Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 112 (Tuesday, August 3, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 112 (Tuesday, August 3, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10073-S10085]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The legislative assistant read as follows:

A bill (S. 1233) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for fiscal year ending September 30, 2000,
and for other purposes.

Pending:

Lott (for Daschle) amendment No. 1499, to provide emergency
and income loss assistance to agricultural producers.
Lott (for Cochran) amendment No. 1500 (to Amendment No.
1499), of a perfecting nature.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota for his willingness to let the Senate resume the bill. I
appreciate very much also his efforts to try to identify the ways we
can develop a comprehensive response to the disaster situation and the
economic crisis that exists in agriculture today.
Last evening, before the Senate adjourned, the distinguished Senator
from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, spoke for about 30 minutes, focusing the
attention of the Senate, as we should be focused, on the difficulties
of designing a plan to deal with this problem in agriculture that
affects all commodities, all regions of the country, because there are
disparities around the country in terms of economic losses, weather-
related damages to crops, and market influences in the agricultural
sector. All of that means some farmers are doing fairly well.
There was an article in my home State press yesterday, as a matter of
fact, talking about the aquacultural industry in the State of
Mississippi, and what a good year those who are producing farm-raised
fish are having in comparison with the other agricultural producers in
our State.
This is probably replicated in many other States. Some farmers are
having a good year but many are not. We are trying to identify ways we
can design a program of special assistance to deal with those
catastrophic situations where the Government does need to respond. It
is my hope we can design a disaster program that sends money directly
to farmers who need financial assistance rather than create larger
Government programs with money going into the bureaucracy, or expanding
conservation programs, as the first-degree amendment would do, and
instead opt for the alternative that is the second-degree amendment
which I have offered that sends the money directly to farmers.
I was called this morning by one of the network radio news reporters
and was asked whether or not the program we are recommending is more
loans for farmers. Farmers, he had heard, do not want more loans. I
assured him that is not what we were proposing. We are not proposing
that farmers be given more loans. We are proposing that they be given
more money, direct payments, using the vehicle of the existing farm
legislation that gives authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to
make direct payments to farmers in the form of transition payments. We
are doubling the amount of the transition payments in this second-
degree amendment. That makes up the bulk of the dollar cost of the
second-degree amendment as estimated by the Congressional Budget
Office.
So I think we are on the right track in trying to identify the best
way to help farmers who are in an emergency situation, to identify
those who are in an emergency and to give them money in direct payments
in this special situation.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, actually, I do not know whether it is a
jump ball. I will be pleased to go in order, if we could do it that
way. I see the Senator from Kansas was ready to speak, and the Senator
from North Dakota. Can we alternate from side to side?
I ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator from Kansas. I didn't
mean to beat him to the punch. I am anxious to debate.
Mr. ROBERTS. I have no objection to that whatsoever. I have about 15
or 20 minutes of remarks.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will listen to my colleague and then ask unanimous
consent I be able to follow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but
if we are going to establish an order, and if there is an appropriate
back and forth, I ask that I follow Senator Wellstone on this side of
the aisle.
Mr. COCHRAN. Rather than agree to that, and I think it is a good idea
to go back and forth from one side of the aisle to the other, we do not
have a time agreement, and I think it is a mistake now to try to get a
time agreement. Senator Grassley, I know, was on the floor making notes
a while ago. He stepped off the floor just now. I wouldn't want to
jeopardize his right. He has been here for some time this morning.
I hope what we can do is, if the Senator from Kansas can proceed as
suggested by the Senator from Minnesota, and then the Senator from
Minnesota, at that time we can take a look and see who wants to speak.
But I know the Senator from North Dakota is interested in this debate
and participated in the debate yesterday. We look forward to hearing
his comments again today.
Several Senators addressed the chair.
Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I think the Senator from
Mississippi misunderstood. My intention was to say if there is a
request after Senator Wellstone to speak on that side, I understand
that. But if we are going to establish an order, because I am here and
would like to speak, I am happy to leave and come back at an
appropriate time. If we going are to establish an order now, I would
like to be in that order.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from Kansas
will yield further, I had suggested we not try to establish an order.
That was my response to the question. He asked if we were going to
establish an order. My answer is, as the manager of the bill, I
recommend against it at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, what is the unanimous
consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request of the Senator
from Minnesota is, immediately following the remarks of the Senator
from Kansas, he be allowed to speak.
Mr. WELLSTONE. May I clarify this? I had the floor. I was trying to
be accommodating.
Mr. COCHRAN. Yes. He was.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I simply said, if the Senator felt I jumped in, beat
him

[[Page S10074]]

to the punch, I would be pleased to follow the Senator from Kansas. I
am ready to yield, or I will keep the floor. Shall we do that?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Mr. ROBERTS. Who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor and
has propounded a unanimous consent request. Is there objection?
Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, I was thanking the
Senator from Minnesota for his graciousness, for his generosity of
spirit, for his courtesy to the Senator from Kansas. I appreciate that
very much, as the manager of the bill. I think what he suggested was
eminently fair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). No objection is heard. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my colleagues.
Mr. President, I rise to discuss the need to provide emergency
financial relief to our country's farmers and ranchers and to rural
America in what will hopefully be short-term assistance that will allow
our producers to meet their cash flow needs while Congress also pursues
the long-term objectives needed to provide a profitable agriculture
sector into the 21st century.
As one Kansas farmer told me recently: ``Pat, in farm country today
we are just not in very good shape for the shape we are in.''
Farmers today, as many of my colleagues are pointing out, are
struggling with depressed prices and cash flow difficulties, especially
farmers who do not receive program payments under the current farm
bill.
We can and should provide relief to enable our producers to get
through these very difficult times, and the choice between the relief
package that has been offered by Senator Cochran and that offered by
Senator Harkin will determine the kind and amount of assistance that
will be forthcoming--or some other substitute.
In this regard, I have been urging Congress to act on a program of
limited but effective assistance before this August break to send a
strong signal to farmers, ranchers, and most important, the agriculture
lending community. Land values have not tailed off, but the continuing
stress certainly could lead to that. We need to nip that in the bud.
On the other hand, I do not believe it is in the interest of American
agriculture to rewrite the current farm bill or to enact policy that
will be market interfering, market disruptive, and lead us back down
the road to command and control farm policy from Washington.
Unfortunately, I believe both of the proposals that are before us
today, or at least some aspects of those proposals, do fall into that
category, especially the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator
from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle.
I will discuss the shortcomings of these proposals later, but first
let me point out, this emergency assistance debate is only part of the
story. The rest of the story involves the drumbeat of rhetoric we have
heard from our Democrat colleagues and friends across the aisle, and
the Clinton administration, who, month after month, week after week,
day after day, have blamed the 1996 farm bill, called Freedom to Farm,
for the collapse of commodity prices, if not the end of production
agriculture and family farms in the United States.
Reading the press releases, the resulting headlines, and listening to
my colleagues, you would think the current farm bill was the result of
some sinister plot concocted in the dead of night.
Apparently, they would like farmers and ranchers to believe our
current farm policy is responsible for record worldwide production;
increasing and record yield production and productivity; the worst
international economic crisis since the early 1980s decimating our
largest markets; record subsidies by the European Union, some $60
billion; weather--too much rain, too little rain, the obvious drought
in the Atlantic States, La Nina and El Nino; persistent plant diseases
in the northern plains, and crop infestation in all other regions; new
technology and precision agriculture; currency changes and the value of
the dollar that have reduced American exports--that would be some farm
bill. But those are the causes that have actually led to the low
commodity prices.

In fact, the current farm bill came after 38 full committee and
subcommittee hearings in the House Agriculture Committee during my
tenure as Chairman, 21 of which were held in farm country--every
region, every commodity--all open-microphone listening sessions.
Extensive hearings were also held here in Washington on this side of
the Capitol in the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Literally thousands of farmers and ranchers voiced their opinion.
They overwhelmingly stated they wanted the Government to get out of
their planting decisions, to quit interfering in the marketplace, so
they could make their own marketing decisions based on what was best
for their farms, their ranches, according to the market.
The bottom line, farmers told us there was too much in command and
control that came from Washington. They were tired of standing in line
outside the Farm Service Agency so that Washington could tell them what
to plant in exchange for a Government subsidy.
As one 89-year-old Kansas farmer told us in Dodge City--and I quote:

I farmed for nearly 60 years and I never planted a crop
that the government had not told me I could plant.

The single most important goal and rationale behind the 1996 farm
bill was to restore decision making back to the individual producer,
i.e., the freedom to farm.
It is true--almost all of the speeches that have been made on the
floor of the Senate, and all of the press conferences that we have
heard all throughout farm country--it is true our commodity prices are
depressed. Markets are depressed worldwide. Everyone involved in
agriculture certainly knows and is dealing with that firsthand.
But as the saying goes in farm country: Comin' as close to the truth
as a man can come without gettin' there is comin' pretty close but it
still ain't the truth.
Or put another way, no matter who says what, don't believe it if it
doesn't make sense. With all due respect to my colleagues who
apparently believe the 1996 Farm Act is the root cause of problems in
farm country, I do not believe that is simply the case.
I understand the politics of the issue. As scarce as the truth is,
the supply seems greater than demand. And with Freedom to Farm, there
is no demand amongst some of my Democrat friends.
But politics aside, I must admit I am both puzzled and amazed by the
rhetoric we have heard over and over and over and over again. How can a
farm bill that has provided on average more income assistance during
difficult times over the past 3 years than occurred during the five-
year average under the old farm bill be bad for farmers?
Let me point out that the market situation for all raw commodities is
under stress. In addition to low crop prices, we have also been
suffering through low farm prices for cattle, for hogs, for oil, for
gold, for gas, and all raw commodities. None of these commodities has
been covered by a farm bill--any farm bill. Is the current farm bill
responsible for the market collapse in these commodities? Obviously
not. But the causes that caused those low prices are the same ones that
caused the problem with regard to farm country.
There was an interesting press report about a week ago. It was on the
front page of a newspaper about the severity of the agriculture
situation--and it is severe. The lead of the story said:

In the wake of dismal prairie farm income projections,
agriculture officials emphasized the need for an improved
long term safety net. If something is not done we are going
to lose a lot of farmers.

