[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 113 (Wednesday, August 4, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10139-S10199]
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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of S. 
1233, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1233), making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the 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.
       Ashcroft amendment No. 1507 (to amendment No. 1499), to 
     provide stability in the United States agriculture sector and 
     to promote adequate availability of food and medicine for 
     humanitarian assistance abroad by requiring congressional 
     approval before the imposition of any unilateral agricultural 
     or medical sanction against a foreign country or foreign 
     entity. (By 28 yeas to 70 nays (Vote No. 251), Senate failed 
     to table the amendment.)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 40 
minutes for debate to be equally divided between the proponents and 
opponents prior to the vote on a cloture motion.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 5 minutes.
  I rise today in strong opposition to cloture on the majority leader's 
motion to recommit. If it carries, the Agriculture appropriations bill 
will be reported back to the floor with what is known as the Jeffords 
dairy compact amendment and will be subject to 30 hours of continuous 
debate.
  Now, as most in the Senate know by now, I am committed to fighting 
the creation, expansion, or continuation of the price-fixing cartels 
known as dairy compacts. They embody bad national policy, bad economic 
policy, bad precedent, and disastrous implications for farmers who are 
forced to operate outside the protectionist walls these compacts throw 
up.
  But that is not only why I oppose the Jeffords amendment. I oppose 
the Jeffords amendment because it would do something much worse. It 
would remove the Federal Government from the milk market order system. 
The Jeffords compact amendment would specifically disallow USDA from 
spending money to administer the milk market order system. What would 
be the result of that? According to the Secretary of Agriculture, with 
whom I spoke yesterday, the result would be ``chaos and confusion'' in 
the dairy industry. USDA would have no way to enforce any price system, 
so processors would end up setting the price of milk. Farmers would 
have no recourse to USDA or anywhere else if they thought they were 
receiving an unfair price.

[[Page S10140]]

  What does the amendment achieve by creating this mess? Certainly not 
what its proponents claim. The amendment would not continue the current 
pricing system, or 1-A, as many of you know it. Regardless of whether 
this amendment passes or not, the old pricing system will expire on 
October 1.
  I have a letter from the general counsel of USDA that says just that, 
and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                                Office of the General Counsel,

                                   Washington, DC, August 2, 1999.
     Hon. Herb Kohl,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: In your letter of July 23, 1999, you ask 
     several questions concerning our issuance of a final rule to 
     implement the milk marketing order reform required by the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act and the effect of a 
     possible appropriations bill prohibition on the use of fiscal 
     year 2000 funds to implement the reform.
       As you know, the final dairy reform order was published in 
     the Federal Register on April 2, 1999, and we are now in the 
     process of conducting referenda to determine if the orders 
     should be implemented. This will be completed and a final 
     implementing order published at the end of August. 
     Implementation will thereafter occur on October 1st without 
     further action by the Department. You are correct in your 
     understanding that existing marketing orders and the 
     Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact will expire upon 
     implementation of milk marketing order reform on October 1st. 
     If the Department were prohibited from spending 
     appropriations to carry out the order reform, it would not be 
     able to provide oversight for the milk marketing order 
     system. Day-to-day operation of the respective order areas 
     could continue, however, because such operations are funded 
     through industry assessments, not appropriated funds. As you 
     correctly point out, the specific implementation date 
     requirement contained in Public Law 105-277 prohibits the 
     Department from altering the effective date. The issue of 
     whether the statutory language also prevents the Secretary 
     from rescinding the order presents novel questions which will 
     require further analysis.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Charles R. Rawls,
                                                  General Counsel.

  Mr. KOHL. The amendment will not create new dairy compacts in the 
Southeast or open up the current Northeast Compact to any new members. 
None of those items is contained in this amendment.
  The amendment will not extend the life of the Northeast Dairy 
Compact. USDA has made it clear that the compact will expire on October 
1, whether this amendment passes or not.
  So, then, why are we even considering this amendment? I can only 
imagine it is because the proponents of the amendment are betting that 
they will get some of the things they promised--most notably, an 
extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact--in conference.
  I think that is a cynical and an irresponsible bet, especially by 
Senators who are not even on the conference committee. Under an 
uncertain and unregulated system, dairy farmers across the country 
stand to lose $194 million a year. Furthermore, this very week dairy 
farmers all across America are voting on what sort of milk market 
system they want. So should we not wait to see what farmers have to say 
before we bet their farms on the Jeffords amendment?
  The Jeffords amendment is not 1-A. It is not a dairy compact. It is a 
desperate last attempt to carve a dairy cartel for the Northeast out of 
the current pricing system. Unfortunately, the authors of the amendment 
used an ax rather than a knife, and the result will be a milk market 
order system that will be a bloody mess.
  The proponents of this amendment have accused us of describing their 
amendment in a way that makes it more terrifying than the ``Blair Witch 
Project.'' They are correct. Their amendment is more terrifying. That 
is because the chaos it would create would not be a fiction; it would 
be real.
  The Jeffords amendment is opposed by the 300,000 farmers of the 
National Farmers Union and the 300,000 taxpayers of the National 
Taxpayers Union. I urge my colleagues to join the taxpayers and the 
farmers of your States and oppose cloture on the Jeffords amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, has the Senator from Wisconsin finished?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first of all, the reason we are here 
today is to talk about cloture, whether we should have time to fully 
discuss and be able to make sure that this body knows the importance of 
what we want to do, and that is to protect the dairy farmers of the 
United States. We are not here to discuss the fine points of the issues 
which the Senator from Wisconsin has brought out, with which we 
sincerely most heartily disagree, but whether or not we ought to have 
the opportunity and whether it is important enough to this country and 
to the dairy farmers to have a full discussion by getting cloture. If 
we don't get cloture, then chaos will happen in many areas, in 
especially New England which has a compact which would go out of being 
and would require dramatic action in order to repair the damage that 
would be done.
  Dairy farmers around the country are watching the actions of the 
Senate this week with great anticipation and anxiety. They know that 
under the 1996 farm bill, Congress instructed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to develop much needed new pricing formulas for how milk is 
priced. Unfortunately, they also know that Secretary Glickman's 
resulting informal rulemaking process is developing pricing formulas 
that are fatally flawed and contrary to the will of Congress.
  The Nation's dairy farmers are counting on this Congress to prevent 
the dairy industry from being placed at risk and instead to secure its 
sound future.
  This chart says it all. This is the devastation that will come from 
the proposed order of the Secretary. What this shows is, with the new 
order 1-B, there is only one area of this country that will 
substantially benefit. Guess what area that is? Wisconsin and 
Minnesota. The rest, clearly delineated by the red, will lose money--
all of them. There is a little green in the tip of Florida, there is a 
little green on the coast of California, and there is a little green in 
a couple of States, but the rest all lose money.
  The question is whether 1-A, which was studied, should be replaced to 
make sure that does not occur. Mr. President, 1-A, which is supported 
by a letter to the Secretary by 61 Members of the Senate, will not 
create this devastation. In fact, it will provide an orderly system for 
farmers all over this country to make a decent income.
  Secretary Glickman's final pricing rules, scheduled to be implemented 
on October 1, will cost dairy farmers, not the Government, millions of 
dollars in lost income from their pockets. There are no Federal funds 
involved with this. That is something that may be confusing because in 
the past, the dairy program cost millions of dollars. It does not cost 
anyone anything now.
  This amendment will prevent the Secretary's rule from being 
implemented, thereby maintaining the current law for dairy pricing for 
another year.
  Do not be taken in by any of the misleading claims made by the 
opposition, including their references to the letter from USDA 
supposedly indicating the amendment does not accomplish its purpose. 
First of all, it can be easily modified in conference and, secondly, it 
does accomplish its purpose. This will allow a new rulemaking procedure 
for the Secretary to carry out the will of Congress for a new and 
improved pricing structure. It will also allow the Northeast Dairy 
Compact pilot project--remember, this is a pilot project which was put 
into law in 1996 to see if by States gathering together they can 
organize an order system which would protect them from high prices to 
the consumers and low prices to farmers because of the fact, when you 
get into milk situations, you can get devastation with a little bit of 
surplus.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 15\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chair. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator 
from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment which 
helps dairy farmers across the country.

