[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.
____________________