But you know, that story was not about the United States; it was
about Canada and their farm crisis. Canadian farmers are facing bleak
prospects; and the same is true in Great Britain; and the same is true
in Europe; and the same is true all over this world, in Latin America
and South America, as well.
I do not think that Freedom to Farm caused their problems. This is a
worldwide market decline, and as such is unprecedented.
What has caused the low commodity prices?

[[Page S10075]]

First, farmers worldwide have had good growing weather and produced
record crops for 3 years in a row--unprecedented. That is what my good
friend and colleague, the Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, said
a few weeks ago when we attended a joint meeting--unprecedented record
crops.
Second, we have experienced a world depression in regard to our
export markets, both in Asia and Latin America and South America.
Third, the European Union is now spending a record $60 billion--85
percent of the world's ag subsidies--on their subsidies.
Fourth, the currency exchange rates reduced the level of farm exports
and farm prices. A 16-percent appreciation in the value of the U.S.
dollar has been responsible for 17 to 25 percentage points of the
decline in corn and wheat prices.
Fifth, a market-oriented farm program depends on an aggressive trade
policy. In regard to trade, although it is very controversial, we did
not do fast track. We had a very historic agreement with China, with
bipartisan work on it, and then it was pulled back; and then it was
followed by the bombing of the Chinese Embassy. That was not the
intent, but that is what has happened. And we are about to put
agriculture last--certainly not first--in the coming WTO trade talks in
Seattle. We continue to employ counterproductive sanctions that punish
U.S. farmers and reward our competitors with market share and have no
effect on our foreign policy.
The administration has moved in this regard. We have bipartisan
support for sanctions reform, but we still cannot use the USDA export
programs in regard to making those sales.
Again, the cause for these low prices is not the 1996 farm bill.
Quite the contrary, under Freedom to Farm--and I want everybody to
listen to this--farmers in each State represented by most of the
critics of the 1996 act have and are receiving more income assistance
on average than they did under the old bill.
Under Freedom to Farm, farmers themselves--not Washington--have set
aside their crop production and switched to other higher value crops.
Nevertheless, we hear the mantra that we do not have a safety net.
Let me point out, for the past 3 years of the current farm bill we
have provided transition payments--somehow or other in this debate the
reality of transition payments over the 6-year life of the farm bill
has been ignored. It is almost like they do not exist in the minds of
the critics, but we have provided them. They are direct income support,
and that amounts to approximately $23 billion to our farmers and
ranchers for the past 3 years of the bill.
On the downside, we have also provided nearly $3 billion in what is
called loan deficiency payments. That means the price goes below the
loan rate. The loan rate was pretty low. We would never have imagined
we would have to use the LDP program, but we had to--$3 billion. Recent
estimates by the USDA are projecting possible LDPs totaling $8 billion
this year.
These numbers total to nearly $34.5 billion by the end of 1999, and
they do not include the $6 billion in lost market payments and disaster
relief that were paid to farmers in 1998.
If you add in the $6 billion emergency package of last year, and the
proposed assistance now being debated, the total is unprecedented--
unprecedented--but even before these disaster payments you still had
more income under the current farm bill than farmers would have
received under the old one, under the 5-year average. So from that
standpoint, I do think we have a safety net.

In the past 3 years in Minnesota, for the benefit of my dear friend
and colleague, Senator Wellstone, the safety net for farmers under
Freedom to Farm averaged $136 million more in total payments compared
to the state average under the old bill.
In South Dakota, the safety net for farmers under Freedom to Farm
averaged for the past 3 years was $58 million more than the state
average under the old bill.
In North Dakota--Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad are two Members
who fight for their farmers and believe very passionately that we must
address this problem--$15 million more; in Nebraska, $109 million more;
and in Iowa, the safety net for farmers under Freedom to Farm in the
last 3 years provided $162 million more than the previous bill.
Is it enough in regard to the problems we face that are
unprecedented? Is it enough for the northern prairie States with border
problems and wheat scab and weather you can't believe? I do not know.
That is for those Senators and those farmers to determine. But there
has been a significant increase in that direct income assistance to
those producers.
Finally, for those who like roosters at the dawn and coyotes at dusk,
crow and howl that we have ripped the rug out from underneath our
farmers and the safety net, let me point out that during the first 3
years of Freedom to Farm, the average amount of income assistance to
hard-pressed farmers was higher in every one of the 50 States than the
5-year average for each State during the previous farm bill. Again,
these higher 3-year averages do not include emergency assistance that
producers received through the structure of the Freedom to Farm Act
that farmers received last year and they will receive this year when we
finally get to the determination of whatever emergency package we
should pass.
In making these statements, let me urge my colleagues to do their
homework. Take time to read an assessment of the 1996 Farm Act by the
Coalition for Competitive Food in the Agriculture System, published
this June. In brief, the summary concluded the act did not cause the
low commodity prices--I mentioned the two causes--supported the
underlying health of the farm economy, and has provided a strong safety
net--yes, buttressed by the emergency legislation--and, one of the
biggest conclusions, forces U.S. competitors to adjust to the world
market.
There is a summary of this report, and I ask unanimous consent to
have the summary printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

An Assessment of the FAIR Act

Food and agriculture remains the US economy's largest
single economic sector, accounting for $1 trillion in
national income, and employing 18 percent of the nation's
entire work force. Almost one-fourth of US economy.
In 1996, the US Congress passed historic farm legislation,
allowing the US agricultural economy to respond to the global
market. The FAIR Act provided farmers with a strong safety
net, coupled with the freedom to plant for the market. It
ended the counterproductive practices of taking good US
cropland out of production and of setting a global price
floor for all the world's farmers, which served only to
intensify foreign competition against U.S. growers.
Fundamentals of the FAIR Act
Eliminated planting requirements.
Eliminated supply controls and acreage idling programs.
Freed farmers to plant for the market.
Eliminated variable deficiency payments.
Provided guaranteed transition payments.
Retained competitive price support levels.
Retained marketing loans to prevent government stockpiling.

the FAIR Act Did Not Cause Low Commodity Prices

The passage of the FAIR Act coincided with sea changes in
the global economy, which have dramatically affected the US
agricultural economy. Years of worldwide economic growth,
particularly in middle income developing countries, led to
rising demand for meat and animal feed. Increased market
access achieved by the Uruguay Round Agreement, as well as
regional agreements such as NAFTA, allowed US farmers to take
advantage of that growth overseas. New technologies
(biotechnology, precision farming, no till agriculture) were
increasing crop yields at the same time as record high prices
led farmers in the United States and overseas to expand
acreage.
Two years after the enactment of the FAIR Act, the global
economy suffered the worst international crisis since the
early 1980s. The fast growing Asian economies, which together
are the largest single market for US exports had been the
fastest growing importer of US food and agricultural
products, suffered dramatic reversals, as did Russia.
Asian demand was down 17 percent in 1998, and will be down
another 23 percent this year. Ironically, sales to Mexico
were up 17 percent, and NAFTA is the fastest growing market
for U.S. farmers.
The sharp drop in demand for food and agricultural products
coincided with record harvests in the United States, Brazil,
Argentina and other food producing nations. Between 1993 and
1998, world wheat production has shifted from 65.4 MMT below
trend to 31.7 MMT above trend--an increase in supply of
nearly 100 MMT. World corn production has shifted from 52 MMT
below trend in the early 1990s to 36 MMT above trend in the
late

[[Page S10076]]

1990s--an increase of 88 MMT. Soybean production has seen
similar trends, with production 7 MMT below trend in the
early 1990s and 11 MMT in the latter half of the 1990s. As a
result of these huge shifts in supply, world prices have
dropped far from their uncharacteristic highs in the mid-
1999s, to slightly below average levels, when compared to the
firt half of the decade.

The FAIR Act Has Supported the Underlying Health of the Farm Economy

During the tenure of the FAIR Act, the underlying financial
health of the sector has improved, when compared to the first
half of the 1990s. Total farm assets were 18 percent higher
than the 1990-94 average in 1996 and are estimated to be 30
percent higher in 1999. Similarly, land values in 1998 were
16 percent higher than their average value in 1990-94, and
are projected to be 38 percent higher in 1999. Moreover,
liquidity ratios are up, debt servicing ratios are down, and
return on equity has increased from 0.5 percent in 1995 to
2.3 percent in 1998.
While there have certainly been regions and commodities
that have suffered from sharp prices declines and from
various weather and crop related disasters, overall, average
farm income during the FAIR Act has been higher than farm
income under previous legislation. Even with the declines in
1998 and 1999, farm income during the FAIR Act is higher on
average than during the previous farm legislation.
In perhaps the most important measure of the financial
outlook for the sector, farmland prices continue to rise
throughout the country. Since 1995, the price of farmland in
the Corn Belt has risen from $1600 per acre to over $1800 per
acre; land in the Great Lakes has risen from just over $1000
per acre to almost $1300 per acre. Even in the Northern
Plains, which has suffered the most in terms of prices and
disasters, farmland prices are up from just under $1000 per
acre to almost $1100 per acre.