[[Page S10141]]

  I think the least the Senate should do when debating a relief bill 
for farmers is to not reduce farm income.
  The Department of Agriculture's milk marketing order--the so-called 
modified ``option 1-B''-- would reduce farm income by about a million 
dollars per day. That doesn't sound like farm aid to me. It sounds like 
a recipe for disaster.
  Why should dairy farmers in Mississippi, North Carolina, Georgia, or 
California, for example, have their income cut by USDA rules when other 
farmers will get helped under this bill? I think dairy farmers are as 
deserving as other farmers.
  Isn't it enough that the price of milk paid to dairy farmers dropped 
by almost 40 percent recently? Why should the Secretary be allowed to 
change current policy to punish dairy farmers even more by reducing 
their income?
  Sixty-one Senators signed a letter to Secretary Glickman opposing the 
cuts in farm income that would result from implementing the so-called 
option 1-B.
  Those sixty-one Senators pointed out that ``dairy farmers . . . are 
receiving essentially the same price for their milk that they received 
fifteen years ago while the cost of production has increased. Option 1-
B would further reduce the price of milk received by farmers in almost 
all regions of the country, thereby reducing local supplies of fresh, 
fluid milk and increasing costs for consumers.''
  This amendment--the Lott amendment--mandates that current law be 
continued and that option 1-B be put on ice.
  I must address some unfortunate misinformation that is being spread 
about the amendment.
  We received a ``Dear Colleague'' letter from Senator Feingold that 
incorrectly suggests that the Lott amendment would terminate the milk 
marketing order system.
  That, of course, is not the case. Probably only a few Senators want 
to eliminate milk differentials and the marketing order system. The 
great majority of Senators, including myself, believe that this is not 
the time to terminate the milk order system.
  The Lott amendment would not terminate that system and a letter from 
the General Counsel of USDA that is being used by opponents of the Lott 
amendment does not even make that point.
  Indeed, the General Counsel says: ``the issue of whether the 
statutory language also prevents the Secretary from rescinding the 
order presents novel questions which will require further analysis.''
  But, we already know this amendment does not terminate the marketing 
order system since it is drafted the same way we drafted a similar 
extension of the milk marketing order system last year.
  Section 738 of last year's appropriations bill provided a similar 
extension. No one at USDA argued that last year's extension terminated 
all milk marketing orders.
  Indeed, Congress can pass laws that supercede rules issued by 
Departments.
  Of course any drafting glitch could be fixed at Conference, but there 
is no glitch since we are simply extending current law, just like we 
did last year.
  I want to address other misinformation that is being spread. Some 
have been saying that the amendment could mean higher prices for 
consumers.
  I will compare milk prices in New England against the Upper Midwest 
any day of the week.
  A General Accounting Office, GAO, report dated October, 1998, 
compared retail milk prices for various U.S. cities.
  For example for February, 1998, the average price of a gallon of 
whole milk in Augusta, ME, was $2.47 per gallon.
  The price for Milwaukee, WI, was $2.63 per gallon. Prices in 
Minneapolis, MN, were much higher--they were $2.94 per gallon.
  Let's pick another New England city--Boston. The price of a gallon of 
milk was $2.54 as compared to Minneapolis, MN, which was $2.94 per 
gallon.
  Let's look at the cost of 1% milk for November, 1997, for example.
  In Augusta, ME, it was $2.37 per gallon, the same average price as 
for Boston, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. In Minnesota, the price was 
$2.82 per gallon.
  I could go on and on comparing lower New England retail prices with 
higher prices in other cities for many different months.
  It is clear that our Compact is working as it was intended to by 
benefitting consumers, local economies and farmers. I will submit a 
lengthy list of additional price comparisons to prove my point for the 
record.
  I conclude by saying that sixty-one Senators warned the Secretary of 
Agriculture to not cut farm income by implementing option 1-B.
  What we are offering is narrowly tailored, sensible and modest. It 
simply extends current law. Punishing dairy farmers in New England and 
other regions of the country makes no sense.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in protecting farm income for 
dairy farmers by voting for cloture for this amendment.
  Mr. President, I would also like to make a few additional comments on 
the Northeast Dairy Compact.
  The success of the Northeast Dairy Compact is undeniable. In fact, 
thanks to the Northeast Compact, the number of farmers going out of 
business has declined throughout New England for the first time in many 
years.
  If you are a proponent of States rights, regional compacts are the 
answer. Compacts are State initiated, State ratified, and State 
supported programs which assure a continuous safe supply of milk for 
consumers.
  If you support interstate trade, then regional compacts are the 
answer. The Northeast Dairy Compact has prompted an increase of milk 
sales from neighboring States into the northeast compact region.
  If you support a balanced budget, then regional compacts are the 
answer. The Northeast Compact does not cost taxpayers a single cent, 
and this is a lot different than most farm programs.
  If you support farmland protection programs, then regional compacts 
are the answer. Major environmental groups have endorsed the Northeast 
Dairy Compact because they know it helps preserve farmland and prevent 
urban sprawl.
  If you are concerned about the impact of prices on consumers, then 
regional compacts are the answer. Retail milk prices within the compact 
region are lower on average than in the rest of the country, something 
the opponents do not point out.
  The Northeast Compact has done exactly what it was established to do: 
stabilize fluctuating dairy prices, assure a fair price for dairy 
farmers, keep farmers in business, and protect consumer supplies of 
fresh milk.
  Many of our friends in the South have seen how the compact provides a 
modest but crucial safety net for struggling dairy farmers, and I think 
all of us should look at these compacts as a way to help farmers 
without costing the taxpayers.
  There are many additional areas to discuss. I am going to reserve my 
time, but in closing I do want to say this: It is clear that our 
compact is working as intended by benefiting consumers, local 
economies, and farmers.
  Sixty-one Senators have warned the Secretary of Agriculture to not 
cut dairy farm income by implementing option 1-B. What we are offering 
is narrowly tailored, sensible, and modest. It simply extends current 
law.
  We are here to protect hard-working dairy farmers. I urge the 61 
Senators, plus everyone else, to join with us and vote for cloture on 
this amendment. The 61 Senators who signed that letter to Secretary 
Glickman should, and I hope that other Senators, having listened to 
this debate, will as well.
  Mr. KOHL. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I first thank the senior Senator from Wisconsin for his 
leadership and dedication on this issue. He has been determined, and I 
think effectively, in fighting this battle that we have to fight on 
behalf of Wisconsin dairy farmers, upper Midwestern dairy farmers, and 
I think dairy farmers all over this country. I thank him and join in 
his words that we will fight this thing as hard and as long as we have 
to, to prevent this extremely unfair idea of trying to continue the New 
England Dairy Compact.
  But the really interesting thing about the measure before us, the 
issue the cloture is going to be about, is that it really does not have 
the impact that a lot of Senators think it might have.

[[Page S10142]]

  The Jeffords-Leahy amendment that they have offered will withhold 
funding--it will withhold funding--for implementation of the Federal 
milk marketing order reform in an attempt to preserve the Northeastern 
Interstate Dairy Compact.
  They thought this amendment would produce the same result it did when 
a similar amendment was offered during the appropriations bill last 
year--and that is a delay of milk marketing order reform--and then an 
extension of the compact. But it does not do that. As the senior 
Senator from Wisconsin has indicated, it does not do that.
  This isn't what the 61 Senators whom the Senator from Vermont was 
talking about signed a letter about. It isn't about picking 1-B or 1-A. 
That isn't what it does. What it simply does is create chaos. That is 
exactly what Senator Kohl has indicated. And we are not asking you to 
just take our word for it. Take the word of the general counsel of the 
USDA, who has made it clear that he believes the legal effect of this 
latest dairy initiative by the Senators from Vermont will be 
uncertainty and no Federal oversight of the system.
  A lack of funding at USDA will throw administration of the Federal 
Milk Marketing Order Program into chaos, effectively leaving no program 
at all.
  The Senator from Vermont hangs his hat on the notion that this letter 
says, at the end, that the issue involves novel questions. But that 
ignores the heart of the letter, which I want to repeat. It is a letter 
addressed to Senator Kohl, dated August 2, 1999, from Charles Rawls, 
general counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture. It says:

       You are correct in your understanding that existing 
     marketing orders and the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact 
     will expire upon implementation of milk marketing order 
     reform on October 1st. If the Department were prohibited from 
     spending appropriations to carry out the order reform, it 
     would not be able to provide oversight for the milk marketing 
     order system. Day-to-day operation of the respective order 
     areas could continue, however, because such operations are 
     funded through industry assessments, not appropriated funds.

