[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 138 (Tuesday, October 6, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11562-S11569]
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 order of 
business is the agriculture conference report.
  The Senate continued with consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know that there is a vote at 3:15. I 
wanted the opportunity to address the conference report prior to that 
vote.
  Let me begin first by complimenting the distinguished Chair for the 
manner in which he has conducted himself in this debate, as he does 
with all debate. We may have deep differences of opinion on this 
particular issue, but in true form he has been a statesman and, I

[[Page S11563]]

think, a model for all of us in the way he has conducted himself. As I 
say, I take issue with the bill but certainly not with the manager and 
the Chair of the committee. He has in so many cases done an outstanding 
job.
  Let me also applaud our distinguished ranking member. This will 
probably be the final bill that he manages. He knows how strongly I 
feel about him and the friendship that I have and feel toward him. He 
is one of the finest Members of the Senate who has ever served, in my 
opinion. We will miss him more than we can ever possibly express. It is 
with sadness that I acknowledge that this may be his last bill, but it 
is with a great deal of satisfaction in looking back over the past 12 
years in my service with him that I share many fond memories and many 
extraordinary legislative success stories.
  The conference report that is before the Senate is one that I believe 
fails to recognize the extraordinary nature of the circumstances we 
find ourselves in in the agricultural industry across this country. 
People on both sides of the aisle acknowledge the seriousness of the 
crisis. They acknowledge the fact that prices continue to plummet. Many 
of my colleagues on the Democratic side have indicated that grain 
prices have already fallen at least 25 percent below the 1997 level.
  I have asked people in the media and around the country to imagine 
what would happen if Wall Street prices had fallen in 1 year by 25 
percent. How many Wall Street Journal articles would we see? How many 
front page stories in the daily newspapers would we see if prices 
plummeted that far? Obviously, there would be tremendous national 
anxiety about those circumstances.
  That is exactly what has happened in agriculture. Prices have 
plummeted by more than 25 percent. There are some who believe that 
``business as usual'' is acceptable here. I am not suggesting that our 
Republican colleagues have approached this matter with that in mind, 
but I do believe that there is a significant difference of opinion. 
Unfortunately, it does break partly along partisan lines in recognizing 
the depth of the problem and in dealing with it prior to the time we 
leave this year.
  Livestock producers today are losing somewhere between $100 and $150 
per head. A number of States in the Midwest are likely to lose at least 
20 percent of our farmers in the coming year, according to state 
secretaries of agriculture--these are not my figures, but the 
secretaries of agriculture in the upper Great Plains who are reporting 
to us that one out of every five farm and ranch families will probably 
be forced off their farm or ranch as a result of the circumstances we 
are facing today. In South Dakota, that means perhaps as many as 7,000 
producers who will no longer have the livelihood they have right now.
  Nationwide, we expect an $11.4 billion reduction in farm income. That 
is over 20 percent. The sad thing is that the Department of Agriculture 
has just released new figures to suggest that there is no real hope in 
sight. The fact is, for at least the next 12 months we don't see 
circumstances improving.
  The last time the Congress was in a situation similar to this was the 
mid-eighties. At that time, we had a safety net; we had policy 
positions that allowed us the opportunity to respond more equitably. 
Some might argue that maybe we went too far. I don't know, what is too 
far? All I know is, during that critical timeframe, in 1986 dollars, we 
committed $26 billion to respond to the disaster. Now a lot of that was 
not decided in the Senate, because there was a safety net already in 
place. But it was so bad, we committed $26 billion in ways that would 
soften the blow and keep farmers and ranchers on the farm. It did. A 
lot of them dug out, got back in the black, and continued to be 
productive, tax-paying members of rural communities all across this 
country.
  What we are suggesting is, we can't afford $26 billion, we can't 
afford $20 billion, we can't afford half that amount, $13 billion. All 
we can probably commit to, given the array of needs that are out there 
and given our circumstances, is $7 billion.
  The secretaries of agriculture said, ``That isn't enough, we need $9 
billion,'' and wrote in a letter to us just last week, ``We need $9 
billion, not $7 billion.''
  What do our Republican colleagues propose? Something less than four--
over $3 billion, a fraction of what we did in 1986 when the 
circumstances were as bad as they are now.
  Mr. President, what we are saying is that given the fact that we 
could be out of session sine die--that is, without any real expectation 
of coming back before the next Congress--and recognizing that in the 
next Congress there is very little chance of being back in this 
position in January or February during the cold winter months, perhaps 
not even in March or April--it could be at least 6 months before we 
have a chance to really seriously consider this situation again. We are 
simply saying that we cannot commit only this meager amount of 
resources to a situation that, in many respects, is every bit as bad if 
not worse than in 1986. This cannot be the full extent of our response. 
That is what the President is saying. The President has reluctantly 
said that he will veto this legislation. He will either veto it today 
or tomorrow. It will be vetoed this week.