The FAIR Act Provides a Strong Safety Net

Under the terms of the FAIR Act, $35.6 billion will be
provided to farmers through direct income payments over seven
years, for an average of $5 billion annually. In addition,
expenditures under the commodity loan program, which makes up
the difference between the loan rate and a lower market
price, have added an additional $1 billion annually, an
amount that could reach $3.5 billion in 1999 alone. In
addition, the disaster relief and market loss payments during
1998 added an additional $6 billion in government payments to
farmers. In all, payments under the FAIR Act have totaled
$5.7 billion per year. By comparison, payments under the old
farm program averaged $5.5 billion per year. Because they are
based on previous production levels and historical program
yields, the bulk of those payments go to large, commercial
farmers who account for the bulk of U.S. production.

The FAIR Act Forces U.S. Competitors to Adjust to the World Market

In the past, when the United States took land out of
production in response to low prices, our competitors in
Brazil, Argentina and other countries simply expanded their
acreage to take up the slack. When the United States raised
its support prices in the early 1980s, farmers in other
countries took advantage of the price floor set by the United
States, to expand their production. In effect, the United
States functioned as the Saudi Arabia of the World grain
market. Those policies provided a safety net not just to US
farmers, but to the world's farmers.
Under the FAIR Act, U.S. farmers face no government-
mandated set-asides. As a result, they have brought nearly 10
million acres back into production. With the safety net of
the marketing loan in place, U.S. farmers are guaranteed to
receive the loan rate, even if world prices fall to lower
levels. This means that farmers in other countries will be
forced to respond to world markets prices, while U.S. farmers
benefit from the higher U.S. loan rate. Should world prices
rise above U.S. loan rates, U.S. farmers will be able to
receive the full benefit of those higher prices.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, most of the critics of the current act
have recommended that we rewrite the farm bill, and I think most, at
least--and I don't want to be too specific here because I am not sure--
have indicated they would like a return to set-aside programs and
higher loan rates and farmer-owned reserves, basically a return to the
old farm bill. They say we need to do it so we can control production
and increase the price of our commodities. Lord knows, I would like to
try anything, almost, to increase the price of our commodities.
My question is this: How do we convince our competitors to follow
suit? Past history shows us that when we reduce our acreages, our
competitors do not follow suit. World stocks are not reduced. They
increase their production by more than we reduce ours. There is no
clearer example than during the 5-year period from 1982 to 1988 when
the United States harvested 12 million fewer acres of soybeans and,
during the same period, Argentina and Brazil increased their production
by 14 million acres. Guess which countries are now the largest
competitors of the United States in the soybean market.
Critics will also claim that plantings and stocks have increased and
prices have plummeted because our farmers were allowed to plant fence
row to fence row. That is not true either. The United States was not
the cause of increased world production. In 1996, farmers in the United
States planted about 75 million acres of wheat. Under Freedom to Farm,
that fell to 70 million in 1997, 65 million acres in 1998. That is
almost a 14-percent drop in wheat acreage. The farmer made that
decision, not somebody in Washington, a voluntary set-aside. It was a
paid diversion because he got the AMTA payment. USDA projections are an
additional decrease this year of another 9 percent. That is a voluntary
farmer set-aside, not a government mandated set-aside.
If U.S. wheat farmers planted less wheat, where did the record crops
come from? We have been blessed with near perfect growing conditions in
most of wheat country. The average farmer's yield went from 36 bushels
an acre to 43 last year, 47 this year. Once again, the American
farmer's record of productivity is simply amazing. I don't know of any
farm bill that has ever been able to control production in other
countries, or the weather, or growing conditions. I don't think even
our friends across the aisle who are most critical would propose trying
to limit the farmer's yield.
Still despite these facts, the naysayers say we must control
production and raise loan rates. Raising loan rates will only increase
or prolong the excess levels of crops in storage and on the market and
actually result in lower prices down the road. Excess stocks will
depress prices. Do we then extend the loan rate or raise it, leading to
an endless cycle, leading to a return to planting requirements and
Washington telling farmers to set aside ground to control production
and limit the budgetary costs?
How do higher loan rates help producers who have suffered crop
failures and have no crop underneath the loan? We had low prices in the
mid-1980s. As a matter of fact, in 1985, and, it seems to me, in 1986,
we spent almost $25.9 billion. We tried PIK and Roll; we tried
certificates; we tried set-asides. We tried everything under the sun.
We passed the 1985 act dealing with unprecedented world conditions. So
we tried that. We had the higher loan rates.
It is one thing to propose a new farm program, albeit we haven't seen
anything too specific. But how do you pay for the budget cost,
notwithstanding the emergency declaration of this legislation, which I
think is appropriate? There was no request from the President, after 3
years of complaining, no request from Secretary Glickman for additional
funding. It seems to me it is one thing to propose changes in the farm
bill in the form of increased loan rates, however you want to change
it--or, as the President says, we just need a better farm bill--and
another to propose how we pay for it.

The reason I am bringing this up is, I think we need a little truth
in budgeting, aside from the proposed emergency legislation that we
need. Do the advocates of change pay for the new program, set-asides,
and increased loan rates or whatever it is in regards to the new farm
program by taking away the transition payments now provided to farmers
under Freedom to Farm? Will farmers willingly give up the transition
payments, direct income assistance, and go back to the days of standing
in line at the Farm Service Agency, filling out the forms and the
paperwork, and set aside 20 percent or more of their acreage?
What do we tell farmers who have on their own made historic planting
changes from primary crops in the past to crops of higher value--oil
seeds, sorghum, dry peas, navy beans, soybeans, and, yes, cotton? Under
Freedom to Farm, I tell my distinguished friend and colleague from
Mississippi, in the heart of cotton country, we have 40,000 acres in
Kansas that are now in cotton production. When Steve Foster wrote the
song ``Those Old Cotton Fields Back Home,'' he was talking about
Kansas. We have the most cost-efficient cotton in the world because the
temperatures are so low, you don't have to use pesticides on the
insects. None of that would have happened

[[Page S10077]]

without the flexibility in regards to the new farm bill.
The reduction in wheat acreage going to other crops has been dramatic
in 1997 to 1998: 15 percent down in North Dakota, 15.5 percent in South
Dakota; 18 percent in Kansas; 18 percent in Minnesota; 15 percent in
Texas. These are farmer-made decisions, and the changes in American
agriculture have exceeded all expectations. Farmers have switched
because it made economic sense.
The plain and simple and sometimes painful truth is that all U.S.
producers are no longer the most efficient producers of certain crops,
now wheat, in the world. That is true of other crops. But if you give
the farmer the proper research and the proper export tools and the
proper precision agriculture tools and the proverbial so-called level
and fair trading field--which does not exist right now--he can be.
But we must also have the flexibility and the freedom to respond to
market signals. So instead of looking back to the failed policies of
the past, I think we must look to a long-term agenda for the future
that allows our farmers and ranchers to be successful. That agenda
includes most of what was promised during the passage of the Freedom to
Farm Act--promises, promises, promises. I held up this ledger. I had
two of them. On one side it said, if we go to a market-oriented farm
program, these are the things we will have to do to complement it in
order that it may work. And we listed them. That was the other side of
the ledger.
Unfortunately, I am sad to say that those promises have not been kept
by either side of the aisle. If I get a little thin skinned in regards
to all the criticism in regards to the act that we put together, I am
more than a little unhappy in regards to the Republican and Democrat
leadership and the lack of progress on things we promised that would
complement Freedom to Farm, things that attract bipartisan support from
all of us who are privileged to represent agriculture.
I am talking about an aggressive and consistent trade policy, fast
track legislation, sanctions reform with authority to use USDA export
programs, a strategy for WTO negotiations that puts agriculture first,
a renewed effort to complete the trade breakthrough we had with China.
I am talking about tax legislation. Some of it is in the tax bill.
Unfortunately, we have a political fussing and feuding exercise, and
some of these will not actually take place--100-percent self-employed
health insurance deductibility, farm savings accounts. If we had farm
savings accounts, this situation would be tough but it wouldn't be
grim.
Capital gains and estate tax reform. I am talking about crop
insurance reform. Senator Kerrey and I have what I think is a very good
crop insurance bill. I am talking about regulatory reform and about
commonsense management of the Food Quality Protection Act. And, yes, I
am talking about reasonable emergency assistance to provide income
assistance due to the unprecedented record crops, EU subsidies, world
depression of the export markets. And that brings us to the two
proposals we have before us today.
Let me point out that, given the dynamic change in agriculture and
world markets, no farm bill has ever been perfect or set in stone. That
has been the case with the seven farm bills I have been directly
involved with since I have had the privilege--seven of them. That
statement is buttressed by the fact that, in the last 10 years, there
have been no less than 13 emergency supplementals or disaster bills.
Given the current drought in the Atlantic States and our price and cash
flow problems due to the unprecedented developments I have already
discussed, there are going to be 14. It is just what form it will take.
But it seems to me we should not be in the business of spending more
than is necessary, or making changes in farm program policy that will
be market disruptive, or that will lead us back down the road to
command and control agriculture in Washington. That, of course, depends
on your definition.
There are several questions, or concerns, I have in regard to the
emergency assistance package introduced by my friend, Senator Harkin,
and my friend from Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee. The income loss assistance that has been
proposed by Senator Harkin, as I understand it, has a fixed amount of
$6.4 billion made available. But it sets up a parallel supplemental
loan deficiency payment system with a separate $40,000 payment. It
provides that payments be made to producers with failed acreage, or
acreage prevented from plantings, based on actual production history,
and provides for advance payments to producers as soon as possible. And
we want that.
I think we are headed toward a train wreck in regard to the payment
limitation. One of the major concerns among farmers is the $75,000
payment limitation on an existing $7 billion to $8 billion worth of
loan deficiency payments. Now we are trying to cram an additional $6.4
billion through a payment limitation half that size, and it seems to me
we are going to have some real problems. Per unit payments will go up,
and a smaller and smaller percentage of production will be covered.
Now, if this new payment form is supposed to go to those who produce,
it is ironic that we are going to see 85 percent of the producers who
produce the field crops shortchanged to bulk up payments to those that
really create 15 percent of the crops. This isn't the big producer/
small producer argument. I think the penalty will reach down to the
medium-size commercial farmer, while the part-timer with a job in town
may reap a windfall.
Discretion to the Secretary. Last year's disaster program was
predicated on giving the Secretary maximum discretion to use his
expertise to create a fair and speedy program. The delivery of disaster
payments was delayed for 8 months. This program relies even more
heavily on the Secretary. I hope that Secretary Glickman has magic in
the way he can get the payments out.
The Secretary must take a fixed amount of money and fairly divide it
among producers; guess in August the total production of a variety of
crops for the year; determine which producers will have failed acres
and determine their actual production history; calculate how a $40,000
payment limit will affect the division of the funds; create a per
bushel, pound, or hundredweight payment for crops not yet harvested;
determine how to make advanced payments; and he must prorate payments
when and if all the guesses happen to turn out to be wrong.
Last year, with a far simpler task, the Secretary gave up and waited
until June to make the payments. Let me point out that transition
payments under the AMTA supplemental plan went out in 10 days. They
were delivered to producers in 10 days. Direct income assistance: A
farmer could take the check and show it to his banker and say: I can
make it through the next year.