  So it is not equivocal about whether, in fact, this will happen. It 
simply says that the compact will expire and that in fact at this point 
we will not have an order system. That is not ambiguous.
  I think it is very ironic that the Senator from Vermont came up and 
tried to argue that somehow our position on this is unfair to the rest 
of the country. It is just the reverse. The amendment that has been 
offered actually makes things much worse for almost the entire country 
than the current status under the bill.
  Under the Jeffords-Leahy amendment, the impact on dairy income in 
various regions is startling. For the Northeast--if you can believe 
this--it involves a net loss of $225 million in dairy income, if this 
chaos ensues; in the Appalachia area, $122 million in lost dairy 
income; in Florida, $100 million; in the Southeast, $112 million in 
lost dairy income--and down the line.
  Overall, I believe the figure is a total loss of some $194 million 
net income if this amendment goes through and the consequence that we 
believe occurs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from the National Farmers Union, also addressed to Senator 
Kohl, of August 3, indicating opposition and concerns about this 
amendment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                                       National Farmers Union,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1999.
     Hon. Herbert H. Kohl,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: I write today on behalf of the 300,000 
     members of the National Farmers Union to express our concern 
     regarding the Jefford's amendment that would prohibit the use 
     of funds for USDA to implement or administer dairy marketing 
     order reform later this year.
       As you know, expiration of the current national marketing 
     order is due October 1st, and with the passage of the 
     Jefford's amendment, dairy farmers across the nation could be 
     left without any federal marketing order that could risk 
     destroying the remnants of the dairy safety net.
       We have deep concerns about pitting region versus region in 
     agricultural policy, especially dairy policy. We strongly 
     encourage a policy that will benefit all dairy producers 
     nationally.
       Specifically, we support legislation to establish dairy 
     compacts and amend the federal order system if those 
     provisions are coupled with legislation to establish the 
     national dairy support price at $12.50 per hundredweight. If 
     Congress chooses to amend the federal order system, the 
     amendment should strike the provision in the final rule that 
     increases the processors' manufacturing allowance at the 
     expense of family farmers.
       Thank you for your consideration of our position on dairy 
     policy.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Leland Swenson,
                                                        President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the Senator from Wisconsin if I could be granted 
1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair and Senator Kohl.
  The other piece that I think ought to be printed in the Record, 
especially in light of the comments of the Senator from Vermont with 
regard to some of the groups interested in this issue, is a letter from 
the National Taxpayers Union strongly opposing this amendment and 
specifically saying that, ``the Dairy Compact concept acts as a cartel 
system that only a Robber Baron could admire.'' I ask unanimous consent 
that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     National Taxpayers Union,

                                   Alexandria, VA, August 3, 1999.

 Vote NO on Cloture on Tomorrow's Ag Approps Dairy Amendment--And Keep 
                   the Glass Half Full for Taxpayers

       Dear Senator: Tomorrow the Senate will vote on cloture for 
     an amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill that is 
     intended to halt the progress of dairy subsidy reform. In 
     order to prevent this consumer rip-off and preserve the 
     prospect of modest gains towards a competitive dairy market, 
     the 300,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU) urges you 
     to vote ``NO'' on this cloture motion.
       The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) final rule on 
     Milk Marketing Order reform was, at best, an imperfect 
     solution. In an ideal legislative and regulatory climate, the 
     cumbersome 893-page document would be jettisoned in favor of 
     a comprehensible blueprint that simply substitutes a free 
     market for the current cartel. In the absence of this 
     approach, taxpayers' interests can best be served by ongoing 
     Congressional oversight of the results of USDA's plan, rather 
     than legislative micro-mandates that only further cloud a 
     murky reform.
       Price-setting mechanisms such as the Northeast Dairy 
     Compact can not only cost consumers millions due to 
     overinflated prices, they can also raise omnious Interstate 
     Commerce issues. Rather than promoting trade and preventing 
     abusive tariffs among states--the clear intent of the 
     Constitution's Commerce Clause--the Dairy Compact concept 
     acts as a cartel system that only a Robber Baron could 
     admire.
       The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act held the promise of finally 
     phasing out the dairy price support system as well as 
     sunsetting the Northeast Dairy Compact. The bill passed 
     Congress by strong bipartisan margins. Today, some Members 
     believe that this timetable for reform should be discarded 
     entirely or that new compacts should be authorized. Either 
     action would signal a move in the wrong direction. NTU, along 
     with many Members, would actually support a more aggressive 
     timetable towards wholesale elimination of dairy subsidies.
       The impact of tomorrow's amendment, which would withhold 
     USDA implementation of milk marketing order reform, may not 
     be entirely predictable. But its original intent is clear to 
     sabotage the bipartisan consensus in Congress toward a freer 
     milk market, and open the door for re-regulation in 
     conference. For this reason, NTU urges you to play it safe 
     for taxpayers, and vote ``NO'' on cloture on the Dairy 
     Amendment to Agriculture Appropriations.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Pete Sepp,
                                Vice President for Communications.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I, of course, join with my senior 
Senator and friend from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, in asking that we not 
take what is, frankly, an irrational step of using this mechanism that 
was forced because of the rule XVI change to pretend that somehow this 
will extend the dairy compact. It will not do that. It will just lead 
to a chaotic situation--that the Department of Agriculture cannot do 
their job of administering the milk marketing order system.
  I thank the Senate and the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. I yield Senator Grams up to 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the cloture motion 
on the

[[Page S10143]]

motion to recommit the appropriations bill to committee with 
instructions to include the Jeffords/Leahy amendment.
  First, I would like to express my displeasure with this attempt to 
dodge the clear purpose of Rule 16.
  I am at a loss to understand how we can reinstate Rule 16 one week 
then turn around and justify offering what is an extremely 
controversial policy change that is clearly non-germane on a major 
appropriations bill. Drafted to circumvent Rule 16 restrictions, Mr. 
Jeffords' proposed changes to the farm bill almost guarantee litigation 
and confusion in the milk marketing system due to the uncertainty over 
its effect. It is a controversial, non-germane issue that does not 
belong on an appropriations bill as a floor amendment.
  It is important that I remind some of my colleagues that this 
amendment does not extend authorization of the compact to your states. 
Also, this August 2nd letter from Charles Rawls, General Counsel for 
USDA, states that funds have already been spent to implement the milk 
marketing order reform and the reform could still operate without 
oversight from USDA. The order reform is administered by producer 
assessments so no other federal funds are required to implement it. 
Thus, though the Jeffords Amendment intends to maintain the status quo 
in milk marketing orders by not funding implementation, counsel for 
USDA states that the specific implementation date requirement contained 
in Public Law 105-277 remains unaltered. Any uncertainty in the effect 
of this amendment is between whether the reform can be implemented 
without USDA oversight or whether we will have no dairy marketing 
orders at all. Reinstating the current system similar to 1A is simply 
not an option here.
  Mr. President, as the letter from Mr. Rawls shows, it's not clear 
this amendment would save the Northeast Compact, and it certainly does 
not solve any problems for the other states seeking to form compacts. 
Not only does the amendment fail to extend compacts to other areas of 
the country outside the Northeast, it also does not implement Option 1-
A.
  Despite the fact that I do not believe Mr. Jeffords' amendment 
accomplishes its intended goal I also urge you to vote against cloture 
on the simple grounds of rejecting the concept of providing a benefit 
to producers in one area of the country which gives them a competitive 
advantage over dairy farmers in other regions of the United States.
  Dairy farmers are suffering all over the country. Why support this 
compact legislation that helps mainly one area of the country at the 
expense of others? Why support an effort that would send the signal 
that we can consider endless controversial non-germane issues on 
appropriations bills in the future? Why risk passage of needed relief 
to America's farmers?
  Besides addressing the narrow issue of the pending amendment, I would 
like to remind you why compacts that penalize consumers, particularly 
low-income consumers, milk processors, and regional dairy producers are 
so dangerous, and urge my colleagues to reject this blatantly unfair 
barrier that penalizes some of the best and most efficient dairy 
farmers in America.

