated this. Unless we
address complaints against both agencies, we allow justice to continue
to elude a number of minority farmers in America who deserve at long
last to be treated fairly.
[[Page S11434]]
To my dismay, Mr. President, the conferees accepted the House version
of the civil rights amendment, adding only a small portion of the
Senate version.
The Senate version of the civil rights amendment allowed for the
waiver of the statute of limitations for discrimination complaints made
against both the Farm Service Agency and the Rural Housing Service. The
House version only allowed the FSA claims.
While the conference language allows farmers to file suit in federal
court if their claims for relief are denied by USDA, the Senate
language specified that the federal court shall apply a de novo
standard of review. This standard would have allowed a federal court to
review USDA's findings and rationales with a fresh eye, so to speak. In
other words, a court would not be required to give as much deference to
USDA's decisions. This is obviously a protection that would have given
aggrieved farmers a degree of legal protection that is imminently
justified. Yet no such protection exists in the conference language.
To make matters worse, Mr. President, the one protective provision
that I was told would be included in the conference language--the
expedited review provision--was somehow omitted from the conference
report. When the conferees reached a compromise on this amendment, it
is my understanding that they specifically agreed to include a
provision of my amendment which limited USDA to 180 days in which to
investigate complaints, issue findings, and propose settlement awards,
where applicable. This provision was supposed to be included, but it
was not.
Mr. President, I am at a loss to explain why we can't do a better job
of rectifying such a grevious history of overt, admitted discrimination
for so little money. Our Minority farmers deserved better conference
language from this Congress than they got. It just underscores the
enormous obstacle we face in resolving this issue--and that is that too
few members care enough about this problem to give it the attention and
the priority it calls for.
Before I conclude, Mr. President, I'd like to share with my
colleagues some updated news. Last week, the Office of Inspector
General issued a report which lambasted the Office of Civil Rights'
handling of the backlog of discrimination complaints. The report
characterized the Office's case files as ``too slovenly to ensure the
availability of critical documents.'' It further berated the Office for
its failure to implement the majority of recommendations made to the
Department in a February 1997 report.
I am not sure why this Department has had so many problems, not only
with eliminating unjust and inexcusable behavior, but also with
efficiently resolving complaints of discrimination. These are symptoms
of an overwhelming and inexcusable problem. As many of my colleagues
know, this is a problem that I have been working to solve for almost
two years, from the moment it was first brought to my attention by a
group of minority farmers headed by a Virginian.
Mr. President, I have heard account after account of inexcusable
behavior on the part of various officials at USDA, primarily those in
positions of authority who process farmers' applications for loans.
Some farmers have had trouble even getting loan applications, much less
having their applications processed in a timely manner. Many farmers
have cited stories in which their applications have been purposely
processed later than those of non-minority farmers. The loan money
then, in effect, was dispersed to non-minority farmers first. Then,
when many minority farmers checked the status of their applications,
the USDA officials responded by stating that there wasn't any money
left. Another farmer told me that a USDA official was permitted to keep
a noose in his office, despite repeated complaints about the message it
sent to minority farmers wishing to do business in that office.
I know that Secretary Glickman is committed to stemming this pattern,
but ultimately Congress is responsible for overseeing our government
agencies. In the two years that I've been working on this issue,
talking with farmers, meeting with the Secretary and the President, we,
as a Congress, have not taken a sufficiently forceful approach to stem
this shameful pattern of discrimination. In my view, that makes us part
of the problem as well.
When the conferees chose not to accept the Senate language, they made
a choice that sends a disquieting message to minority farmers across
this country. The message they sent was that they were willing to do
the bare minimum for minority farmers who have suffered discrimination
at the hands of government officials. It is a message that we, the
Congress, are not willing to get fully invested in eliminating
discrimination within our own government.
The President has indicated that he will veto this bill, and I am
hopeful that my colleagues will take another opportunity to look at the
differences between the Senate language and the conference language. We
will have another opportunity to correct a critical error in our
priorities. The farmers deserve our best oversight efforts, and they
deserve the strongest civil rights amendment that we can craft. I will
continue to push all of our colleagues to do so. A lack of attention to
this issue means not only failure on our part, but a perpetuation of a
problem for which we should all be ashamed.
Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask unanimous consent that this
letter and executive summary from the Inspector General to the
Secretary of Agriculture dated September 30, 1998 be included in the
Record immediately following my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Office of Inspector General,
Washington, DC, September 30, 1998.
Report to the Secretary on Civil Rights Issues--Phase V
From: Roger C. Viadero, Inspector General.
Subject: Evaluation of the Office of Civil Rights' Efforts to
Reduce the Backlog of Program Complaints, Evaluation
Report No. 60801-1-Hq.
In July 1998, your Assistant Secretary for Administration
asked the Office of Inspector General to review the efforts
by the Office of Civil Rights (CR) to reduce the backlog of
program complaints in USDA. Attached is a copy of the results
of this review. This represents our fifth evaluation of the
Department's efforts to reduce the program complaints backlog
and to improve the overall complaint processing system,
including the investigative process.
We found that the Department, through CR, has not made
significant progress in reducing the complaints backlog.
Whereas the backlog stood at 1,088 complaints on November 1,
1997, it still remains at 616 complaints as of September 11,
1998.
The problems we noted before in the complaints resolution
process also continue. CR's data base remains an unreliable
repository of information, and its casefiles are too slovenly
to ensure the availability of critical documents. A
disaffected staff and a leadership vacuum have contributed to
a system that cannot ensure complainants a timely hearing of
their grievances.
Of considerable concern to us is CR's lack of progress in
reforming its operations in accordance with our previous
recommendations. Few corrective actions have been taken to
increase the efficiency of the complaints resolution process.
We also noted that CR staff members have not always been
honest in portraying the actual level of their performance.
Some of the information they gave us proved to be inaccurate.
Some of the information they gave you on earlier occasions
proved likewise to be inaccurate.
Because of continuing problems in the complaints resolution
process, we are recommending that you convene a Complaints
Resolution Task Force (independent of CR) to immediately
assume control of the backlog and have full authority to
resolve complaints, including entering into settlement
agreements. We are also recommending that the civil rights
function within the Department be elevated to the level of
Assistant Secretary.
At your request, we will be continuing our work with CR,
giving special emphasis to its management of settlement
agreements.
Executive Summary
Purpose
The Assistant Secretary for Administration asked us to
perform a followup review of the operations of USDA's Office
of Civil Rights (CR), the office responsible for resolving
complaints made against the Department for alleged civil
rights violations in the administration of its programs.
During four previous reviews of the Department's civil rights
program complaints system, we determined that the system was
not functioning properly and that the Department had amassed
a growing backlog of complaints that required immediate
attention. Although CR itself could not accurately determine
how large the backlog was at the time of our first review, it
later identified 1,088 outstanding unresolved complaints
before November 1, 1997.
[[Page S11435]]
Results in brief
Our past reviews had questioned the productivity of CR; we
had found a disaffected staff and a leadership vacuum. Little
was being accomplished by USDA agencies to respond to citizen
complaints of discrimination and little was done by CR to
manage the resolution process. Some complaints in CR's
backlog had languished for over 2 years. After our February
1997 report, CR made the resolution of its backlog its first
priority.
Our current review disclosed that the backlog of complaints
of civil rights violations, although reduced, still stands at
616 cases as of September 11, 1998. Of these 616 cases, 80
are under investigation, 310 are awaiting adjudication, 23
are undergoing a legal sufficiency review, and 103 are
pending closure. The remaining 100 cases still await a
preliminary analysis. (Because 164 complaints are involved in
lawsuits against the Department, their cases cannot currently
be processed. Of these 164 cases, 147 are included in the
remaining backlog.)
The backlog is not being resolved at a faster rate because
CR itself has not attained the efficiency it needs to
systematically reduce the caseload. Few of the deficiencies
we noted in our previous reviews have been corrected. The
office is still in disarray, providing no decisive leadership
and making attempt to correct the mistakes of the past. We
noted with considerable concern that after 20 months, CR has
made virtually no progress in implementing the corrective
actions we thought essential to the viability of its
operations. The following table summarizes the key areas for
which our recommendations were made and in which the
uncorrected deficiencies persist.