WTO limits. Almost unnoticed in the farm crisis is the rapid increase
in payments made to producers. The United States is rapidly approaching
the limit allowed in the treaty for payments defined in something
called the amber box as trade distorting. All payments associated with
commodity loans, including LDPs, are counted in the amber box. They are
not counted in the AMTA box if you provide farmers direct assistance
due to unprecedented things. That will nearly double LDPs in 2000 and
may very well put us over the limit, making it very difficult for the
President to sign a bill that would violate the Uruguay Round
agreement.
My question is: What is the White House position on the Harkin
amendment as it applies to payments to farmers through the loan
deficiency payment program, as opposed to the AMTA payments? I have
other questions, too.
I have indicated to my colleague from Minnesota that I would not take
too long, and I have already done that. I apologize to him. Again, we
know the money can be distributed through the AMTA system in as little
as 10 days.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a second?
Mr. ROBERTS. I only have about 2 minutes left.
Mr. WELLSTONE. This is the Senator's life. I don't agree with him,
but he must lay out his case.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, the most important thing is to get this emergency
assistance out to farmers as fast as we can and keep it within a realm
that is at least reasonable in regard to the budget and in a way the
farmer can get the

[[Page S10078]]

assistance. We can do that in 10 days by the system that is proposed by
the Senator from Mississippi.
I have already mentioned the payment limitation concern. I must say,
if you look at the Harkin amendment, it not only deals with emergency
assistance--and Senator Harkin truly believes we ought to rewrite the
farm bill, and he is doing that in regard to his amendment.
We have peanuts, dairy payments, and livestock payments; and I am
assuming most of it would go to the hog producers, but we means test
that again. We have set-aside authority and we have disaster funding,
where we set aside another $600 million. We backfill the 1998 disaster
assistance. Then we have money to establish a permanent program for
land that has been flooded for continuous years. With all due respect
to my colleagues from the Northern Plains, we have a name for a land in
Kansas that has been covered with water for 3 years; it is called a
lake.
We have millions for tobacco producers. My golly, are we going back
to 1982 when we all decided in the House of Representatives--and we
were all there at that time--we were going to get the Government out of
subsidizing tobacco farmers? Are we back to that? Be careful what you
ask for. So we have included tobacco in this bill. I am not making any
aspersions on the hard-hit tobacco producers, but, folks, that is not
PC. I am not sure about that one. And then we have mandatory price
reporting, something I have supported in the Agriculture Committee,
with some changes made by Senator Kerrey. But we are approving funding
for legislation and we haven't even marked it up yet.
Then we have mandatory country-of-origin labeling for meat and
vegetables. Right now, we have a tremendous problem with the European
Union and all countries in Europe on GMOs, genetically modified
organisms. People in white coats are descending upon the fields over in
Great Britain, ripping up the GMO crops. The problem is, they made a
mistake and ripped up the wrong crop. We ought to go to sound science
and work out these problems, and we are trying to do that.
In regard to the trade problems we have--which Secretary Glickman
talks about and most aggies are worried about--we are going to put this
in country-of-origin labeling on top of that issue. I don't think it
has really been proven that our producers will increase prices and that
it will result in trade retaliations.
We have $200 million for a short-term set-aside. I don't want to go
back to set-asides; I think that would be counterproductive. Some of
these provisions I have mentioned are also in the provision introduced
by my dear friend and colleague, the Senator from Mississippi.
I think, again, we ought to be providing emergency assistance to
farmers and not be writing the farm bill but proceeding to work
together in a bipartisan way, if we possibly can, to address the real
reasons as to why we have these low commodity prices.
When this comes up this afternoon, I urge Members to pay attention. A
lot of this gets very convoluted and very technical, I know, in regard
to farm program policy. But it would be my desire that Members look
very closely at this in regard to the budget implications and things
that can go bump in the night--the law of unattended effects--down the
road that I don't think we want to experience in farm country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the Senator from
Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, first of all, I want to say to my colleague from
Kansas that he ended up talking about the emergency bill that is before
us. But a good part of his remarks were devoted to the farm bill, what
I call the ``freedom to fail'' bill. I want to say to my colleague from
Kansas that he kept talking about the failed policy of the past. I
think he ought to focus on the failed policy of the present. The failed
policy of the present is the ``freedom to fail'' bill.
My colleagues also talked about the painful truth. The painful truth
in the State of Minnesota is that we are going to lose yet thousands
more of farmers on the present course. We have to change the course.
That is the painful truth.
I remember that maybe a year and a half ago when I went to a
gathering in Crookston, MN in northwest Minnesota, there was a sign
outside that said, ``Farm Crisis Meeting.'' I thought: My God, are we
going back to the mid-1980s? But it is not only northwest Minnesota.
I was in Roseau County two weekends ago. It is pretty incredible. It
is the low prices. It is also the weather. The county typically plants
about 500,000 acres of wheat. This year only 10 percent--50,000 acres--
was planted. It appears that a mere 10 percent of the 50,000 acres will
produce a crop.
It is northwest Minnesota with the low price. It is the weather. It
is the scab disease, and now the price crisis affects all of Greater
Minnesota.
When my colleague talks about $136 million spent in Minnesota with
the AMTA payments, it reminds me of what farmers always say, not about
the smaller banks but about the big branch banks: They are always there
with the umbrella when there is sunshine outside, but whenever it is
raining they take the umbrella away.
Of course, the payments were up when we were doing well. But the
whole point of what we had in our farm bill before ``freedom to fail''
was we had some countercyclical measures to make sure there was some
price stability. That is the point.
The point is that when part of our export market collapses, and when
family farmers can't make a go of it, or when you continue to have to
deal with conglomerates that control almost all phases of the food
industry--when I hear my good friend from Kansas talking about laws of
supply and demand, I smile. Family farmers in Minnesota want to know:
Where is Adam Smith's invisible hand? Family farmers in the Midwest
want to know, where is the competition? Because when they look to whom
they buy from, and when they look to whom they sell, they are faced
with a few large conglomerates that dominate the market.
I say to my good friend from Iowa that in Fayette County--I guess
there is a town of Fayette also in northeast Iowa--on Sunday I went to
a pig roast. This farmer said: I am out of business. This is the last
pig. This is it for me.
Our pork producers are facing extinction, and the packers are in hog
heaven.
We have a frightening concentration of power.
All of my colleagues who are strong free enterprise men and women,
all my colleagues who talk about the importance of the market and
competition, ought to look at what my friend from Kansas talks about as
a painful truth, which is we don't have Adam Smith's invisible hand and
law of supply and demand. Everywhere we look in this industry, you have
conglomerates that have muscled their way to the dinner table,
exercising their raw political and economic power over our producers,
over consumers, and I also argue over taxpayers.
In all due respect, when my friend from Kansas says we ought to look
at the failed policies of the past, I want to say that we ought to look
at the failed policy of the present.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can talk about anything
they want to talk about. All of it is relatively important. Crop
insurance is important. We can do better. We can do better in a lot of
different areas. But let's not talk about failed policies of the past.
Let's talk about the failed policy of the present because that is what
farmers are dealing with. Family farmers are going under, and time is
not neutral.