  First, I would like to explain what dairy compacts are. The Northeast 
Dairy Compact raises the price of Class I fluid milk above the 
prevailing federal milk marketing order price within the participating 
states, and, I might add, above what the market would pay. Milk 
processors have to pay the higher price for the raw milk they process, 
and this higher price is passed along to the consumer at the grocery 
store. With higher prices, consumption goes down, and children are the 
biggest losers. I don't argue against a fair price--or honest price for 
any dairy farmer in Minnesota or Vermont, but I cannot support price 
fixing that distorts the free market.
  The Northeast Compact was authorized in 1996 during consideration of 
the larger Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act. This 
controversial issue was inserted in the conference committee, avoiding 
a separate vote, after the measure had been overwhelmingly defeated on 
the floor. While most of the FAIR Act was designed to help farmers 
compete in world markets and reduce government involvement in 
agriculture, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact established a 
regional price-fixing cartel within our very own country that promotes 
higher production which depresses prices outside the compact. The 
Northeast Dairy Compact has harmed dairy farmers in Minnesota, and this 
kind of unfair subsidy should be terminated.
  When this issue came to the fore, compacts were roundly condemned in 
the major newspapers of the compact region. The New York Times, Boston 
Herald, the Connecticut Post, and the Hartford Courant all weighed in 
against the cartel, in addition to national publications such as USA 
Today and the Washington Post.
  Again, compacts were hardly consensus legislation to begin with. The 
House refused to put the provision in its broader farm bill. And I must 
reiterate, the Senate voted on the floor to strip the Compact language 
from its bill. Despite these defeats, the compact provision was slipped 
into the bill in conference and signed by the President. The compact 
legislation could not withstand the scrutiny of a fair debate on the 
floor, and had to be muscled in at the last minute in conference.
  Knowing that this scheme was a bad idea from the start, Congress 
limited the life of the compact. That's why proponents will seek an 
extension by amendment today.
  Retail prices of milk jumped immediately after the higher Compact 
price was implemented. As predicted, the milk produced in New England 
increased by four times the national rate of increase in a six-month 
period following compact implementation. The surplus milk was converted 
into milk powder, leading to a 60% increase in milk powder production.
  Soon after implementation, the Northeast Compact had to begin 
reimbursing school food service programs for the increases in cost 
caused by the milk price hikes; an admission that prices have gone up 
and consumers are being affected. However, low-income families that 
need milk in their diet are not being reimbursed by the Compact for 
their increased costs. Milk is a food staple, and are we going to vote 
today to extend this milk tax that hits low-income citizens hardest who 
spend a high percentage of their income on food? What's next, a special 
tax on bread, eggs, ground beef, or potatoes? Consider the low-income 
families with small children and the elderly on fixed incomes in your 
state and ask if this is the population you want bearing the brunt of 
this regressive milk tax.

  I cannot stress to my colleagues enough that you simply cannot 
contain the market distortions and economic hardship that these compact 
schemes cause. Proponents present an idyllic picture of the compacts as 
only a few cents hike in the price of milk to preserve the small, rural 
dairy farmer. This is simply not true. Dairy compacts are an economic 
zero-sum game in which there are many losers--most importantly the 
consumer (especially the low-income consumer) and dairy farmers in non-
compact regions. The real winners in this zero-sum game are large dairy 
producers in the Northeast that receive literally tens of thousands of 
dollars in subsidies for their already profitable businesses, not the 
small dairy farmer who supporters said was the focus of this idea. The 
average six month subsidy for large Northeast dairy farms is projected 
to be $78,400. Dairy farmers in Minnesota would relish that income over 
the whole year, but Minnesota farmers wisely reject this effort to 
distort the system and harm their fellow farmers in other states.
  It also is erroneous to characterize this issue as small family farms 
in one region falling victim to large, corporate-style farming 
conglomerates in another. There are no, if you will, ``Wal-Marts'' of 
dairy farming in Minnesota. In our state, we have families that farm as 
a way of life, know that they must stay efficient to remain 
competitive, and want desperately to compete on a level playing field. 
Minnesota has thousands of family farms--passed from generation to 
generation --that are struggling to stay afloat in a rigged market that 
unfairly favors producers in a different part of the country. And many 
have failed. Compacts are not a policy that saves family farms.
  As Wayne Bok, President of the Minnesota-based co-op Associated Milk

[[Page S10144]]

Producers has put it, consider what would happen if the Northern states 
decided they wanted to produce oranges, and formed a compact to do so. 
Oranges sold in the North would receive a higher price than oranges 
sold in other regions. As a result, production of oranges would 
increase in the North. Prices in the South would drop until production 
decreased to compensate for the increase in Northern production. 
Moreover, Northern farmers would begin to convert from, say, corn and 
dairy farming, to the now more profitable farming of oranges.
  Would this be good for the country's most efficient orange growers in 
Florida and California? Absolutely not.
  Would this be good for consumers?
  Absolutely not.
  This outrageous scenario demonstrates the ridiculousness of current 
dairy policy. Let each farm region of the country do what it does best 
and don't erect artificial barriers that keep the products of the most 
efficient producers out of the hands of the consumers.
  In 1996 Congress and the President committed to a new farm policy, 
moving our country away from artificial price and supply controls, and 
freeing farmers to compete on the world market. American farmers are 
the most skilled and efficient in the world, and they deserve the 
opportunity to compete and expand their markets. At the same time that 
we are calling upon our global trading partners to bring down their 
trade barriers for the benefit of both consumers and producers, we 
attempt to continue or construct new barriers between regions in our 
own country that discourage the free flow of commerce and create 
significant market distortions and price increases. Its hypocritical 
for us to demand free trade at a global level but enact trade barriers 
within our own country.

  I urge my colleagues today to commit to fairness in dairy policy. 
Please be fair to consumers and dairy producers--vote against this or 
any other compact amendment.
  I must also address the other intended effect of the dairy amendment, 
the proposal to zero out funding for implementation of the final rule 
presumably to maintain the status quo in federal milk marketing orders 
and to extend the Northeast Dairy Compact. I believe that Mr. Jeffords' 
amendment fails to accomplish this intent.
  The current milk marketing system requires processors to pay higher 
minimum prices for fluid milk the further the region is located from 
Eau Claire, Wisconsin. To reform this antiquated, Depression-era method 
for supplying milk to consumers, which basically picks winners and 
losers in the dairy industry, Congress, through the 1996 FAIR Act, 
required USDA to significantly reduce the number of milk marketing 
orders (regions) in the country and transition to a more market-
oriented system of milk distribution. After many months of study and 
having received comments from hundreds of market participants, USDA 
proposed Options 1-A and 1-B. The Option 1-A proposal made minimal 
changes to the old marketing order pricing system, while Option 1-B 
contained some basic free market reforms and modernizations of the 
system. The Midwest did not like what we saw in 1B, actually, and like 
the compromise even less, but it was a small step in the right 
direction.
  The compromise came after the USDA received testimony concerning the 
two alternatives, and its final rule again takes steps toward 
simplifying and modernizing the milk marketing order system. The new 
compromise orders will be effective October 1, 1999. I hoped for a 
proposal closer to 1-B, but accepted the need for compromise and have 
supported it.
  Option 1-A is basically no reform, and would ignore the direction of 
Congress in the FAIR Act. It would increase prices for consumers by $74 
million per year, affecting most the low-income consumer that spends a 
high percentage of their wages on food. Option 1-A also keeps in place 
a regionally discriminatory milk pricing system that benefits producers 
in some parts of the country at the expense of dairy farmers in other 
regions, much like compacts. Again, it's a government program that 
picks winners and losers, not allowing the market to set the prices. It 
is opposed by free market taxpayer advocacy groups, consumer groups, 
regional producer groups, and processor groups, and it does nothing to 
protect the nation's supply of fresh fluid milk; our nation produces an 
abundance of milk that is sufficient to supply consumers' needs.

  Secretary Glickman, writing about the final rule, said that:

       USDA's own analysis shows that nationally, dairy farmers 
     will realize virtually the same cash receipts under the new, 
     fairer plan as they do now, and when aggregated, the all-milk 
     price will remain essentially unchanged from that under the 
     existing program, which virtually all sides agree sorely 
     needs changing[.]