  So there is no doubt that we are going to be coming back and we are 
going to have to make a decision as a result of that veto about what we 
do. Our hope is that our colleagues can come to some resolution 
quickly. It appears that we are going to have to go through the veto to 
come back to the table. But, indeed, we will come back.
  So, Mr. President, that is where I believe we have found ourselves. 
We must, when we come back, negotiate a relief package that is based at 
least on several principles that I hope will enjoy broad, bipartisan 
support. First, we must have strong indemnity-related relief for 
farmers with no crop, and meaningful income relief for farmers with a 
crop at low prices. In other words, there are two categories of farmers 
who are in desperate condition today. In many cases in the South, we 
have a problem of farmers not having a crop. I know that is especially 
true in Louisiana, and I suspect it is true in other Southern States as 
well. In the Northeastern States, we have a problem of having a crop, 
but absolutely no prices. And so we have circumstances that vary, 
depending on the geographic area. Whatever it is we do, I hope we can 
agree that both circumstances have to be addressed.
  Secondly, income assistance must be linked to 1998 crop year 
production. We don't know what it is going to be in 1999. We are told 
it is not going to get any better. So we must focus on the 1998 crop 
year and target producers, not just anyone with an AMTA or Freedom to 
Farm contract, but all producers who otherwise will have no hope of 
finding the kind of financial security or relief that they need to get 
through these winter months.
  I hope, Mr. President, that we also could agree, on a bipartisan 
basis, that losses born by livestock producers who have never had a 
farm program, and for whom fair trade legislation is critical, could be 
dealt with successfully as well. There are two things that the Senate 
did in July that I hope, on a bipartisan basis, we could restore once 
we come back to the table. The first is country of origin meat 
labeling. I don't think there is anything that would help more, 
psychologically as well as financially, than to have the same 
requirement for meat that we have for virtually every other imported 
product--labeling. Our farmers and ranchers have said that they believe 
that, more than anything else, this would improve competition in the 
retail and wholesale marketplaces. If the American consumer knew what 
it was they were eating and where it was from, our farmers and ranchers 
agree almost unanimously that they would be in a much stronger and 
competitive position.
  The second is to do something that they talk about almost anywhere I 
go in the country, but especially in the Dakotas, and my home State of 
South Dakota in particular, and that is improve price transparency. 
Increase market reporting of prices paid for livestock, specifically by 
the big packers of formula contract prices. We all know what is 
happening right now. Secret contracts are being signed with no 
appreciation for what the market is. That has a devastating effect on 
the marketplace. Farmers are left in the dark. It would be like going 
to buy a car or a pickup, or any kind of product, and not knowing what 
the price was

[[Page S11564]]