TABLE 1.--AREAS OF DEFICIENCY PREVIOUSLY NOTED BY OIG AND STILL UNCORRECTED--RECURRING OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
ISSUES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG Evaluation Phases
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Alert (02/25/ II (09/29/ Memo (12/18/ IV (03/04/
97) I (02/27/97) 97) 97) 98) V (09/30/98)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review State foreclosure X X X X X X
actions....................
Send letters of ............ X X
acknowledgment (Completed
November 1997).............
Develop and maintain a data ............ X X X X X
base.......................
Evaluate each agency's civil ............ X X X X X
rights staff...............
Clean casefiles............. ............ X X X X X
Clear backlog............... ............ X X X X X
Publish regulations......... ............ X X X X X
Reconcile casefiles with ............ X X X X X
USDA agencies..............
Write plans for compliance ............ X X X X X
reviews....................
Follow up on isolated ............ ............ ............ X X X
instances of potential
discrimination.............
Find lost casefiles......... ............ X X X X X
Use aging reports........... ............ X X X X X
Train investigators......... ............ ............ X X X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X Condition originally noted and recommendation made. X Condition continues. X Corrective action taken but not
adequately implemented. See exhibits B and C for the Secretary's memoranda regarding Phases I and II.
We estimate that if CR continues to operate under its
current methods and at its current rate, the backlog of
complaints existing on November 1, 1997, will not be
completely resolved for at least another year.
Most conspicuous among the uncorrected problems is the
continuing disorder within CR. The data base CR uses to
report the status of cases is unreliable and full of errors,
and the files it keeps to store needed documentation are
slovenly and unmanaged. Forty complaint files could not be
found, and another 130 complaints that were listed in USDA
agency files were not recorded in CR's data base. Management
controls were so poor that we could not render an opinion on
the quality of CR's investigations and adjudications.
Of equal significance is the absence of written policy and
procedures. It is incumbent upon CR to revise department
policy to ensure it complies with civil rights laws and to
establish the framework of its own activities. We believe
standardized, written guidelines are essential to CR's
operation, and it is a matter of concern to us that CR has,
over the space of 20 months, produced nothing to lay the
foundation for good management controls.
The absence of formal procedures and accurate records
raises questions about due care within the complaints
resolution process. We found critical quality control steps
missing at every stage of the process. Staffmembers with
little training and less experience were put to judging
matters that carry serious legal and moral implications. Many
of CR's adjudicators, who must determine whether
discrimination occurred, were student interns. Legal
staffmembers with the Office of the General Counsel (OGC),
who review CR's decisions for legal sufficiency, have had to
return over half of them because they were based on
incomplete data or faulty analysis. We noted that a
disproportionately large percent of the 616 cases of
unresolved backlog had bottlenected in the adjudication unit.
Furthermore, CR may not understand the full scope of its
authority. CR has concentrated its oversight on federally-
conducted programs; it has largely ignored a host of
federally-assisted programs (e.g., crop insurance, research
grants) in which complaints of discrimination may have been
made.
CR's unsuccessful efforts to resolve the backlog of civil
rights complaints are in part the symptom of an insecurity
that has affected office morale. The many reorganizations the
complaints resolution staff has undergone, the high turnover
the staff has experienced within the last several years, and
the inadequate training afforded both managers and
staffmembers, have left the staff unfocused and without
clear direction. The staff we found at the civil rights
offices was not a coherent team of dedicated professionals
with a shared vision but a fragmented order of individual
fiefdoms, each mindful only of its own borders and its own
responsibilities. Low office morale has contributed to a
lack of productivity. CR's data base shows that since
January 1997, CR closed only 19 cases through
adjudication, 8 of which were not even investigated by CR.
Through this inefficiency, complainants are being denied a
timely hearing of their civil rights complaints.
Also disturbing was the evasiveness we encountered at CR.
We found discrepancies between what we were told by
staffmembers and what we were subsequently able to verify. We
found similar discrepancies in information CR communicated to
the Secretary. These discrepancies, in the number of open and
closed complaints, were repeated at congressional hearings
and other public forums.
We concluded that in order to complete the backlog of cases
expeditiously, the Secretary needs to transfer resolution of
the backlog to a complaints resolution task force, composed
of seasoned adjudicators and well qualified civil rights
personnel from Federal agencies outside USDA. The task force
should have full authority to review and resolve all
complaints.