  Moreover, Chairman Lugar said that the final compromise rule ``is a 
good first step toward a policy that places the nation's dairy industry 
in a position to better meet the challenges of the global markets of 
the new century[.]''
  Again, the final rule is a compromise, not the best for either 1A or 
1B advocates but a middle ground. We should not rush to reverse a 
process that took months to complete in order to keep the status quo.
  What we have here is a double whammy. Compacts are bad enough, but 
retaining the failed dairy policies of the past is just 
incomprehensible.
  Finally, what we need to ask ourselves even more is why are we 
considering these controversial issues on this appropriations bill. The 
Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over compacts and Agriculture over 
milk marketing orders. Please respect these committees' opposition to 
these amendments which circumvent their jurisdiction, respect the 
reimplementation of Rule 16, and vote against this attempt to legislate 
through the appropriations process. And most of all, reject an 
amendment that doesn't even accomplish its intended purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to the 
proposed amendment that would effectively extend the Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact and open the door to the creation of 
additional interstate dairy compacts. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the cloture motion. These interstate compacts would allow 
states to form alliances that would create economic barriers and foster 
economic warfare between the states. First, I want to commend my 
colleagues for their efforts on behalf of their states. In particular, 
Senator Jeffords has been a forceful advocate for dairy compacts. But 
although I share the concerns of my colleagues for the future of all 
American farmers, we cannot authorize interstate compacts that would 
encourage activities which are contrary to the constitutional principle 
of establishing and maintaining a national free market for the products 
of all citizens.
  To date, only one dairy compact, the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact, has been authorized by Congress. It initially passed as an 
amendment in conference to the 1996 farm bill, after the Senate had 
stripped the compact language out of the bill on the Senate floor. The 
compact authorization was for 2 years only, but was extended last year, 
until October 1, 1999, by an amendment to appropriations legislation. 
Since the creation of this compact, a number of state legislatures have 
authorized the creation of new interstate dairy compacts. And today, 
once again, an amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill has 
been introduced that would extend the life of the Northeast Interstate 
Dairy Compact and possibly lead in conference to the authorization of a 
Southern Compact.
  The Framers of the Constitution intended the compact clause to help 
preserve national unity by prohibiting States from entering into 
interstate compacts without congressional approval. See Virginia v. 
Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893). Like the commerce clause, the compact 
clause prevents States from joining forces to the detriment of the 
national interest. It is true that the overwhelming majority of 
compacts serve benign purposes that are not intended to insulate States 
from competition or to harm the national economy, or otherwise 
adversely affect the national interest. Indeed, Congress has approved 
hundreds of interstate compacts. These compacts have facilitated 
nationally beneficial projects such as the development of

[[Page S10145]]

highway, railroad, and subway transportation, the construction of 
bridges, the allocation of water-control rights, the establishment of 
boundary lines, and protection against forest fires. These are 
precisely the type of agreements the compact clause was intended to 
facilitate.
  The proposed dairy compacts, however, would frustrate, rather than 
facilitate, free trade among the States. In essence, dairy compacts 
prohibit interstate competition by preventing non-compact dairy farmers 
from freely setting the price for their dairy goods sold in compact 
states. These compacts represent economic protectionism, pure and 
simple. Indeed, this is an attempt by a group of states to dictate to 
the rest of the country's dairy farmers the terms under which they can 
sell their goods into compact regions. It is unimaginable that the 
Senate would vote to embrace a form of economic protectionism that 
flies in the face of the Constitutional principle of a free market 
society.

  As the Supreme Court stated in H.P. Hood v. DuMond, 336 U.S. 525, 529 
(1949):

       . . . our system, fostered by the Commerce Clause, is that 
     every farmer and every craftsman shall be encouraged to 
     produce by the certainty that he will have free access to 
     every market in the Nation, that no home embargoes will 
     withhold his exports, and no foreign state will by customs 
     duties or regulations exclude them. Likewise, every consumer 
     may look to the free competition from every producing area in 
     the Nation to protect him from exploitation by any. Such was 
     the vision of the Founders . . .

  If we continue to approve dairy compacts, that vision will be 
forsaken. And, if we continue down this road, I ask my colleagues: 
``what's next?'' Will we be asked to protect the poultry industry? Why 
not protect regional software or Internet companies? If the logic 
behind these dairy compacts is that states or regions should be allowed 
to collude to raise artificially the price of dairy products to protect 
farmers and producers at the expense of the consumer, then why not give 
certain states or regions the right to collude to raise artificially 
the prices of other goods and services? Because AOL employs so many 
people in Maryland and Virginia, shouldn't those two states be 
permitted to agree to prevent any company from offering Internet access 
to consumers in Maryland or Virginia at a price below that offered by 
AOL? The minimum price could be justified by stating its purpose is to 
protect the jobs created by AOL in these states. Certainly, the 
argument would go, the purpose is not to eliminate competition--that is 
just an unfortunate circumstance of protecting an industry that 
contributes significantly to the states' economies.
  This hypothetical may sound farfetched, but it is not. The logic is 
the same: ``We need to protect our state's industries regardless of the 
effects on competition or consumers.'' No, my colleagues, we simply 
cannot start down the road of protecting one region's industries 
against others, regardless of how significant an industry may be to one 
state's interests. We cannot elevate one region's concerns over the 
nation's interest in ensuring a stable, free market that thrives on 
competition.
  A vote against these compacts is not a vote against dairy farmers. 
All of the Senators who are opposed to these compacts, myself included, 
sympathize with the plight of so many of America's farmers who are 
struggling to stay in business, but we cannot solve this problem by 
pitting one industry against consumers, or one region against the 
nation. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I cannot support dairy 
compacts that allow states to collude to thwart competition, the 
results of which ultimately harm America's consumers. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the dairy compact amendment which would 
allow less efficient producers in one region of the country to exclude 
lower priced dairy goods from other regions in an effort to protect 
their farmers and producers at the expense of consumers. This is not 
the type of agreements the founders envisioned interstate compacts 
would facilitate--indeed, it is exactly the type they feared.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise with Senators Specter and 
Schumer in support of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. This 
issue is one of critical importance to the dairy farmers of New Jersey. 
It is rare that I come before this body to talk about issues affecting 
our Nation's farmers, however this is an issue of extreme importance to 
my state and family farms nationwide.
  Today New Jersey has less than 200 family dairy farms. These farms 
have been in families for centuries, and have been handed down from 
generation to generation. I've met with New Jersey's family farmers, 
from Sussex and Warren and Hunderdon Counties, and heard their 
concerns. I know how important they are to my State. Dairy farming is 
not an easy or lavish life. They milk 7 days a week, 365 days a year, 
starting out long before dawn, before most of us are out and about.
  These courageous farmers want to keep their farms, and pass them down 
to their children. However, without our help, they will not be able to 
realize this dream. The family farm is the backbone of agriculture in 
New Jersey; however, today, it is on the verge of extinction. In fact, 
New Jersey has lost 42 percent of its dairy farms in the past decade.
  Erratic fluctuations in the prices dairy farmers receive for their 
raw milk is causing such losses that these farmers are forced out of 
business. These farms produce over 289 million pounds of milk each 
year, but as prices decline and costs continue to increase, farmers 
need help to stabilize milk prices for survival. Without a mechanism to 
ensure stable prices for milk, New Jersey's family dairy farms will be 
forced out of business.
  However, this problem is not unique to my State. Family farms all 
across the country are hurting. Our Nation's dairy farmers recently 
experienced a 37 percent drop in the price they receive for their milk. 
This presents a dilemma for family farms, which must still pay the same 
amount to feed their cows, hire help, and pay utility costs. This 
enormous strain will no doubt force some dairy farmers out of business.
  We must protect America's family farms, and ensure the future 
vitality of America's dairy industry by re-authorizing and expanding 
the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. I am hopeful that my colleagues 
will consider the farmers of my state when this issue is debated in 
conference.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Jeffords 
amendment to delay implementation of the final pricing rule on Federal 
milk market order reform. The intent of this amendment is to delay the 
expiration of the Northeast Dairy Compact. I am proud to be a strong 
supporter of the Compact, which is a proven success that is critical to 
the survival of dairy farmers in Maine and throughout New England.
  First approved by Congress in the 1996 farm bill, the New England 
Dairy Compact already has a proven track record of quantifiable 
benefits to both consumers and farmers. The Compact works simply by 
evening out the peaks and valleys in fluid milk prices, providing 
stability to the cost of milk and ensuring a supply a fresh, wholesome, 
local milk.
  This past year, the Compact has proven its worth to both dairy 
farmers and consumers. As prices climbed and farmers were receiving a 
sustainable price for milk, the Compact turned off, allowing the market 
to function through principles of supply and demand. But when prices 
dropped sharply, the Compact was triggered to soften and slow the blow 
to farmers of an abrupt and dramatic drop in the volatile, often 
unpredictable milk market.
  Consumers also benefit from the Compact. Not only does the Compact 
stabilize prices, thus avoiding dramatic fluctuation in the retail cost 
of milk, it also guarantees that the consumer is assured the 
availability of a supply of fresh, local milk. We've known for a long 
time that dairy products are an important part of a healthy diet, but 
recent studies are proving that dairy products provide a host of 
previously unknown nutritional benefits. Just as we are learning of the 
tremendous health benefits of dairy foods, however, milk consumption, 
especially among young people, is dropping. It is a crucial, common-
sense, first step to reverse this trend, for milk to be available and 
consistently affordable for young families.
  Finally, the Compact, while providing clear benefits to dairy 
producers and consumers in the Northeast, has proven it does not harm 
farmers or taxpayers from outside the region. A 1998