and not knowing what the comparable prices are in the industry and 
wondering, based upon your best judgment, whether you were getting a 
good deal or not. We would not do that were we buying a car. We could 
not do that if we were buying a house. Yet, every day our farmers and 
ranchers are expected to pit themselves against the big packers and try 
to guess, using some crystal ball that they don't have, what the market 
looks like out there. So they are given a price, and in a very short 
timeframe, they have to decide whether that is a good deal or not. They 
are losing $100 to $150 a head right now. So we know what kind of deals 
they are getting.
  We need price transparency. The Senate responded favorably to both of 
those proposals, but unfortunately they were dropped in conference. I 
am very hopeful that they can be restored. These are steps we can take 
immediately that will send a clear message that we understand the 
circumstances that livestock producers are in. And now is the time for 
us to deal with it, not next spring after we have lost tens of 
thousands of producers all over the country.
  Some of these matters that we have debated have a cost-related 
function. Mr. President, there is no cost to labeling, and there is no 
cost to mandatory price reporting. Keep in mind, we are suggesting that 
we would even settle, at least at this point, for a pilot study of 
those options. Let's analyze what happens when we have full price 
reporting. Let's analyze what happens when we have meat labeling. We 
are willing to sunset both of these in 2 to 3 years in an effort to 
evaluate whether or not they have worked. At least let's get started. I 
don't think that is too much to ask.
  So, Mr. President, that is why many of us have taken such a strong 
position on this conference report. Number one, it is our last shot at 
providing some meaningful economic assistance to agriculture, and, 
number two, it is an opportunity that we may not have again for 7 or 8 
months. We can't wait that long. Our package--the proposal that we are 
hoping our colleagues would consider--is fair, and it is balanced among 
all regions suffering low prices and disaster. It is targeted to the 
people who need it; that is, producers of 1998 crops. It is fiscally 
responsible. Price relief is linked to the market price, and it 
addresses the real needs of agriculture.
  Mr. President, what time remains? Is time allocated to both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was an hour, equally divided, starting 
at 2:15, with a vote scheduled at 3:15.
  Mr. DASCHLE. How much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has just under 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I see no other Democratic Senators on the 
floor, so I will use the remainder of the time.
  We believe that our proposal is also fiscally responsible. We link 
price relief to the market price, and we certainly recognize that it 
addresses the real problems that we are facing across the board in 
agriculture. I think our colleagues on the other side have failed to 
address the dual nature of the crisis --that is, loss of crops and loss 
of income. I believe they are failing to recognize the severity of the 
crisis. As I noted earlier, Mr. President, our Secretaries of 
Agriculture--the Association of State Departments of Agriculture--held 
an emergency conference last week to propose to us what they believe 
ought to be done. Frankly, they said both of our relief packages were 
inadequate. They said that even $7 billion was inadequate, and even all 
the policy changes we are recommending did not do what they felt was 
needed to address the level of need they see today. So if $7 billion 
and all of the policy changes we have recommended doesn't even cut it, 
$3.5 billion doesn't cut it, either.
  Over 150 Members of the House voted to send this bill back to 
conference. I hope that a large number of our colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle will agree to send it back as well. We simply can't leave 
this Congress without providing essential disaster relief.
  We must not lose this opportunity. We have a true emergency--an 
emergency that I think jeopardizes farmers' and ranchers' survival in a 
myriad of ways, and the survival, frankly, of rural communities all 
across this country. The loss in income that we are seeing has already 
started to translate into lost farms and ranches.
  When I was home recently a friend told me that a banker he knows is 
going to be forced to foreclose on 35 farms in just one small community 
in South Dakota alone this winter. The banker is so disturbed by what 
he is experiencing that he has actually joined a community prayer group 
just to deal with the stress he is feeling.
  Another friend who is concerned about the impact that the depressed 
farm economy is having on communities generally, said that a local 
cleaning service has laid off all of its employees because they have 
had no business since the end of July.
  These stories and many, many more are unfolding across the country. 
As my colleagues have noted already during this debate, we simply 
cannot leave until we have successfully dealt with this matter. I hope 
that we can earnestly come to some closure, successfully recognizing 
the importance of this issue and dealing with it in as comprehensive a 
manner as is humanly possible. The stakes are too high. The 
ramifications of failure are too high. Our only real chance to address 
this matter now is with this legislation.
  Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote on the conference report. I will 
support the President's veto. More than enough Members of this Senate 
have indicated already that they will support the President's veto. 
When that happens, let's get back to work, and let's deal with this 
issue successfully.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the Senator from 
Mississippi for the work that he has done on this agriculture 
appropriations bill. It is a very difficult one. It is a large bill of 
$56 billion. It is very difficult. It comes at a time when we are 
seeking, I think properly, to make a transition from the old farm 
programs with the acreage allotments and the subsidies to a market 
system which, in my State at least, most farmers and ranchers believe 
we should do. Coupled with that, of course, has come some unfortunate 
weather disasters, flooding and those kinds of things and crop failures 
as well. And certainly the Asian currency problem has had an impact in 
terms of available foreign markets, which is very important when nearly 
40 percent of agricultural products are sold in that way.
  So now we are faced with the problem of seeking to deal with these 
problems. Everybody wants to do that. Everybody wants to be helpful for 
agriculture. Then we need to find the proper way to do it. We need to 
be able to do this in a way that I think does not cause us to deviate 
from our policy position, which is to return to a marketplace in 
agriculture.
  We are doing a great deal for agriculture in this bill. There will be 
transition payments. There will be payments for disasters. As a matter 
of fact, as I understand it, the figures that I have indicate that 
through 1996 and 1998 farmers have been paid approximately $17 billion 
under the old bill. That would have been $10 billion. There has been a 
substantial increase there. Farmers will receive approximately $500 
billion from the banks in transition payments in October of this year.
  Actually all these numbers added together equal $31 billion paid to 
farmers and ranchers over the past 3 years. If you take the 1998 bonus 
in advance for 1999, we would be paying $15 billion out in this 1 year.
  There is a substantial interest being made and properly being made. 
There are other things, in my view, that need to be done as well. We 
need to do something about increasing foreign markets, of course. I 
happen to be on the Foreign Relations Committee and am chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Asia. We are trying to do some things to reclaim that 
market--in all kinds of ways to get those markets back, particularly 
for agriculture.
  We have done something about the unilateral sanctions--the idea that 
if

[[Page S11565]]

something happens in Asia or Pakistan that the first thing you do is 
sanction off the sales of agricultural products. We have made some 
changes there, as indeed we should.
  I believe we should move forward in doing something with income 
averaging on a permanent basis for agriculture. This is the kind of an 
industry where you may have a very good year, or have a very poor year, 
and you should be able to income average.
  We need savings accounts for farmers so they hold back in good years 
so they are able to do better.
  Crop insurance--crop interests need to be revised the way it came out 
of the farm bill. That was changed and has not been effective. We need 
to do that.
  It is interesting. Our friends on the other side of the aisle talk 
about this increase, and the President is now making speeches on 
Saturday, and so on. It turns out that he started out asking for less 
than $1 billion. It went up to $2 billion, and suddenly politically he 
has gone up to $7 billion, and probably more.
  We have to really deal with this on that basis.
  Mr. President, I wanted to say that I am disappointed in a couple of 
areas. I come from a State, of course, where the major activity in 
agriculture is livestock--cattle and sheep. I was very much interested 
in our moving forward with this matter of labels; this country of 
origin kind of thing so that buyers could decide what kind of meats 
they choose to buy, whether they want to have American-made meats or 
meats from other countries. But they should be able to know that. We 
put that in the Senate bill and lost it in the conference. I am very 
disappointed in that.
  We also, I believe, need to have our market reporting strengthened so 
that all the cattle and all of the sheep that go in the market will be 
reported as part of the market, not those things that are held by 
packers and never reported that would impact the crisis.
  I am disappointed in those things. I hope that we can go forward.
  There is some indication apparently from the conference committee 
that we would go forward with the study of the labeling. I hope we do.
  On the other hand, I think it is going to be slow that way. I wish, 
frankly, that we could change it before we have to go back and do it 
that way.
  Mr. President, I just wanted to say that I admire very much the work 
that has been done. I know we must do something in agriculture. We are 
poised to do something.
  I wanted to point out the two areas of disappointment that I have--
that of labeling in the country of origin, and that of transparency in 
market prices. We need something we can do about that.
  Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, may I inquire? How much time remains on 
the conference report on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 16 minutes; 
the minority has 2 minutes 21 seconds.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am not managing time on our side. Did 
the Chair say the minority has 2 minutes 21 seconds remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I wonder if my very great, good friend, the Senator from 
Mississippi, would yield me some time, although I must upfront say that 
I am arguing against the conference report.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me inquire of the Senator, how much 
time does he seek?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I was going to speak maybe 5 minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my very, very good friend from Tennessee--
Mississippi----
  Mr. COCHRAN. If you do not get my State right, I will not yield time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will use some of my time to praise you because that is 
very generous of the Senator from Mississippi, and it is typical of his 
generosity and his graciousness. He is a very, very fine man.
  Mr. President, sometimes we have to disagree with one another, and I 
am about to say that as much as I respect and admire the Senator from 
Mississippi, I have a different view than he has on this issue.
  Mr. President, I rise toady to express my profound disappointment in 
the conference report before the Senate.
  The words of our forefathers speak volumes about many topics, 
including this one. ``Blessed is the man who expects nothing, for he 
shall never be disappointed.'' These words were written in a letter 
from Alexander Pope over 270 years ago. They paraphrase biblical verse. 
I believe they speak to rural America today about the farm relief 
provisions included in this conference report.
  But more accurately they speak to the matters excluded from this 
package.
  This package should include meaningful relief for farmers in the 
worst economic crunch of this decade. Instead, it includes a pittance. 
While the conferees could have adopted a package that provided roughly 
60 cents per bushel on wheat in addition to what farmers get now, which 
is virtually nothing in the market, the conferees did not provide that 
60 cents. Instead, the bill provides 13 cents per bushel. That is how 
it works out.