I want to shout it from the mountain top of the Senate in response to
the remarks of my good friend and colleague from Kansas. The most
important thing that we can do is rewrite this farm bill. The most
important thing we can do is make the kind of structural changes we
need to make so that family farmers can get a fair shake because right
now what we did in that ``freedom to fail'' bill is take away any
opportunity for farmers to have any kind of leverage and bargaining in
the marketplace with these large grain companies. And, in addition, we
took away any kind of safety net.
So when part of the export market isn't there, although we are doing
fine and the exporters are doing well, our family farmers aren't.

[[Page S10079]]

The point is that for those farmers who do not have huge reserves for
capital and aren't the conglomerates, they go under.
Senators and United States of America, this debate about this
emergency package--and more importantly the debate that is going to
take place this fall about how we write a farm bill--is a debate that
is as important as we can have for anyone who values the family farm
structure of agriculture because we will lose it all if we don't change
this course of policy.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. HARKIN. Just for a question.
I think the Senator from Minnesota put his finger on it. When I heard
the Senator from Kansas speak, it seemed as if what he was saying was
that we are going to leave farmers and ranchers out there at the mercy
of the grain companies, the packers, the wholesalers, the retailers,
and the processors. They are making money in the domestic market, but
the farmers are not.
I ask the Senator from Minnesota: Does the Senator believe that it is
a viable responsibility for our government to ensure that family
farmers have some bargaining power, some power out there in the
marketplace so they can get a better share of the consumer dollar that
is being spent in America today?
I add to that, I say to the Senator, that under previous farm
programs--and under what we have been advocating in terms of raising
loan rates and providing for storage and things such as that--they
provided that farmers have a little bit better bargaining power in
terms of selling their crops, and thus hopefully getting a better
portion of their income from the market.
I thought it was a curious argument for a conservative from Kansas to
be making that the measure of the success of the Freedom to Farm bill
is how the Government checks go out to farmers. I find that a curious
argument.
My question to the Senator is whether or not it is a legitimate role
for the Federal Government to play to help level the playing field
between farmers and those who buy their products from the farm.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me respond to my friend from Iowa.
First, I agree it is ironic to hear some of our colleagues try to boast
about direct payments to farmers when they talk about the ``freedom to
fail'' bill. By definition, if we are spending $17 billion a year for
payments to farmers, the market is not doing a very good job.
Second, let me say to my colleague from Iowa, when I hear my good
friend from Kansas talk about the law of supply and demand, I smile
because the family farmers throughout the country want to know where is
Adam Smith's invisible hand? Where is the competition? It misses the
very essence of our debate. Conglomerates basically control almost all
phases of the food industry, whether it is from whom the farmers buy or
to whom they sell.
There are two questions: No. 1, how can we give family farmers some
kind of leverage in the marketplace? We tried to do that in some of our
past farm bills through the loan rate, and also a safety net, to try
and deal with farmers when prices plummeted. Second is the compelling
case for antitrust action.
Let me say we are going to pass a bill that will provide some
assistance to farmers, but there are two questions: What kind of
assistance? I will analyze that in a moment. The challenge before the
Senate is the kind of assistance. I think there are pretty huge
differences.
In our bill, the Democrats bill, we have about $2 billion in
assistance for disaster relief. In case anybody hasn't noticed, we have
drought in the country. We have people who are devastated, people who
cannot grow anything. We have some disaster relief, $2 billion. I don't
think our colleagues on the other side have anything in that bill, in
which case I say to colleagues when they vote on these amendments, it
would seem to me Members would be hard pressed to vote against an
amendment purporting to provide emergency disaster relief that doesn't
take into account the weather. Not only are my colleagues not taking
into account the failed policy of the present, they are not taking into
account the drought.
My second point: I far prefer, to the extent we can, to make sure the
assistance gets to those farmers who need it the most. The AMTA
payments tend to go to the larger producers and tend to go to land
owners, even if they are not producers. It is quite different than LDP.
I would like the LDP targeted, as targeted as possible.
There are some differences between these two proposals. The
Republican plan is similar to their tax cut plan. They parcel out
benefits in inverse relationship to need. What farmers are saying to me
in Minnesota or when I was in Iowa this past weekend: Look, we want to
get the price. We want to deal with the price crisis. We want to have a
future.
If you are going to provide some assistance, I didn't hear farmers
talking about AMTA payments because they know the great share of the
benefits will go to those who need it the least.
We have some major differences. We take into account the drought--
small thing, the drought. We make sure there is some direct assistance
to people who are confronted with the drought. Our colleagues on the
other side don't have such assistance.
In addition, we try to target to production as opposed to AMTA
payments, which is all a part of the ``freedom to fail'' bill. It was
transition for people to go out. AMTA payments were great, as my
colleague from Kansas points out, when prices were up. Everybody loved
it. The problem is the ``freedom to fail'' bill, which was passed, did
not take into account what would happen to family farmers when the
markets collapsed, the prices were low, and there was no safety net, no
bargaining power and no way that family farmers would be able to cash
flow and make a living. There is no future for family farmers in the
State of Minnesota with this failed farm policy.
I say to my colleagues, we have some votes this afternoon on the
whole question of some emergency assistance. That is step one.
I believe for reasons I have explained that our proposal makes much
more sense in terms of getting some help to people. If we are going to
call it emergency assistance--and that is what it is--then we better
get some assistance to people who are devastated because of the
drought. We better have disaster relief in a bill which purports to be
an emergency assistance package.
Second, we ought to try and make sure the benefits go to the people
who need it the most.
Finally, I say to my friends on the other side, I don't believe
anybody should have to stand up and say the Freedom to Farm bill was a
``freedom to fail.'' I don't care whether people have to admit to a
past mistake. I don't want anybody to believe they have to admit to a
past mistake. But we better change the policy. However we do it,
whatever Senators want to say, my focus is on the failed policy--not of
the past but of the failed policy of the present. My focus is on this
``freedom to fail'' bill.
We have to take the cap off the loan rate, raise the loan rate. We
have to get a decent price. We have to target it and have a much
tougher and fair trade policy. We have to make sure we have some
conservation practices. We have to make sure we don't have people
planting fence row to fence row. We have to make sure we take antitrust
action seriously. Teddy Roosevelt was for antitrust action a long time
ago.
It seems to me that the United States Senate can go on record to
support antitrust action. It seems to me we can be on the side of
family farmers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield. I thought we were going back and
forth but if the Senator would like to speak.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator is very gracious to offer that. I do not ask
that. However, I wanted to have an understanding as to how we are
proceeding. I believe I probably was on the floor ahead of most others
other than the Senator. If the Senators are alternating, does the
Senator from North Dakota wish to go next?
All I want is a chance to speak at some point.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me ask the Senator to yield for a question.

[[Page S10080]]

Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, I sought an
answer to that question some while ago. I have been on the floor an
hour. I stepped off the floor for a moment.
I believe the Senator from Mississippi indicated the Senator from
Iowa, Mr. Grassley, perhaps wanted to speak next. In any event, I think
perhaps it would be helpful if we established some order, and I am
willing to accept whatever order the managers wish to establish. If I
am not able to speak now or soon, I will ask consent to be recognized
at 2:15 to speak.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I propose the following unanimous consent
request, if it is agreeable to the Senator from Texas, the Senator who
is managing the bill, and Senator Harkin. I ask unanimous consent that
after Mr. Gramm has completed his remarks, Mr. Dorgan be recognized,
then Senator Grassley, and then I be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I thank all Senators. I thank the Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I did not come over this morning to get
into a political debate about farm policy. But the issue is so
important that I thought there were some things that need to be said
that I do not believe have been said. I would like to preface my
remarks by saying that, to the best of my knowledge, my State is the
biggest beneficiary of American farm programs, not on any kind of per
capita basis but because we have a lot of farmers and ranchers.
I am very concerned about the drought in some parts of the country,
which we have a long tradition of responding to and dealing with. That
tradition has been based on documenting the drought, documenting the
loss, and then compensating people who lose. It has not been based on
anticipating a loss, estimating it, appropriating money on a widely
discretionary basis and allowing bureaucrats to give out literally
billions of dollars. That has never been the policy in the past. I do
not think we ought to undertake it today. So before I get into the text
of what I wanted to talk about, let me make it clear there are many
areas of the country that are suffering from drought. We have a long
tradition, an established program. I have been supportive of that
program and I intend to continue to be.
What I want to talk about is not the drought. What I want to talk
about is what is happening in agriculture and my concern that we are
partially misreading what is happening. I want to talk about farm
prices, and I want to talk about the two remedies that have been
proposed and that are currently before the Senate, and I want to voice
my concern about both of them.
I do not want to get into a political debate about farm policy, but I
want to make the point that I believe we are drifting far afield from
any kind of rational farm policy in America in what we are doing. Maybe
some would view it as an unkind judgment, but in my opinion we are
engaged now in a political bidding contest where we simply are seeing
figures made up on both sides of the aisle, I would say, where we are
competing to show our compassion and competing to show our compassion
with somebody else's money. I would be moved into thinking this was
pure compassion if we were debating giving our own money. But since we
are debating giving the taxpayers' money, it is hard to be
compassionate with somebody else's money.
Having said that, I see this farm problem a little bit differently
than most of my colleagues. Since I do not think this point has been
made in the debate, I want to make it.
First of all, it is clear, and I think everybody is in agreement on
this, that American agriculture has been affected by the Asian
financial crisis and that the demand for American farm products from
Asia has fallen off by 40 percent. The demand for farm products is what
economists call ``inelastic.'' That is, when the price changes, it
doesn't have an immediate, instantaneous or substantial impact on
production. So this decline in the demand for products in Asia has had
a substantial impact on price.
Obviously, we are all hopeful that Asia is going to recover from its
financial crisis and that they are going to be back in the market and
that this part of the factors that are driving down farm prices will go
away over time. That is the basic logic of the proposal that has been
offered by Senator Cochran. It basically is that as the Asian financial
crisis is solved, as Asians get used to, once again, consuming American
farm products--the best rice, the best meat, the best cotton; as they
get used to the joys of wearing cotton underwear made of American
cotton--they are going to buy a lot more of it and everything is going
to come back and prices are going to be good again. To the extent that
thesis is correct, the right thing to do is to adopt the Cochran
substitute.
The Democrat substitute is really based on the logic that there are
no markets. Our Democrat colleagues do not largely believe in markets
and do not, by and large, believe in the basic principles of economics.
They would rather the Government make the price of farm products. So it
is not surprising that their substitute has grown from $9.9 billion to
$10.7 billion, 50 percent bigger than Senator Cochran, but they would
basically begin to take steps to go back to the old supply management
program where the Government would be the setter of prices and where we
would, in essence, take American agriculture ultimately under this
program out of the world market.