[[Page S10146]]

report by the Office of Management and Budget showed that, during the 
first 6-months of the Compact, it did not adversely affect farmers from 
outside the Compact region and added no costs to Federal nutrition 
programs.
  Mr. President, many of Maine's dairy farmers tell me that the Compact 
is critical to their long-term survival and ability to continue to 
maintain a way of life vital to rural communities. On behalf of these 
farmers and consumers throughout New England and the country, I urge my 
colleagues to support the Jeffords amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of extending the Federal 
Milk Marketing Order system for one year, and in support of the 
preservation of small family dairy farms throughout Maine and all of 
New England.
  As you are aware, Mr. President, the Farm Bill of 1996 authorized the 
USDA Secretary to fundamentally revisit the federal Milk Marketing 
Orders, which is a regulation voluntarily initiated and approved by a 
majority of producers in a given area. The regulation places 
requirements on the first buyers or handlers of milk from dairy 
farmers, such as processors who distribute fluid milk products in a 
designated marketing area. One of those requirements is that handlers 
must pay an assigned minimum price according to the use of the milk. 
Also, a milk order requires that all payments by handlers be pooled and 
the same average price is paid to individual dairy farmers.
  On January 30, 1998, the USDA proposed two options to reform 
differentials, including Option 1-A that closely reflects the current 
program, which is a market-oriented option for fluid milk prices, and 
Option 1-B that would be accompanied by transition assistance for dairy 
farmers. I immediately heard from Maine dairy farmers, who asked for my 
support for the Option 1-A differential because it is the fairest and 
most equitable pricing option for them as it stabilizes prices for 
dairy farmers and ensures that consumers do not pay higher milk prices 
in the supermarket.
  My response was to join 60 other Senators on April 29, 1998 and send 
a letter to USDA Secretary Glickman in support of Option 1-A, saying 
that the other option, Option 1-B, would further reduce the price of 
milk received by farmers in almost all regions of the country, thereby 
reducing local supplies of fresh, fluid milk and increasing costs for 
consumers.
  My actions the previous year, 1997, were the same as I joined 47 
other senators, in writing to Secretary Glickman stating that Option 1-
A was the most viable and economically sound approach to the future 
pricing of fluid milk.
  When the USDA announced its final rule on March 31, 1999, it selected 
a form of Option 1-B that will reduce monies to dairy farmers in New 
England by at least 2 percent. The final rule will become law in 
October unless there is Congressional action to stop the final rule. I 
believe the Congressional action to extend the Milk Marketing Order 
system until October 1, 2000--which also extends the Northeast Dairy 
Compact until that time--is required so that there is an appropriate 
time period to assess such a major and potentially devastating change 
to the pricing formula for producers throughout my region, and other 
regions as well.
  I am currently a cosponsor of S. 1256, Senator Coverdell's bill that 
will implement Option 1-A for Class I fluid milk as part of the 
implementation of the final rule to consolidate the federal Milk 
Marketing Orders.
  Mr. President, since the Northeast Compact was put in place in 1996, 
there has been no groundswell of opposition from the consumers of New 
England, but they have actually preferred to protect a cultural way of 
life for the region. In addition, for this August, the Maine dairy 
producers will be receiving an extra $2.28 per hundred weight for their 
milk because the Compact is currently in place--and this is still not 
bringing in enough money to the dairy farmers to meet their cost of 
production. No one is getting rich off of the Compact, Mr. President, 
but they will get poorer or go out of business after this October if 
the Compact is allowed to expire.
  The Compact has only helped stabilize the dairy industry in the 
Northeast and protected farmers and consumers against volatile price 
swings. The Compact has protected against the loss of small family 
owned dairy farms and protected against a decrease in the fresh local 
supply of milk at a fair price for consumers.
  Mr. President, Maine had over 2,000 dairy farms in the 1980s. We now 
have less than 500. The Compact has helped stem the tide of the loss of 
small family owned dairy farms--and a way of life. We have been talking 
on the floor for two days now about how natural disasters are affecting 
the family farmer. I urge you not to create a manmade disaster by 
allowing the Northeast Compact to expire. I urge my colleagues to 
support the extension of the federal Milk Marketing Orders--which will 
also extend the Northeast Dairy Compact--and I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield me 1 minute?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and his colleague 
discussed the National Farmers Union. I hope everybody reads the letter 
dated June 18, 1999, because it says:

       . . . we support legislation to establish dairy compacts 
     and amend the federal order system if those provisions are 
     coupled with the legislation to establish the dairy support 
     price of $12.50 per hundredweight.

  Even though my distinguished colleagues from Wisconsin quote from the 
National Farmers Union as somebody we should be listening to, my 
colleagues specifically oppose what the National Farmers Union says 
they want. I would vote for that NFU proposal in a minisecond; I had 
hoped that since the NFU proposal benefits all dairy farmers that we 
could have worked together on this. But the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin opposes it.
  There are a lot of quotes going around here. The National Grange 
strongly supports the Northeast Dairy Compact. They represent 300,000 
members nationwide, and they say that ``regional dairy compacts offer 
the best opportunity to preserve family dairy farms.''
  If we are going to quote some of these organizations, let us be 
honest in what they say. They support the dairy compacts. These farm 
organizations strongly support it. A few processors and the Senators 
from Wisconsin do not.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New 
York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding.
  I rise today to express my strong support for the dairy compact and 
urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on the dairy amendment offered 
by Senators Leahy and Jeffords. I believe the dairy compact will not 
only help stem the tide of farm closures but will help New York 
consumers by halting the trend of consolidation within the dairy 
industry into a few large farms that control most of the market. This 
proposal gives two hopes for New Yorkers: 1-A, which is far better for 
us than 1-B; and second, if the dairy compact is kept alive, we hope to 
be added. We realize that because of technical rules, we couldn't do it 
here, but we are hopeful that will go forward.
  In conclusion, I am well aware of the strong objections of my 
colleagues from Wisconsin and Minnesota. But for upstate New York, one 
of the few areas of the country losing population and not sharing in 
the Nation's current prosperity, the dairy compact is a matter of 
economic survival. I sincerely hope that we can find some common 
ground----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. That will allow the dairy industry to prosper in both 
regions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KOHL. Before I yield to the Senator from Minnesota, I will quote 
from the National Farmers Union letter:

       . . . with the passage of the Jeffords amendment, dairy 
     farmers across the nation could be left without any federal 
     marketing order that could risk destroying the remnants of 
     the dairy safety net.


[[Page S10147]]


  The National Farmers Union is not supportive of the Jeffords 
amendment. It is categorically clear. I yield up to 3 minutes to 
Senator Wellstone.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, to add to what my colleague said from 
the same letter:

       We have deep concerns about pitting region versus region in 
     agricultural policy, especially dairy policy. We strongly 
     encourage a policy that will benefit all dairy producers 
     nationally.