  Frankly, I am stunned. I assumed that when the conferees met they 
would work out some kind of compromise. The Democratic package had 
eliminated the loan caps, it had the country of origin labeling, a 
provision providing for price reporting on a pilot project basis of fat 
cattle bought by packers. It included several provisions which would 
have helped farmers just a little bit.
  On the other side of the aisle, on the Republican side, there was not 
much at all; as I said, 13 cents as opposed to 60 cents, with respect 
to wheat.
  Mr. President, this package could only satisfy a farmer who expects 
nothing. I fear, as I hear from disillusioned producers across Montana, 
far too many producers expect this Congress to fail in the effort to 
help out.
  They believe instead that their pleas are falling on deaf ears. Their 
disaster is being seen in academic terms. Their future--the survival of 
their farms and ranches has become little more than a laboratory test 
of the farm policy enacted a couple years ago.
  I still believe in our producers--the top industry in our state. But 
that very industry that generated about $2 billion in sales last year 
will lose nearly $200 million this year. The Republican package will 
short Montana producers another $100 million. Then multiply it by our 
treacherous rank--46th in the Nation for per capita income--and you get 
a grand total of $300 million that Montana can't afford to lose--not on 
the farm and not on Main Street. Thus, what we do now portends what 
will happen in the next year in our rural communities.
  I think it is very irresponsible to end this Congress without 
meaningful relief for our farmers and ranchers. We need to eliminate 
the loan rate cap for this year and provide the funding to make it 
work.
  We need to mandate country of origin labeling on meat. And we need to 
require price reporting on the livestock sold each day.
  We need to treat this situation like the crisis it is to producers 
across Montana and across our country.
  Mr. President, I assumed the two sides would get together and work 
out some kind of compromise. That is not what happened. Instead, the 
majority party--I do not like being partisan about this stuff but I 
just have to be accurate--the majority party did not compromise at all. 
They just stuck with their 13 cents and also stuck with rejecting 
country of origin labeling on beef, stuck with rejecting entirely the 
pilot project on mandatory price reporting, instead replacing it with a 
study--essentially totally agreed to a pittance to farmers.
  I must say, Mr. President--this is no exaggeration, I am not 
exaggerating--farmers find this an insult. They find it a slap in the 
face. They cannot believe that the U.S. Congress is sitting here in 
many respects worried more about Ken Starr--certainly the majority 
side--than they are about paying attention to farmers and what is 
happening in the country.
  I have to tell you, Mr. President, it is really a bad situation in 
farm country.

[[Page S11566]]