To increase CR's efficiency in the long term, the Secretary
should create an Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights with
subcabinet-level status. Concurrently, the CR Director should
emphasize hiring managers who have a solid background in
civil rights and a good knowledge of Department programs.
Once in operation, the task force would provide CR with the
opportunity to focus on its own structure and implement the
reforms it needs to function efficiently. We believe CR is
capable of these reforms and that it is in the best position
within the Department to act objectively in resolving civil
rights complaints. Consequently it should retain Department
authority to investigate future complaints. We believe that
when CR has taken the corrective actions we previously
recommended, as well as the steps outlined in this followup
report, it will provide more efficient service.
Key recommendations
We recommend that the Secretary take the following actions
to ensure that citizens who have complained of discrimination
by USDA receive a timely hearing:
Immediately convene a complaints resolution task force,
composed of well qualified civil rights personnel from other
Federal agencies and senior USDA program personnel with
decision-making authority. The task force, under the
direction of an Executive Director who reports directly to
the Secretary, should immediately assume control of the
backlog and have full authority to review and resolve
complaints.
The complaints resolution task force could also assist the
CR Director in reviewing new complaints that have exceeded
the 180-day resolution deadline set by the Civil Rights
Implementation Team.
The OGC and the CR Director should be available to assist
the task force in its efforts.
The task force should perform a case-by-case, document-by-
document sweep of the casefiles to restore retrievability to
the information contained in the files.
Elevate the Department's civil rights functions to the
level of Assistant Secretary with full authority across
agency lines.
Require CR to (a) issue needed operational policies and
procedures within a 2-month timeframe, (b) resolve within 2
months all other recommendations that we made in our previous
reports but that CR has failed to implement, (c) keep open
all cases with settlement agreements so the agreements may be
tracked, and (d) institute other operational improvements
that will ensure the efficient operation of the civil rights
functions within the Department and ensure due care in the
resolution of all civil rights complaints as well as a timely
hearing for all complainants.
Statistical data on complaints
According to CR's data base as of September 11, 1998, the
Department's inventory of
[[Page S11436]]
complaints totals 1,439 that are open and 582 that are
closed. Of the total open and closed cases, 383 are part of 2
lawsuits brought against the Department; 77 from the
Brewington lawsuit, and 256 from the Pigford lawsuit. These
cases are identified separately because the court prohibited
CR from processing the cases as long as they were under
litigation.
CR categorizes complaints that have not yet been reviewed
as ``intend-to-file'' cases. Normally these cases are
considered ``unperfected.'' However, if the complainant has
indicated an intent to go forward with the complaint once
Congress waives the 2-year statute of limitations, the case
is identified separately.
The three tables on the next page identify the status of
all cases in the inventory.
TABLE 2--STATUS OF CIVIL RIGHTS PROGRAM COMPLAINTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in Lawsuit Pigford Lawsuit \1\ Brewington Lawsuit \2\ Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intend Open Closed Intend Open Closed Intend Open Closed Intend Open Closed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backlog..................................................... ......... 469 455 ......... 144 16 ......... 3 1 ......... 616 472
New......................................................... ......... 138 106 ......... 19 2 ......... 6 1 ......... 163 109
Unperfected................................................. 271 ......... 1 6 ......... ......... 7 ......... ......... 284 ......... 1
Statute of Limitations...................................... 248 ......... ......... 69 ......... ......... 59 ......... ......... 376 ......... .........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals................................................ 519 607 562 75 163 18 66 9 2 660 779 582
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Actual total number of complainants in the Pigford lawsuit as of 08/06/98 is 481. Not all complainants are captured in CR's data base.
\2\ Actual total number of complainants in the Brewington lawsuit as of 08/06/98 is 132. Not all complainants are captured in CR's data base. CR is prohibited from processing cases under
litigation and cannot yet process those cases which fall outside the statute of limitations.