  I don't have time to engage in a long discussion by way of policy. 
There is just no time for doing that. Let me make an appeal to my 
colleagues. In Minnesota, we have 8,700 dairy farmers. We rank fifth in 
the Nation's milk production. It is $1.2 billion for our farmers. We 
are losing three family farmers a day.
  What the Secretary of Agriculture is now trying to do is change the 
milk marketing order system, in the words of the Farmers Union, that 
will benefit dairy producers nationally, to try to bring about some 
fairness. Now what we have is an effort on the part of some of my 
colleagues to basically block the Secretary of Agriculture from 
implementing this reform.
  I say to every single colleague, Democrat and Republican alike, I 
don't have time to argue all of the policy implications, but I make an 
appeal as a Senator from Minnesota to not vote for cloture. I make an 
appeal as a Senator from Minnesota to support the kinds of changes that 
the Secretary of Agriculture is trying to make that will bring about 
some fairness and won't pit region against region and will give dairy 
farmers in our country, family farmers, a chance to make it.
  This is an incredibly important question for my State of Minnesota. 
Other Senators would argue the same way if it were their State. I hope 
they will vote against cloture, and I appeal to them to do so.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, how much time is remaining, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes remain for the opponents; 2 
minutes 49 seconds for the proponents. The Senator has 8 minutes.
  To correct that, the Senator from Wisconsin has 2 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. KOHL. And the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The other side has 8 minutes.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is my 20th year dealing with dairy 
programs, and I understand the confusion that results in Members' minds 
who have not been in this body or had the exposure of sitting on the 
Agriculture Committee. Let me try to correct, as best I can, some of 
the statements that have been made.
  First of all, this amendment conforms with the dictates of rule XVI. 
We cleared that with the Parliamentarian. Also, the amendment is 
legally sound and the intent is clear. The letter from USDA was 
expected, as will be further lawsuits. What they state in the last part 
of the letter is: Rescinding the order presents novel questions which 
will require further analysis.
  Let me correct the situation about who makes the money in this 
country with respect to the dairy farmers. For each period of time the 
USDA reports what the mailbox price is to the dairy farmer. They go 
region by region. The charts that we have seen show that, for instance, 
New England, in 1998, received $14.89 per hundredweight, 10 cents below 
the national average. More importantly, the Midwestern farmer received 
$15.27 per hundredweight average, 28 cents above the national average. 
So who is making money right now? They are making money, not us.
  Incidentally, the American Farm Bureau supports the 1-A option, which 
is all this is about. This is a cloture vote. It is designed for us to 
have an opportunity to demonstrate the importance and the necessity to 
Vermont and New England and the whole country that we must change what 
now is in the offing. The dairy farmers, as this chart shows, will be 
devastated, as will be the rest of the country. The only exception is 
where? Minnesota and Wisconsin and surrounding areas. They are the ones 
that are going to make the money if we can't change this situation.
  Also, the compact has worked extremely well. California, for 
instance, is so big as a State they don't need a compact, but they are 
doing exactly what the six States in New England are doing. Theirs is 
working fine. And the New England compact is working fine.
  Incidentally, the opponents asked for a study. The study they wanted 
was from OMB, from whom they thought they would get a friendly study. 
They did a study of the compact. What did they find out? The compact 
worked fine. It worked well. It has helped save the farmers. The 
consumers had a 5-percent lower price than the rest of the country. 
Why? Because the States got together. They formed a compact. They take 
care of matters by having consumers on board and everybody sets the 
price. It is working beautifully. That is why almost half the States in 
the Nation decided to take a look and said, hey, this is a good idea. 
We ought to have compacts. We can protect our consumers. We can protect 
our farmers. Vermont has demonstrated to the country a way to help 
dairy farmers. We ought to have that opportunity. All we are talking 
about is a chance to do that, a chance to get everybody together for a 
lengthy, solid debate which is allowable when you get cloture.
  This issue is only cloture, so that we can discuss these things and 
remove all of the statements that have been made which are contrary to 
the facts.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I will talk a little bit about the numbers 
the Senator from Vermont was using. He said that somehow right now 
Minnesota and Wisconsin dairy farmers are making more money than the 
other farmers around the country. That is simply not true. By $2, $3, 
$4 per hundredweight, the rest of the country is getting more money 
today than what Minnesota and Wisconsin dairy farmers are allowed to 
receive for their milk.
  And that is why I say under this old, arcane program, if we were 
going to go start a new dairy program today, it would never look 
anything like this. But when they say we are getting more money, that 
is not true. They are way up in prices, $17, $18, $19 a hundredweight 
for milk, and we are at $10, $11, $12, $13. If ours comes up 20 cents a 
hundredweight under this arrangement and theirs stays about the same, 
we are not even close to them yet.
  So this is a very small move in the right direction for reforms. But 
it by no means is putting Minnesota or Wisconsin ahead of anybody in 
the country. I still think it is unfair for all the other States under 
this old program to stand and discriminate against dairy farmers in 
Minnesota and Wisconsin. We want fairness in this program--nothing 
more, nothing less.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes remain.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, Mr. 
Leahy.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, to reiterate, we have to wonder what is 
going on. I know the upper Midwest massively overproduces milk. We are 
simply asking to produce the milk we are going to consume in our area. 
They massively overproduce it. As the Minneapolis Star Tribune 
explained, Minnesota farmers want to sell ``reconstituted milk in 
Southern markets.'' They talk about drawing water out and shipping down 
some ``glop.'' I will let the reporter of debates figure out how to 
spell that. I don't know how. It sort of looks like it sounds.
  All we want is fresh milk in our region. We are not trying to take 
over any other part of the country. We have something that we have 
proved works. It doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. It helps 
stabilize farm income. Consumers have a voice in it and like it in the 
area. All we are saying is let us make some determination in our own 
part of the world. We are talking about billions and billions of 
dollars in farm aid in this bill. The amendment that Senator Jeffords, 
Senator Lott, and I, and others support says we don't want any Federal 
money; we want to set things the way we are now doing it, protecting 
our consumers and our farmers.
  Mr. President, I know the Upper Midwest massively overproduces milk--

[[Page S10148]]

they overproduce far more than they can consume--and thus want to sell 
this milk in the South.
  I have read the press reports about how they want to dehydrate milk--
take the water out of milk--and then hydrate it by adding water in 
distant states. The Minneapolis Star Tribune explained that Minnesota 
farmers want to sell ``reconstituted milk in Southern markets.''
  The article from February 12, 1992, points out that ``technology 
exists for them to draw water from the milk in order to save shipping 
costs, then reconstitute it.''
  Regular milk needs refrigeration and weighs a lot and is thus 
expensive to ship. Also, only empty tanker trucks can come back since 
nothing else can be loaded into the milk containers.
  But dehydrated milk can be shipped in boxes.
  By taking the water out of milk, the Upper Midwest can supply the 
South with milk.
  I realize that according to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article in 1990 
that Wisconsin farmers defended the taste of reconstituted milk. The 
article points out that Dan Hademan, of Wisconsin, ``says fluid milk 
should be treated the same nationwide, whether it is fresh whole milk 
or reconstituted milk.''
  That article notes ``Upper Midwest farmers say technological advances 
in making powdered milk and other concentrates has improved the taste 
and texture of reconstituted milk.''
  However, the House National Security Committee had a hearing on this 
reconstituted milk issue in 1997. I will quote from the hearing 
transcript:

       . . . the Air Force on Okinawa decided that the 
     reconstituted milk was not suitable for the military and as a 
     quality of life decision they closed the milk plant and opted 
     to have fluid milk transported in from the United States.