Bankers are not going to be able to extend loans. Worse than that, they 
are going to begin to call in loans. Implement dealers, car dealers, 
grocery stores, hardware stores in farm communities are finding their 
sales way down. That means they have to start digging deeper into their 
pockets. This is the worst situation I have seen in at least 10 or 12 
years. And 10 or 12 years ago, in the late 1980s when farmers were 
facing about the same situation--again, through no fault of their own, 
because of drought and because of world conditions--Congress spent 
about $16 billion to help farmers.
  Mr. President, 10 or 12 years ago we spent $16 billion. Today the 
Democratic side is asking for, not $16 billion, $7 billion; and the 
Republican side said no, no, not even $7 billion, but $4 billion. We 
are saying, we on our side of the aisle: Hey, $4 billion is an insult. 
It is a slap in the face.
  I plead with Senators to go back again and see if we can figure out 
some way to agree, if not to the full 7, to virtually the 7.
  Another point: I have been in the Senate a few years. I voted for the 
New York City bailout, I voted for the Chrysler bailout, I voted for 
California disaster assistance. Guess what. All those efforts have been 
repaid--in spades.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask the Senator for 1 minute on the time of our side.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield 1 minute.
  Mr. BAUCUS. When we loaned money to New York City a few years ago, 
New York repaid that loan with interest, ahead of time. When we loaned 
Chrysler Corporation money to get its feet back on the ground, that 
loan was repaid ahead of time. I am just saying, today, if we can help 
farmers a little bit today with the conditions they face through no 
fault of their own, because the world market supply is so large and the 
price is so low, and the Asian economic crisis, at the very least that 
will be repaid back again in spades.
  I urge my colleagues, please show a little bit of statesmanship and 
vote to help this part of our country. It is going to come back and 
help all of us as a nation.
  I thank very much my very good friend from Mississippi, again, for 
his very generous offer to give me some time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time 
on our side.
  Let me say to the distinguished Senator from Montana, I appreciate 
his courtesies as well. It is a pleasure working with him on these 
issues. I am sorry we have to disagree on some of the issues contained 
in this agriculture appropriations conference report.
  On the subject that the Senator mentions, and also the Democratic 
leader when he was speaking mentioned as a reason why the President 
ought to veto this legislation, was the question of price reporting and 
meat labeling. These are two separate issues. Frankly, I was surprised 
by the comments and also including this as a basis for urging the 
President to veto the legislation.
  When we passed our bill in July, we received the reaction following 
that, after the administration had an opportunity to study the 
legislation--we received the reaction in a formal letter from the 
Secretary of Agriculture dated September 24, a ``Dear Thad'' letter 
from Dan Glickman.
  Included is a table going down through the bills. This is prior to 
conference now--I think that is right--prior to our going to the 
conference with the House conferees to work out differences between the 
House- and Senate-passed bills. In Secretary Glickman's letter pointing 
out their reaction to the Senate-passed bill and the provisions in the 
House bill, they get down to the meat labeling provision, which is 
title X in the Senate bill. There is no House provision on that 
subject. The USDA position as conveyed in this letter to me says: 
Working with Congress to address concerns about adverse trade effects 
and concerns that implementation would divert resources needed to 
address important food safety issues.
  We tried to work with the administration, and did, to address those 
concerns. If the administration had been supportive of the meat 
labeling provisions, they would have said so, because they go right 
down through the list and support some other provisions. Or if they 
opposed it, they point it out and they say so.
  Here is another example, the Biodiesel Energy Development Act, which 
the administration says, to a separate bill in the House, the 
administration opposes.
  The administration did not say that they supported the meat labeling. 
They suggested they had concerns about it and they wanted to work with 
the Congress to address those concerns. So here is what we did in 
conference to try to address those concerns. We provided conference 
report language, statement of managers, to this effect:

       The conferees direct the Secretary to conduct a 
     comprehensive study on the potential effects of mandatory 
     country of origin labeling of imported fresh muscle cuts of 
     beef and lamb. The report shall include the impact of such 
     requirements on imports, exports, livestock producers, 
     consumers, processors, packers, distributors and grocers.

  We went on to say:

       The report shall be submitted to Congress no later than 6 
     months after the enactment of this Act, and shall contain a 
     detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the 
     Secretary, together with his recommendations for such 
     legislation and administrative actions as he considers 
     appropriate.

  I have suggested to the Senate that the action taken by the conferees 
is responsive to the objections and concerns that were raised in our 
letter from the administration on that subject. And here, at the very 
last minute, the Democratic leader raises this issue and spends a good 
deal of his time talking about this as the reason why the 
administration ought to veto the conference report.
  Another subject that was raised was price reporting. We also got a 
letter from the Office of Management and Budget as well as the 
Secretary of Agriculture, responding to our bill and suggesting things 
that they think need the attention of conferees. If they have 
objections to provisions, they say so in either the OMB letter or the 
Secretary of Agriculture's letter.
  On the subject of price reporting, there was a USDA request to review 
any final language adopted by the conferees. Here is what the conferees 
provided in the statement of managers on that issue:

       The conferees direct the Secretary of Agriculture to take 
     steps to increase the voluntary reporting of fed cattle, and 
     wholesale beef carcass prices and volumes on a quality and 
     yield-grade basis, as well as the prices and volumes of boxed 
     beef. . . The Secretary shall encourage the reporting of the 
     price differential for USDA Prime, the upper 2/3 of USDA 
     Choice, and a sub-select price category. Reports should 
     include imported beef products and livestock.

  Then we go on to say:

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall compile and publish 
     price, volume sales, and the shipment information regarding 
     all exports and imports of beef, veal, lamb, and products 
     thereof which is collected via the expanded voluntary 
     process. . . . The Secretary shall also standardize the 
     Agriculture Marketing Service price reporting data 
     collection activities to ensure uniformity and complete 
     sales data capture and to maximize the information 
     available to all aspects of the industry.
       The Secretary shall report to Congress, not more than 6 
     months after enactment, on the feasibility or need for 
     mandatory price reporting. . .

  I suggest, Mr. President, that the conferees have done a very good 
job of trying to deal with these two issues in this conference. We have 
responded to the concerns expressed by the Secretary of Agriculture in 
his letter to us of September 24 giving us his reaction to our bill. 
Never did they single out in the letters to us that this would trigger 
a veto if we didn't do such and such with either one of those 
provisions. There was no such suggestion made.
  There was a veto threat in the letter from the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget, and here is what the veto threat says:

       If the bill presented to the President includes the 
     unacceptable FDA language--

  And, by the way, that has been removed from the bill in conference, 
the so-called RU486 issue--

       and agriculture disaster provisions that provide inadequate 
     indemnity assistance or are inconsistent with the Daschle/
     Harkin proposal, his senior advisers would recommend that he 
     veto the bill. We look forward to working with you to resolve 
     these concerns.


