[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]]



                          ____________________