TABLE 3--STATUS OF CIVIL RIGHTS BACKLOG PROGRAM COMPLAINTS AS OF
SEPTEMBER 11, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in Pigford Brewington
Lawsuit Lawsuit Lawsuit Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Investigation............. 69 31 .......... 100
Under Investigation........... 75 5 .......... 80
Adjudication.................. 214 93 3 310
At OGC........................ 19 4 .......... 23
Pending Closure............... 92 11 .......... 103
Closed........................ 455 16 1 472
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 924 160 4 1,088
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 4--STATUS OF CIVIL RIGHTS NEW PROGRAM COMPLAINTS AS OF SEPTEMBER
11, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in Pigford Brewington
Lawsuit Lawsuit Lawsuit Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Investigation............. 126 17 6 149
Under Investigation........... 2 ........ .......... 2
Adjudication.................. 7 2 .......... 9
At OGC........................ ........ ........ .......... 0
Pending Closure............... 3 ........ .......... 3
Closed........................ 106 2 1 109
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 244 21 7 272
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to
proceed for 2 minutes prior to the cloture vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, when Senator Cochran and I reported the
fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill for agriculture, rural development
and related agencies to the Senate earlier this year, our
recommendation included maintaining the studies and evaluations
activities for USDA's food programs with the Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS). This recommendation was consistent with the President's budget
request.
The studies and evaluations activities are important for a number of
reasons. These activities enable better program management of the
several domestic feeding programs administered through USDA. We should
remember that USDA's nutrition programs comprise the lions' share of
the USDA budget and are often all that stands between many of our
people and abject hunger. Because of the long-term health implications
associated with a healthy, nutritious diet, it is absolutely vital that
program administrators have access to relevant and updated information
regarding nutrition and program delivery.
Mr. HARKINS. I agree with the Senator from Arkansas' explanation of
the importance of these research functions at USDA. Although the Senate
position going into conference was to fund the food program studies and
evaluations through FNS, the House insisted on their provision which
would place these functions with the Economic Research Service (ERS).
We were able to reach an agreement with the House conferees, as
included in this Conference Report, to transfer $2 million from the ERS
back to the FNS for this purpose. It is our expectation that the ERS
will continue its working relationship with the FNS in order for that
agency to conduct the same type of studies and evaluations as in the
current fiscal year.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like to note the importance of
coordinating the research agenda for the food program studies and
evaluations between USDA's research and nutrition subcabinet officers.
I cannot understate the importance of these two branches of USDA
continuing to work together, as they have done this year, to ensure
that FNS' research agenda meets the needs of program managers to have
adequate information to guide their program decisions.
Mr. COCHRAN. Senator Bumpers is correct. I strongly urge the Under
Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Service and the Under
Secretary for Research, Education and Economics to continue working
together to establish a reasonable division of effort consistent with a
sound research agenda.
National swine center
Mr. HARKIN. I would like to engage my colleague, Senator Bumpers, the
ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies in a colloquy
regarding the pending legislation. For clarification, I would like the
Senator to provide further explanation of language included in the
Statement of Managers accompanying the conference report to H.R. 4101.
It is my understanding that language under the heading of the
Agricultural Research Service imposes a limitation on funding for the
National Swine Research Center at Ames, Iowa, but is related to
operational and maintenance costs for that facility beyond those
normally associated with assignments of ARS personnel. This
interpretation would not be inconsistent with the general provision of
the conference report that prohibits the transfer of title of the
Center to USDA.
Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Iowa is correct. While the conference
report does not allow for the transfer of title of the facility to
USDA, and the Statement of Managers includes language limiting the use
of funds for operational costs, that limitation does not apply to the
allocation of funds pursuant to normal ARS scientist assignments. The
Statement of Managers includes direction that an increase of $2 million
for ARS research at Ames, Iowa, is included as reflected in the
accompanying table. That table indicates an increase of $1 million for
the National Animal Disease Center and an additional $1 million for
Livestock Management. The latter amount is available for use at the
National Swine Research Center consistent with normal ARS personnel
funding allocations.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for his further explanation.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me say, and I would be remiss if I
did not say it at this point, I think, one of the things I will miss
deeply when I leave the U.S. Senate will be the excellent relationship
I have had with the chairman of this committee. He has been, probably,
much more generous to me through the years that he was chairman than I
was to him when I was chairman. But I want the whole Senate to know of
my deep admiration for him. I want the whole country to know it. He is
a consummate gentleman. He is a man of impeccable integrity. He is
accommodating to a fault to his colleagues. And one of the things I
will miss is his counsel, advice and common sense.
He is the personification of what public service should be. I have
been most honored to serve with him and I will cherish his friendship
always.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S11437]]
____________________