[[Page S11567]]


  The veto message, if this is a veto message, is that if we don't 
enact the Daschle/Harkin disaster indemnity assistance proposal, then 
the senior advisers will recommend to the President that he veto the 
bill.
  We have talked about the disaster assistance proposal and why we 
think the direct assistance is much to be preferred over rewriting a 
portion of the 1996 farm bill as proposed by Daschle/Harkin, and we 
certainly think that is not good policy. It won't serve to increase 
prices for farmers at market, which is what we are trying to do to help 
ensure a brighter future for American production agriculture.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to approve the conference report on 
Agriculture appropriations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if I may be yielded 1 minute or 2 
minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield a minute to the distinguished 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized 
for 1 minute.


                             methyl bromide

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this bill contains a rider that addresses 
methyl bromide use. It is an anti-environmental rider offered by a few 
members of the other party, and slipped into the bill by the conference 
committee. It has not been debated by either body, and yet this 
language amends the Clean Air Act and constrains our ability to 
negotiate a more rapid phase-out of methyl bromide use with other 
nations.
  Just last week, the White House, and specifically Vice President 
Gore, called on the Congress to end what he called ``backdoor 
assaults'' on the environment. I sincerely hope that the President and 
Vice President mean that to apply to all anti-environmental riders, 
including the ones offered by their own party.
  This methyl bromide rider began as an effort to address a legitimate 
problem, but changes sought by a few members of the other party go too 
far. Methyl bromide is highly toxic and a potent ozone depleting 
compound. It is also one of the most widely used pesticides in the 
United States. The 1994 Montreal Protocol requires a gradual phase-out 
of methyl bromide beginning next year. Industrialized countries have 
agreed to a phase-out by 2005, while developing nations must phase-out 
methyl bromide by 2015. In the United States, the Clean Air Act 
requires an even earlier phase-out date for methyl bromide--January 1, 
2001.
  I share the concern that the Clean Air Act's accelerated phase-out 
schedule might put our farmers at a competitive disadvantage. However, 
I believe that addressing this problem in the context of an 
appropriations bill is entirely inappropriate. Putting constraints on 
an international treaty and modifying a major environmental statute 
demands thoughtful debate. To do this with a rider on an appropriations 
bill allows almost no debate.
  The principle argument for action on methyl bromide has been the 
potential competitive disadvantage for American agriculture. As I said, 
I am sympathetic to that problem, and I support the idea that we should 
allow the Montreal Protocol to dictate the phase-out in this nation. 
But the language added to this bill would prohibit any phase-out 
earlier than the date currently contained in the Protocol--2005.
  Could the deadline for phase-out be accelerated if, a few years down 
the road, the international community decides that effective, 
affordable alternatives to methyl bromide exist? Not if we approve this 
rider. This language says that--no matter what--the United States will 
not end methyl bromide use before 2005. The international community is 
not going to negotiate an earlier date, because they know that the U.S. 
will not comply with an earlier date. Inclusion of that language 
guarantees that worldwide methyl bromide use will continue until 2005.
  This is an inappropriate limitation on our options regarding methyl 
bromide and our ability to negotiate changes to an international 
treaty. More importantly, a last minute appropriations rider is a bad 
way to amend the Clean Air Act. I can only hope that the President, the 
Vice President, and Democratic Senators who have spoken against other 
riders intend to oppose all anti-environmental riders, not just those 
offered by Republicans.
  Mr. President, I am distressed over the methyl bromide amendment 
which is an antienvironmental rider that was put into this conference 
report. It wasn't debated by either body, yet the language amends the 
Clean Air Act and constrains our ability to negotiate a more rapid 
phaseout of methyl bromide when used by other nations.
  I point out that the principal argument for action on methyl bromide 
has been the potential competitive disadvantage for American 
agriculture. I am sympathetic of that, and I support the idea we should 
allow the Montreal Protocol to dictate the phaseout of this. If we 
don't like it, then we should amend it.
  The present time for the phaseout is 2005 but could be earlier. What 
this legislation does is makes it no later than 2005 but prevents it 
from being earlier than 2005. In those intervening 7 years, there well 
could be developed an alternative to methyl bromide. I think this is an 
unfortunate provision in the bill. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report accompanying the Department of Agriculture and related agencies 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999.
  The final bill provides $59.6 billion in new budget authority (BA) 
and $44.8 billion in new outlays to fund most of the programs of the 
Department of Agriculture and other related agencies. All of the 
funding in this bill is nondefense spending. The conference report now 
includes ``emergency'' funding totaling $4.3 billion in budget 
authority and $4.1 billion in outlays to provide relief to the nation's 
farmers.
  When outlays for prior-year appropriations and other adjustments are 
taken into account, the conference agreement totals $59.4 billion in BA 
and $51.6 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1999. Including mandatory 
savings, the subcommittee is $1 million in budget authority below its 
302(b) allocation, and at its 302(b) allocation for outlays.
  The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee revised 302(b) 
allocation totals $59.4 billion in budget authority (BA) and $51.6 
billion in outlays. Within this amount, $17.9 billion in BA and $18.1 
billion in outlays is for nondefense discretionary spending, including 
agricultural emergency spending.
  For discretionary spending in the bill, and counting (scoring) all 
the mandatory savings in the bill, the final bill is $4.0 billion in BA 
and $3.9 billion in outlays above the President's budget request for 
these programs. The bill is at least $4 billion in both BA and outlays 
above the Senate- and House-passed bills, all due to the addition of 
the emergency disaster assistance for farmers.
  The disaster aid package includes $2.2 billion in direct payments to 
farmers experiencing crop losses due to natural and other disasters. 
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act as amended 
prohibits ``emergency'' spending for purposes of crop disaster 
assistance. The conference agreement includes directed scorekeeping 
language allowing the emergency designation to be used in this case. 
This conference report therefore violates Section 306(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act by including legislative language under the 
jurisdiction of the Budget Committee that was not reported by the 
Senate Budget Committee.
  I recognize the difficulty of bringing this bill to the floor at its 
302(b) allocation and in addressing the need for disaster assistance by 
farmers in many parts of the nation, including New Mexico and parts of 
the Southwest.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Senate Budget Committee scoring of the final bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S11568]]