The problem with that, besides having a substantial impact on the
state of the American economy, is that primarily, while there are many
farm State Senators, there are relatively few farm district Members of
the House. If we go back to supply management, given the apportionment
of representation in the House, we will never set prices that will be
high enough to produce prosperity in rural America.
So I know all of the rhetoric, going back to the 1920s, much of which
has very leftist roots, would lead many of our Democrat colleagues to
believe if we could get Government to manage agriculture, we could make
it great. The problem is--and I say this as a person representing an
agricultural State, a State that produces most farm products, the only
State in the Union that produces both cane and beet sugar, a State that
is in virtually every kind of agriculture that you can name--the plain
truth is that agriculture does not have enough political clout, day in
and day out, to get the Government to set prices high enough that we
will ever have true prosperity in rural America. That is why I am never
supporting going back to the Government managing agriculture.
The only chance we have to make rural America not just a good place
to live--because it is the best place to live. When I ultimately leave
Washington--and I hope to be here as long as Strom Thurmond, which
would give me another 40 years--I do not ever plan to live in a town
that has a stoplight again. I prefer rural America. I think it is the
best place to live. I want to make it one of the best places to make a
living, which is why I was for Freedom to Farm and why the underlying
philosophy of the Cochran program is superior.
It does not appeal to people who want Government to manage things,
who believe that Government can do it better. But the plain truth is,
without being unkind, there is only one place in the world where
socialism still has dedicated adherents, and that is on the floor of
the Senate and the floor of the House of Representatives. Everywhere
else in the world it has been rejected. But here it still has dedicated
adherents, people who believe if we just let Government run things--
health care, agriculture, whatever--that it would go better. I do not
believe that is true.
But I want to go beyond simply pointing out the superiority of the
Cochran approach to the Democrat substitute. I want to raise a question
about both because there is another force at work that nobody is
talking about, and with which we are going to have to come to grips.
Frankly, in representing a farm State, it is something about which I
worry.
It is a blessing that creates a problem. The blessing is that while
America is in the midst of a technological explosion, technology in
agriculture is growing twice as fast as technology in the economy as a
whole. Productivity

[[Page S10081]]

per farm worker is growing twice as fast as the productivity of the
worker in the economy as a whole. So there is an underlying factor
which is driving down farm prices which has nothing to do with the
Asian financial crisis. That underlying factor is the explosion of farm
technology. Farm technology, by driving down the cost of production, is
driving down the cost of farm products by increasing supply.
Let me give an example of it. We have fewer chickens in America today
than we had 10 years ago. Yet we are producing more poultry. We have
fewer pigs today and yet we are producing more pork. How is that
possible? Because of a technological revolution that is occurring in
American agriculture.
As I look at agriculture and as I look at the use of sensors, as I
look at the use of new technology, nobody can know the future but it
seems to me, looking at it--the only way we can see the future is by
looking to the past. Looking at the recent past, it seems to me we are
probably on the edge of an explosion of technology driven by
biotechnology, driven by sensing devices, driven by the communication
age where we are probably looking at a 20-year period where the natural
trend in farm prices, independent of the Asian financial crisis, will
be down.
Please do not believe because I say this that I want the trend to be
down. But I think if we are going to set out a long-term policy, we
have to understand the world at which we are looking. I believe these
technological changes, which are partially responsible now for
declining farm prices, are probably not going to go away.
One of the things I think that is hidden--I will get to these figures
in a moment--is that while farm prices are down, so are farm costs. So
this is leading some people to look at farm prices and define a
financial crisis which is clearly there but not to the degree that the
price of the final product alone would show.
Let me note that we had a recent estimate come out by USDA of net
farm income. Let me also remind my Democrat colleagues that the Clinton
administration runs the Department of Agriculture, not the Republican
majority in Congress. The Clinton administration is now forecasting
1999 farm income to be $43.8 billion. Farm income in 1998 was $44.1
billion. So that is three-tenths of $1 billion below last year.
If you look at the last 8 years, from 1990 through 1998, average farm
income has been $45.7 billion. We are looking at an income level that
is basically $1.9 billion below that level. If you look at the last 5
years of average farm income, it has been $46.7 billion. So in looking
at that number, we are looking at an income level there where we are
about $2.9 billion below that level.
Part of the story that is not being told in this debate, as we sort
of jockey back and forth as to who can tell the grimmest tale in
agriculture, is that the current farm program is doing a lot for
American agriculture.
Last year, the American farm program, in dealing with a decline in
prices, put into American agricultural $12.2 billion of income. Under
the existing programs that are in place, through guaranteed minimum
prices, and other programs, we are looking already, without any
legislative action, because of the way the current law is written, at
the taxpayer paying $16.6 billion of payments to farmers. Or, in other
words, when the Department of Agriculture estimates that net farm
income next year is $43.8 billion, 39 percent of that estimate is made
up of payments that are being made under the existing farm program.
Especially when our Democrat colleagues get up and talk about the sky
falling, they completely leave out of the story that under existing
programs we have guaranteed minimum prices, through our loan program,
that will mean $16.6 billion of payments from the Federal Treasury to
the American farmer without any legislative action whatsoever by the
Congress.
So I guess the first question that I pose is, that if farm income
today is $2.9 billion below the average of the last 5 years, and if the
income for the last 5 years has been the highest level of income in the
modern era, Why are we talking about $10.7 billion of new payments to
American agriculture?
From where did the $10.7 billion come? And $10.7 billion added to the
level of farm income today would put average farm income substantially
above the average for the last 5 years, substantially above the average
for the last 8 years, and substantially above the average of farm
income in the modern era of America. From where did the $10.7 billion
come?
It seems to me that the $10.7 billion figure is simply a political
figure. It started out fairly low at the beginning of the year. It has
gotten bigger every month. I now understand that in the House,
Democrats are asking for $12.9 billion. So what is happening is we are
in a bidding contest.
Let me also say that in terms of the $6.9 billion that has been
proposed on our side of the aisle, I do not see the logic of that
number, either. It seems to me that since we have a loan program which
in some cases has yet to be triggered because we have not harvested the
crops, so that we do not know, in the final analysis, the extent of the
drought or the impact of the bumper crop that is being produced in some
parts of the country --we know the impact on price for corn and wheat
and cotton and soybeans; we have a guaranteed minimum price--the
logical thing to do would be to not get involved in a political bidding
game but to simply allow the crop to be harvested, assess the drought
damage, and decide how much to do and how to target it to the people
who have actually lost money instead of a giant effort to simply throw
money at the problem.

I am sure all of my colleagues are aware that from the disaster
assistance for agriculture last year, still some of those programs have
yet to be spent by the Clinton administration. So rather than getting
in a bidding contest, it seems to me, with all due respect, that what
we ought to be doing is waiting until our crops are harvested and
assess what farm income is, compare it to a norm for the recent
historic period, and then decide what we want to do to try to make a
correction, see to the extent to which programs that are now in effect
have an impact on farm income, and then figure out what the gap is
compared to the norm, and then decide who lost money, and then see what
we might do about it.
But with $10.7 billion, if you spent the money by giving it to
farmers, you would drive incomes far above the national norm, you would
be overcompensating, in some cases, several times; and in reality, much
of this money goes to a bureaucracy in Washington and not to the
farmer.
So I am sorry that we have gotten into this debate, which ultimately
had to come when we brought up Ag appropriations because we are going
to have an election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of next
year. So we are engaged in this political bidding contest for the
support of American agriculture. I do not see how these kinds of
numbers can be justified, especially when we do not know what farm
income is going to be.
Let me also say that this appropriations bill does not even go into
effect until October 1. Not one penny that would be spent by the
adoption of either one of these amendments will be available to farmers
until October 1, and given the record of the Clinton administration, it
is highly probable that most of this money won't even be distributed
until next year. My point is, why don't we wait until we have the
actual data, until we know who actually lost money, and make a rational
decision.