              H.R. 4101, AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS, 1999--SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
                                   [Fiscal year 1999, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Defense     Nondefense     Crime      Mandatory      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
    Budget authority...........................  ...........       17,909  ...........       41,460       59,369
    Outlays....................................  ...........       18,121  ...........       33,429       51,550
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority...........................  ...........       17,910  ...........       41,460       59,370
    Outlays....................................  ...........       18,121  ...........       33,429       51,550
1998 level:
    Budget authority...........................  ...........       13,930  ...........       35,048       48,978
    Outlays....................................  ...........       14,227  ...........       35,205       49,432
President's request:
    Budget authority...........................  ...........       13,672  ...........       41,460       55,132
    Outlays....................................  ...........       14,056  ...........       33,429       47,485
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority...........................  ...........       13,596  ...........       41,460       55,056
    Outlays....................................  ...........       14,031  ...........       33,429       47,460
Senate-passed bill:
    Budget authority...........................  ...........       13,698  ...........       41,460       55,158
    Outlays....................................  ...........       14,069  ...........       33,429       47,498
Conference Report compared to:
    Senate 302(b) allocation:
        Budget authority.......................  ...........           -1  ...........  ...........           -1
        Outlays................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    1998 level:
        Budget authority.......................  ...........        3,979  ...........        6,412       10,391
        Outlays................................  ...........        3,894  ...........       -1,776        2,118
    President's request:
        Budget authority.......................  ...........        4,237  ...........  ...........        4,237
        Outlays................................  ...........        4,065  ...........  ...........        4,065
    House-passed bill:
        Budget authority.......................  ...........        4,313  ...........  ...........        4,313
        Outlays................................  ...........        4,090  ...........  ...........        4,090
    Senate-passed bill:
        Budget authority.......................  ...........        4,211  ...........  ...........        4,211
        Outlays................................  ...........        4,052  ...........  ...........        4,052
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
  conventions.

  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 12 seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I join my friend and colleague, Senator 
Cochran, in bringing to the floor the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 4101, the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill for agriculture, 
rural development and related agencies. This is the last annual 
agriculture appropriations bill which I will jointly author with my 
friend from Mississippi, and I regret to report that the progress this 
year has not been as smooth as in years past. Last year, my fellow 
conferees were able to conclude the business of the committee on 
conference in approximately 5 minutes. By contrast, it took us 5 days 
this year and I fear, at this late date, all hurdles toward enactment 
are not fully cleared. In fact, I, along with all Senate Democrat 
members of the conference committee who attached our signatures to the 
official conference papers, did so with an exception to one of the 
titles included in the conference report.
  Aside from the one area still in disagreement, the conference report 
before us is as good a product as was possible under the budgetary 
constraints we faced. We include in this measure nearly $52 million in 
new spending for food safety. This figure is well below the budget 
request, but represents a good increase in spending for the Department 
of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration to help ensure that 
our Nation's food supplies remain the safest in the world.
  The conference report also provides adequate levels for the Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC) Program, including an increase for the WIC 
Farmers Market Program of up to $15 million. Overall, the USDA food 
assistance programs remain the single largest component of this 
conference report, totaling $36 billion in new spending.
  Rural development is another key element of this conference report. 
Included is more than $4.25 billion in rural housing program levels and 
nearly $725 million in budget authority for the Rural Community 
Advancement Program, which includes the water and wastewater program. I 
have seen firsthand the benefits these programs bring to rural areas in 
my State and I am glad we were able to achieve these levels for the 
coming year. Also, the conference report includes a special recognition 
for the needs of the Lower Mississippi River Delta, an often overlooked 
region of our Nation that has long deserved our special attention. I 
have worked for many years to improve conditions in this region and I 
am happy to have included special consideration for the delta in this 
measure.
  Agricultural research continues to receive the attention of our 
subcommittee. The level of spending for the Agricultural Research 
Service in this conference report is higher than either the House or 
Senate levels prior to conference. In addition, we were able to 
increase the levels of funding for basic formula research for our 
Nation's 1862, 1890, and 1994 institutions. Funding for these 
institutions has been frozen for far too long, and this conference 
report provides a 7 percent increase above last year. Enhanced 
agricultural research is a commitment the Congress has made to our 
farmers and consumers and this conference report lies up to that 
commitment.
  I would be most remissed if I didn't pause to give credit, to my 
friend, Senator Cochran, for facing the grim budgetary challenge we 
faced this year. Our allocation was well below what was available for 
fiscal year 1998 and going into conference we had to adjust our numbers 
downward toward the lower House allocation. Our task was made even more 
difficult by the assumed enactment of hundreds of millions of dollars 
in user fees that looked good on paper but only served to raise faint 
expectations beyond what was possible. This conference report includes 
a general provision that will, hopefully, forestall the use of 
projected user fees in next year's budget and keep everyone working 
within a budgetary framework more closely associated with the realities 
we all must face.
  Given my years of work on this subcommittee, and my close friendship 
with Senator Cochran, I am greatly saddened by my reluctance to 
give unequivocal support for all matters contained in this conference 
report. As we began conference deliberations with the House, the 
President made it clear that two items under discussion were of such 
importance that their inclusion in the conference report would result 
in a veto. I must admit that I never thought the agriculture 
appropriations bill would ever be the target of a Presidential veto. In 
fact, the agriculture appropriations bill is usually approved by the 
Senate 100 to 0. I remind my colleagues that a few years go when much 
of the Federal Government faced a shutdown from failed appropriations 
bills, the agencies funded under this bill were among the few not 
included in that Governmental debacle. Such has been the history of the 
agriculture appropriations process during my tenure and it saddens me 
to think that I might be leaving the Senate with that possibility 
lurking as strongly as it does today.

[[Page S11569]]

  One of the items which drew the attention of the President was a 
provision in the House bill that placed a limitation on the Food and 
Drug Administration's funding for any testing, development, or approval 
of the drug RU-486, a chemical used to induce an abortion. Leaving for 
a moment the argument that science is better left to scientists than 
politicians, the inclusion of the abortion debate in the agriculture 
appropriations bill was a most unfortunate attempt to drag this bill 
down with one of the most divisive and politically charged issues of 
our time. I am very pleased to report that the Senate conferees made it 
crystal clear that the Senate was not going to allow the issue of 
abortion to infect the agriculture appropriations bill with the same 
paralysis that has inflicted other subcommittees. If the Senate had not 
held firm, a very bad precedent would have been set and all agriculture 
appropriations bills in the future would become the venue for, and be 
held hostage by, an issue best reserved for other forums.
  The other item of Presidential disapproval is tied to the levels of 
assistance for farmers and ranchers who are facing the most pressing 
financial times in recent years, maybe ever. It is on this point that I 
had to part with my friend Senator Cochran and express an opinion that 
our measure falls short of meeting current needs.
  The conference report includes provisions put forward by the majority 
party that strives to bring relief to farmers and ranchers who are 
suffering from lost crops and low prices. However, my concern is with 
the manner in which the assistance is to be provided. In order to help 
farmers suffering from low prices, the conference report would simply 
allow for additional ``Freedom to Farm'' payments to go to all 
producers who hold a Agricultural Market Transition Act contract. The 
fallacy with this approach is that it does not target the additional 
funds to people who are suffering from either crop failure or fallen 
prices. Instead, it makes funds available to landlords who may have 
received cash rent for their lands, suffered no loss at all, and in 
many instances never even faced a risk of loss in the first place.
  We have to recognize that many, though not all, farmers across 
America are suffering. Most are suffering from losses this year, but 
some from losses over several years. Some farmers have a crop to 
harvest, but low prices preclude any chance of a profit. The purpose of 
the Democratic alternative for disaster assistance is to make sure the 
relief payments go to those in need.
  I have heard from farmers in my State who have lost everything this 
year. They tell me that this year is worse than the crop failures of 
1980, which was the worst year since the Great Depression. The 
Democratic alternative provides more relief, 100 percent more in fact, 
for farmers in my State and I feel we should not turn our backs on the 
one segment of the national economy that has not been surging into 
double digit profits on Wall Street. The President has indicated he 
will veto this bill if additional farm relief is not added. Congress 
needs to act swiftly to amend the shortfall in this bill and send to 
the President a package that truly meets the needs of farmers and 
ranchers.
  Mr. President, this brings me to the close of my last annual 
agriculture appropriations bill on the floor of the Senate. I want to 
once more thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Cochran, for his 
years of friendship on and off this subcommittee. I also want to thank 
all other members for their cooperation over the years.
  Mr. President, I say in closing that this is a very complex matter, 
this matter of disaster relief. The only disagreement on this side and 
the other side of the aisle is over the disaster provisions. As I say, 
they are both fairly complicated, and I am hoping that if the President 
vetoes the bill, as he has promised to do, we will be able to work out 
something--maybe not everything the President wanted, maybe more than 
others wanted--and that we will be able to reach a compromise that will 
actually take care of farmers.
  My fear is that, this being what I consider probably the worst year 
in the history for agriculture since the Great Depression, that the 
proposal in the bill is not adequate to save an awful lot of farmers 
who deserve saving. So I am hoping if the President does veto the bill, 
we can come back and hammer out an agreement that will save a lot more 
farmers.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on 
the conference report?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the conference report accompanying H.R. 4101. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) and the 
Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 298 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Ford
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Glenn
     Moynihan
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________