Another point I would like to make----
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, because of another engagement, I ask
unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak at 2:15 when the Senate
reconvenes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, there are some other figures I think we
need to look at in deciding what we should be doing. I want to raise
these. I know people are going to object to the fact that someone would
actually try to raise concerns about the actual numbers we are talking
about in American agriculture, when we are engaged in a debate about
trying to outbid each other and spending money. This is from the
Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This

[[Page S10082]]

is their agricultural outlook, just published in July of this year on
page 55.
Let me tell my colleagues why this is important, and then I will go
through the numbers. Why this is important is, we are basically
pointing fingers back and forth saying we are not doing enough for
American agriculture and that we ought to spend $10.7 billion or we
ought to spend, in the House, $12.9 billion. I will go over a few
figures which stand out to me in that somehow what is being shown in
the actual numbers about agriculture and what is being debated on the
floor of the Senate are two entirely different things.
Facts are persistent things. In listening, especially to our
colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle, one would assume that
farm assets are falling right through the floor. One would assume we
are virtually back in the Depression and the Dust Bowl and that USDA
initial estimates for 1999 would be falling dramatically. Anybody who
is listening to this debate would believe that is true.
Well, it is not true. In fact, in 1998, the preliminary number is
that the total value of farm assets was $1,124,700,000,000. The initial
estimate by USDA--this is the Clinton administration--is that farm
assets at the end of this year will be $1,140,300,000,000. So while we
are talking about the world coming to an end in agriculture, we have to
junk the farm program and go back to letting Government dictate farm
prices and engage in artificial scarcity and pay farmers not to plant
and basically turn agriculture into one giant cooperative on the Soviet
style plan because of the collapse in American agriculture. The reality
is that we are projecting farm assets to rise this year and not fall.
In fact, last year was a terrible year in agriculture. We had a huge
farm payment at the end of the year as part of our emergency spending.
What do you think happened to farm assets last year? They went up,
not down. They rose from $1,088,800,000,000 to $1,124,000,000,000.
Something about this picture doesn't fit.
Let me go on. What do you think is happening to financial assets held
by American farmers and ranchers? If you listen to all this doomsday
scenario from our Democrat colleagues about how we have to junk the
farm program and go back to a Government-run program, you would think
farmers and ranchers are having to sell off financial assets, cash in
their retirement, withdraw money out of the bank, close down their IRAs
to try to stay in agriculture.
Facts are persistent things. In fact, we are projecting that
financial assets held by American agriculture will actually rise this
year from $50 billion to $51 billion.
Now, what do you think is happening to farm debt? You listen to all
of this doomsday discussion about how we have to junk the farm program
and have an American commissar of agriculture who has to go in and say:
You cut back production by 20 percent; you plant this crop; you plant
that crop; we will guarantee your prices. We will have artificial
scarcity, and then we will make all this work through Government edict.
What is the justification for all these program proposals? The
justification, you would think, would be that farm debt is exploding;
right? We are having a crisis?
Does anybody listening to this debate believe that farm debt in
America is not exploding? You would never believe it wasn't exploding.
You would think farmers are going deeper and deeper and deeper into
debt. You would be wrong. In fact, the USDA estimate is that farm debt
will actually decline in 1999, and it will decline from $170.4 billion
to $169.1 billion.
What would you think would be happening to real estate debt? In
listening to our Democrat colleagues talk about how we have to have the
Government take over agriculture and go back to a program where you
basically work off Government edicts because of a collapse in
agriculture, you would think real estate debt is rising. People are
having to borrow money against their land. They are having massive
foreclosures. Could anybody listening to this debate not believe that
real estate debt was exploding in America? They couldn't. They would
know it had to be happening. But facts are persistent things. The fact
is that real estate debt is actually declining in America. The
projection by USDA is that the amount of real estate debt that farmers
and ranchers have will decline from $87.6 billion to $86.7 billion.
Could anybody listen to this debate and not believe that non-real
estate debt that farmers have is exploding? That is not possible. You
listen to this debate, you have to conclude that every farmer in
America is going deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. They are
borrowing money. They are losing money. There is a catastrophe, a
crisis, and we have to have Government take over agriculture. But
astounding as it is, when you look at the numbers, non-real estate debt
in agriculture is actually projected to decline in 1999 from $82.8
billion to $82.4 billion.
Finally, there could be no doubt about it, listening to this debate.
Equity in farms and ranches in America has to be plummeting. There is
no way that you can have all these catastrophes we have heard about,
leading us to the argument that we need to spend in excess of $10
billion right now in agriculture, and we need to junk our whole export
production-based farm system to go back to a program that we couldn't
make work in a simpler era when the Government basically ran
agriculture. No one could doubt, not one person who listened to this
debate, if you did a survey, not one person in 1,000 would have any
doubt that farm equity, the equity of farmers and ranchers, what they
own, has to be declining as a result of this agricultural crisis. But
it is not so. In fact, equity, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
is projected to not only rise but to rise substantially in 1999, to
rise from $954.3 billion to $971.2 billion. How can farm equity be
rising when we have a crisis of such magnitude that we are debating
having the Government take over American agriculture?
Well, the reality is, it is rising.
Let me mention two other figures. Could anybody listening to this
debate believe that the debt-to-equity ratio in American agriculture is
actually declining in 1999 or that equity is rising and debt is
falling? Could you believe that, listening to this debate? You probably
could not, but it is. And in terms of debt-to-assets, it is also
declining from a ratio of 15.2 to a ratio of 14.8.
Now, the reason I went through all these numbers is, we should not be
having this debate right now. This has turned into a political bidding
contest where we are literally bidding to see who can spend more money.
We need to know what is going to happen in terms of this year's
harvest, and we need to know what farm income is when the harvest is
in, before we set out a program to spend billions and billions of
dollars to, A, be sure we are helping the people who need help and, B,
be sure that the program makes sense.
There are some things we should be doing. We should be working to
open world markets. Part of Freedom to Farm was a commitment to change
trade policy. We ought to be debating trade today. We ought to be
talking about how we can get the President to go ahead and finish the
negotiations with China on WTO accession, so that they would have to
lower their trade barriers against American agriculture. We should be
debating taxes today. We committed to a program of letting farmers not
only income average but to set aside a certain amount of income for a
5-year period, so that when times are good, they can set aside money so
they have it when times are bad.
We ought to be talking about risk management and what we can do to
deal with it. We ought to be talking about regulatory reform, where
regulations are having a heavier and heavier burden on American
agriculture. But we are not. What we are doing is talking about
spending vast sums of money when we have no documentation of the exact
magnitude of our problem or the distribution of that problem.
Now, I know the vote is going to be on, and I know we are going to
have it this afternoon. I know we are going to have an opportunity to
spend $10.7 billion to junk the American farm program and go back to
supply management. I know we are going to have a vote on spending $6.9
billion to keep the current system and just allocate $6.9 billion to be
given away if and when, later on, the administration gets around to
allocating it. But surely there must be some question raised when
average farm income for the last

[[Page S10083]]

5 years has been $46.7 billion. The projection by USDA is that farm
income will be $43.8 billion, and the adoption of either one of these
amendments will produce farm income far above the average of the last 5
years.
Why is that a problem? It is a problem because if I am right that
this explosion of technology in agriculture, which is growing twice as
fast in terms of technological advances as the whole economy, if this
is going to mean that for 20 years we are going to tend to have
downward pressure on agriculture prices because of expansion in
production and lower cost of production, to be in essence subsidizing
and encouraging people to come into agriculture, or stay in it if they
are inefficient, we are working counter to what we know has to happen
for agricultural prosperity to occur.
The reason I went to the trouble to come over here and raise all
these unpleasant facts in the midst of a debate about giving money is
that there is one other figure that just is extraordinary to me. What
would you think is happening to the amount of land being rented by
American farmers? Prices are falling. We had prices falling last year,
and we had an emergency spending bill. What would you think would be
happening to cash rents? Well, everything I know about economics and
about agriculture would tell me that, knowing what happened last year
with prices declining and knowing the projections for this year, cash
rents would have gone down. Everything you know would suggest that.
But, in reality, cash rents are up--up--so that farmers are spending
more money renting land in 1999 than they did in 1998. What does that
suggest? Well, it suggests that what we did in 1998 actually pulled in
more production, not less, and that we actually contributed to this
problem by what we did in 1998.

The world is not going to come to an end if we spend $10.7 billion or
$6.9 billion. Every penny of it is going to be added to the deficit.
That is money that is not going to go to reduce debt, or fix Medicare,
or pay for Social Security. We have all heard and used all those
arguments--mostly when it benefited our side of the argument.
But please consider what is going to happen if we continue with these
programs where the net impact is to bring more resources into an
industry that is having a technological explosion, which is expanding
supply, where we are producing more pork with fewer pigs, more poultry
with fewer chickens--what is going to happen if we continue for 3 or 4
more years the kind of program we had last year, which apparently--and
I simply raise the concern because nobody has mentioned it--what is
going to happen if we are paying so much money that we are actually
encouraging more production rather than compensating people partially
for their losses. The adoption of either one of these amendments will
mean that farm income next year will be above the average for the last
5 years.
Now, I would like farm income to be high. But the point is, I am
afraid we are overriding the natural adjustment mechanism whereby, as
people can produce more and more product with fewer inputs, what tends
to happen is, they put fewer inputs into the industry. If I am right
about this technology change, we are, with either one of these dollar
figures, planting a seed that is going to destroy American agriculture
as we know it because we are going to end up exacerbating oversupply
and driving prices further and further down, and then we are going to
have no choice except to let an awful lot of people go broke or to have
the Government come in and say: OK, you produce at 50 percent of your
capacity, and you produce at 50 percent of your capacity.
I just wish we were having somebody look at these kinds of problems
before we got into this bidding war in the midst of an Agriculture
appropriation bill. I wish we could wait until the fall and know what
the losses were. None of this money will be available until October 1.
Then we can come up with a reasonable program to try to compensate for
some of these losses. But to simply be making up numbers in the
billions is very dangerous and irresponsible, and we could end up
really hurting the most efficient farmers and ranchers.
I thank my colleagues for giving me all this time. I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, has the order been entered as yet with
reference to the conference luncheons today?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it has.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for
the Senate to recess for those luncheons be temporarily extended for a
half hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Reserving the right to object, the Presiding
Officer has something that I have to do in the policy session and would
not be able to Chair.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would be happy to Chair.
I have done a little bit of that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the request were propounded to be here to
hear the Senator's speech, the Chair would be willing to do that.
Mr. BYRD. The Chair is very gracious.
I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed at this point
in lieu of Mr. Dorgan. The list of names of Senators, I think, that
have been entered up to this point would be, as of this moment, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Byrd. And I have permission of Mr. Dorgan
to substitute myself for his name at the moment, and let his name fall
in place for my name under the present circumstance. So it would be Mr.
Byrd, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Dorgan.
I seek the help of the distinguished manager of the bill, Mr.
Cochran, who is my friend. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed
at this point.
Would it be the wish of the manager, then, that the Senate recess,
and the others on the list be recognized following the conferences?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I think that
is a good suggestion.
Mr. BYRD. Very well. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I was on the floor and objected.
Mr. BYRD. If the Senator will allow me, I haven't forgotten my
promise to the Senator.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the recognition
of Mr. Dorgan, in order to comport with the understanding that there be
alternative speakers, that a Republican Senator be recognized, and that
he then be followed by Mr. Baucus. This will all occur after the
conference luncheons.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection. I think that is a
good suggestion.
I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the Chair's understanding as to how
long I will speak and when the Senate will recess for the conference
luncheons?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding that the
Senator will speak as long as he wishes.
Mr. BYRD. After which the conference luncheons will occur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Until the hour of 2:15.
Mr. BYRD. Yes. At which time those Senators on the list as presently
drawn would be recognized in the order stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, usually, in this town, newspaper headlines are about
politics. News stories feature articles about tax cuts, health care
plans, and various partisan tactics.
But, yesterday's headline in the Washington Post, reads ``Drought Is
Worst Since Depression,'' and the story that follows warns of drought
conditions that have gripped the Mid-Atlantic that are second only to
the those seen during the bleak years of the Great Depression.
We have begun to feel the pinch of this drought, with water usage
limited in certain areas. With these restrictions, many people are
inconvenienced by the loss of their home landscaping investments--
watching their grass, flowers, and shrubs slowly withering and turning
brown.

[[Page S10084]]

But, this drought is more than an inconvenience for those employed in
one of America's hardest-working, most selfless professions. That is
farming. Farming is hard luck even at best.
I speak of the farmers throughout our region, including West
Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware, they are more
than just inconvenienced. They are watching their very livelihoods
slowly wither and turn to dust.
In West Virginia, this drought has devastated--devastated--the lives
of hundreds of family farmers, and I am deeply concerned about the fate
of West Virginia's last 17,000 surviving small family farms. West
Virginia farmers work hard on land most often held in the same family
for generations. They farm an average of 194 acres in the rough
mountain terrain, and they earn an average of just $25,000 annually.
That is $25,000 annually for 365 days of never-ending labor.
The distinguished occupant of the Chair, who hails from Wyoming,
understands that farming is an every-day, every-week, every-month, 365-
day operation every year with no time off. In farming there is no time
off. That is $68.50 a day for days that begin at dawn and run past
sunset in this scorching heat. Today, as the drought lingers on, West
Virginia farmers, particularly cattle farmers, find themselves in
critical financial circumstances.

To address this crisis, I urge my colleagues to support the inclusion
of a $200 million emergency relief program for cattle farmers in the
Fiscal Year 2000 Agricultural Appropriations Bill which is before the
Senate. My provision--if enacted--would provide Federal disaster
payments to cattle farmers for losses incurred as a result of this
year's heat and drought. Compensation would depend on the type and
level of losses suffered, and would be available to cattle farmers in
counties across the Nation which have received a Federal declaration of
disaster for severe drought and heat conditions.
My provision provides direct assistance to farmers who have dedicated
their lives to feeding this Nation, and who suffer at the will of
Mother Nature with no recourse.
In West Virginia, my emergency drought aid for cattle farmers will
literally decide the future fate of hundreds of small family farmers.
The drought has sucked the life from the land, and is on the verge of
draining the last resources from the pockets of the drought-stricken
farmers.
As of yesterday, Senator Rockefeller and I went to West Virginia and
were there when the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Glickman, was there
to witness some of the drought-stricken areas in the eastern panhandle.
On that trip to West Virginia, Gus Douglas, the West Virginia
commissioner of agriculture, told of being at a market where animals
were being taken for sale.
One farmer, who had worked his entire life breeding a herd of which
he could be proud, was there with his animals. He was there to sell his
cattle at this market. He was not there just with ten or twenty head of
cattle. He was there with his entire herd. He knew that he did not have
enough feed to make it through winter, so despite the fact that his
animals would be poor prospects at auction, he had brought them all to
be sold. They had already consumed the fodder that would otherwise
sustain them through the coming winter months.
This farmer was losing twice. First, he would make no profit on the
cattle he would sell. Second, he could no longer afford to keep his
herd. It was time to completely liquidate the herd. As the farmer
unloaded his animals at the market, there were tears in his eyes.
It was too late for this farmer, and if we do not act quickly to get
an emergency assistance package passed, it will be too late for many,
many more family farmers throughout the land.
During our visit to West Virginia, Secretary Glickman declared all
fifty-five West Virginia counties a federally designated disaster area.
West Virginia is not alone, and my provision will help, if it is
accepted, if it is adopted, will help cattle farmers in Virginia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and any other region that receives a natural
disaster declaration for excessive heat and drought.

During this visit with the Secretary, more than twenty farmers and
their wives, gathered inside a barn on Mr. Terry Dunn's property in
Jefferson County to share their personal stories about how the drought
is impacting them and what kind of help they need. The overwhelming
consensus was that programs that were designed to work at a time when
our agriculture markets were strong, are not going to be enough to keep
a new generation on the family farm.
In spite of all types of adversity, family farmers have had the
ingenuity to keep their farms working for generations. Surely they can
be trusted to wisely use direct federal payments, and with this same
time-tested ingenuity, keep their farms running. Farmers in West
Virginia have wisely diversified their crops. In ordinary years, many
farmers grow enough different kinds of crops to be able to feed their
animals, their families, and still take produce to market for a good
portion of the summer. But, the extraordinary times of this drought
require that we act now to help West Virginia's farmers and other
farmers in the non ``farm states'' who are currently experiencing
difficulties as the result of extreme weather conditions.
According to government statistics, West Virginia is experiencing
some of the most severe water shortages in the nation. Crop losses in
one county alone, Jefferson County, were estimated two weeks ago to be
almost $8.7 million and they are above that now. In the Potomac
Headwaters region of the state, conditions are much worse. Total
damages in the state for crop losses are more than $100 million. This
figure does not even include the value of grazing pasture lost and
winter feed eaten during the summer, or losses incurred from selling
livestock early, due to extreme weather conditions.
Almost fifty percent of West Virginia's cropland is pasture, forty-
six percent is harvested, and the remaining four percent is idle. The
hay and corn that usually feed the cattle herds are gone. The ponds are
shallow and foul, the springs are dried up, and the wells are dry.
Although West Virginia farmers are willing to work day and night to
keep up with the backbreaking work of farming, no amount of work will
restock the dwindling stores of grain that are now being used to keep
animals alive at the height of the summer growing season, when
pastureland should be more than enough to satiate an animal's hunger.
No amount of sweat can restore vigor to stunted crops that have gone
too long without a soaking downpour of rain reaching the deepest roots.
There is little that these farmers can do to fill their wells or farm
ponds with water.
I traveled to see the damage that the drought in West Virginia is
causing for farmers. I heard for myself the stories they told. I saw
for myself the impact this drought is having, and I saw on those tired,
drawn faces the impact this drought is having on the bodies, the minds,
and the souls of men and women who earn their bread by the sweat of
their brow, in accordance with the edict that was issued by the Creator
Himself when He drove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.

We visited a corn field on Terry Dunn's farm. The reddish soil was
dust at my feet. The corn stalks that should have grown beyond my head
by this time of the season were barely knee high.
I wanted to see what kind of ears these stunted stalks were
producing. The ear of corn that I reached down and selected snapped too
easily from the stalk. This not yet shucked ear of corn was barely
bigger than two rolls of quarters. I saw the conditions of the cattle
and pastureland in West Virginia. I saw the dry, cracked fields; I saw
the stunted corn stalks; and I heard the stories of farmers. It all
amounts to a heart-breaking picture.
I urge my colleagues to help all cattle farmers in areas declared as
Federal disaster areas as a result of excessive heat or drought, and to
support my provision in their behalf. My amendment will ensure direct
relief to the cattle farmers in the Northeast affected by this natural
disaster. It will serve to bolster other important aid for fruit and
crop losses.
The sweltering temperatures have taken their toll on farmers in the
Mid-Atlantic region. Let us not turn the heat up further. Let us
support the small family farmer in his or her hour of need.

[[Page S10085]]

My amendment is a part of the Daschle-Harkin bill. I thank all
Senators for listening.
I yield the floor.

____________________