  There was a great article in the Christian Science Monitor a few 
years ago that talks about the school lunch program. It mentions the 
first time that the author, as a first-grader, was given reconstituted 
milk.
  He said: ``Now, I like milk. . . . But not this stuff. Not watery, 
gray, hot, reconstituted milk that tasted more like rusty pump than 
anything remotely connected with a cow. We wept. We gagged. We 
choked.''
  The second problem with the strategy of Wisconsin and Minnesota 
farmers selling their milk down South is what about ice storms or snow? 
What happens when flooding or tornado damage or other problems stop 
these trucks laden with milk?
  Southern parents might not be able to buy milk at any price any time 
an ice storm hits the Upper Midwest if the South does not have fresh, 
local, supplies of fresh milk. Just remember the panic that affects 
Washington, D.C., when residents think we might get what is called in 
Vermont a ``dusting of snow.''
  Most Americans do not remember why Friday, March 5, 1999, is 
significant. But most dairy farmers will remember that date as long as 
they live.
  On that date, the Department of Agriculture announced the largest cut 
in milk prices ever--a month-to-month drop of $6.00 per hundredweight.
  This was the largest month-to-month drop in history--yet retail store 
milk prices remained high. Processors made huge windfall profits. And, 
while the milk prices received by farmers dropped by almost 40 percent 
the prices stores charged to consumers hardly dropped.
  Imagine a month-to-month drop in other commodity prices of almost 40 
percent. Imagine what that would do to your family farmers.
  The only region in the country that enjoyed some modest protection 
against this huge drop in farm prices was New England--because of the 
Northeast Dairy Compact.
  Half of the states have approved a similar system regarding dairy 
pricing. While a regional diary compact does not offer complete 
protection against huge and unexpected drops in the price of milk for 
farmers, it does provide a modest measure of relief.
  It is a safety net that prevents farmers from hitting rock bottom.


                 the compact increased interstate trade

  Contrary to the views of opponents of the compact, note that OMB 
reports that the Northeast Compact has increased interstate trade in 
fluid milk.
  This only makes sense. Dairy farmers fortunate enough to be living in 
states neighboring the Northeast compact region have increased milk 
sales into the compact area to gain the benefits of the higher compact 
price. OMB reported an 8 percent increase in trade--increased sales of 
milk into the compact region from New York and other neighboring states 
to take advantage of the higher prices.
  If other states could trade places with New York, I am certain that 
those farmers would quickly figure out that they should sell milk into 
the Compact region to take advantage of the modestly higher benefits of 
the compact.
  The Northeast Compact does not cost taxpayers a single cent. This is 
different from the costliness of many farm programs.
  If you support farmland protection programs, regional compacts are 
the answer. Major environmental groups have endorsed the Northeast 
Dairy Compact because they know it helps preserve farmland and prevent 
urban sprawl.
  And if you are concerned about the impact of prices on consumers, 
regional compacts are the answer. Retail milk prices within the compact 
region are lower on average than in the rest of the nation.
  The Northeast Compact has done exactly what it was established to do: 
stabilize fluctuating dairy prices, ensure a fair price for dairy 
farmers, keep them in business, and protect consumers' supplies of 
fresh milk.
  Many of our friends in the South have seen how the compact provides a 
modest but crucial safety net for struggling farmers. They, too, want 
the same for their farmers, and their farmers deserve that same 
opportunity.
  Congress should not stand in the way of these state initiatives that 
protect farmers and consumers without costing taxpayers a penny.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time remains on the opposition 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 45 seconds for the opposition, and 
2 minutes remain on the Senator's side. If neither side seeks 
recognition, time runs equally.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I think it is important to understand 
why we are here. First of all, this is a cloture vote. There are 
obvious disputes and they ought to be resolved. But complicated issues 
such as this can't be resolved in 40 minutes. We need to have a full 
debate on these issues. It is important to dairy farmers and all 
farmers. We must not end today by refusing to allow us to go forward, 
to take the Vermont/New England compact, a model that is being looked 
at by States all over the country because it works so well to protect 
its farmers and consumers. We should be able to debate that fully and 
not to run out of time by virtue of the rules.
  In addition to that, this chart shows it all. It shows who is going 
to win and lose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, before I close, I want to make it known that 
some other Senators, including Senators Lugar and Grassley, wanted to 
be down on the floor to speak in favor of this side, but they could not 
get here.
  I simply want to say to my colleagues, if we invoke cloture on this 
bill now, then we will kill the bill. But if we pass the Jeffords 
amendment, I believe we will kill the dairy industry.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? One minute remains on each 
side.
  Mr. KOHL. I yield to Senator Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


dairy compacts; anticonsumer, antifarmer, regionally divisive, contrary 
     to the heart of the constitution, ineffective and inefficient

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr President, I rise today to make a few remarks 
concerning dairy compacts.
  When most people think of dairy states they think of Wisconsin, 
Vermont, or Minnesota--not California, Texas, or Idaho. However, Idaho 
is now sixth in total milk production,

[[Page S10149]]

just ahead of Texas. Dairy cow numbers in Idaho are projected to grow 
from 292,000 in 1988 to 398,000 in 2008. While potatoes are still 
ranked first as the top agriculture commodity in Idaho, dairy products 
are a close second. I tell you this so you know that dairy policy is 
important to me and my state.
  Although I am speaking, in part, on behalf of the interests of Idaho 
dairy farmers, let me assure you that the national debate about dairy 
compacts is far more than just an old fashioned regional squabble 
between Northeast and Southern dairy interests, on the one hand, and 
the interests of the rest of the country's dairy farmers, on the other. 
This debate is all about whether the Senate will say ``enough is 
enough'' and put an end to an incredibly bad policy proposal.
  In my 19 years in Congress I cannot remember any major farm 
legislation that has been as overwhelmingly contrary to the interests 
of farmers, consumers, public health, the U.S. economy, and our 
Constitution as the amendment to extend and expand interstate dairy 
compacts. This is a lose, lose, lose situation if there ever was one. 
It's bad for the country and it's bad for the Senate, which it is 
needlessly dividing along regional lines.
  An expanded Northeast Compact and a new Southern Compact will combine 
to impose an enormous milk tax on consumers in compact states. If 
compact commissions raise prices to the limit allowed by the proposed 
amendment, the costs to Eastern, Mid-Atlantic and Southern consumers 
would be enormous. Based on USDA data and USDA's estimates of milk 
prices for the rest of this year and for next year, the costs could 
soar to as high as $2.6 billion a year.
  It only gets worse. Higher milk prices there will reduce milk 
consumption and increase milk production. Consumers will lose in two 
ways; they will have to pay more and they will drink less of a calcium-
rich product. That's not very good public policy at a time when the 
National Academy of Sciences is urging Americans to take steps to 
eliminate their dangerous calcium intake deficit. The scope of the 
consumption decline is suggested by a January 1999 study of the 
economic impacts of an expanded Northeast Dairy Compact and a new 
Southern Dairy Compact conducted by the University of Missouri's 
Commercial Agriculture Program. The study was endorsed by the federally 
funded Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, otherwise known 
as FAPRI. Findings of that study suggest that milk consumption could 
drop by more than 200 million gallons a year if compacts expand into 
the Mid-Atlantic and Southern states.
  The damage doesn't stop there. It reaches into every corner of the 
nation. Because dairy farmers in compact states will get paid more, 
they will produce much more milk. If you doubt that, just look back to 
what happened when Congress pushed milk prices to unprecedented levels 
in the 1980's. Increased production and lower consumption will mean 
that the nation, which already had record milk production last year, 
will be awash in milk.
  That impact is even worse for dairy farmers in states like Idaho, 
which are not covered by dairy compacts. First of all, their incomes 
will be drastically reduced because dairy compacts ultimately drive 
everyone else's milk prices down. As milk production increases and 
consumption drops in dairy compact states, the nation's milk surplus 
will grow and milk prices will fall. The University of Missouri study 
showed that dairy farms in states outside of dairy compact regions 
would lose $310 million in the first year alone. And that study was 
based on an unrealistically-low, minimum, dairy compact price hike. It 
also did not include all of the states covered by today's amendment. If 
all states are included and compact commissions boost prices as high as 
the proposed legislation would allow, the loss of income will be 
roughly four times as large as estimated by the Missouri study.
  In addition, the overproduction in dairy compact states will flood 
the market in compact states with dairy products made from surplus milk 
produced in compact states. That means sharply less market access for 
low-cost, efficient dairy farms in the Upper Midwest, Plains, and 
Mountain regions. Just like all protectionist schemes, dairy compacts 
penalize efficiency and reward inefficiency.
  If this seems hard to believe as we head into the 21st century, just 
remember this: by definition, dairy compacts prevent cheaper milk, 
produced by more-efficient farmers in noncompact states, from entering 
into compact states at less than the compact price. Dairy compact 
proponents argue that dairy compacts do not impose interstate trade 
barriers because they allow other states to sell milk into compact 
regions at the compact price.
  Technically that's true. In practice, it's completely misleading. The 
problem with the argument is that the increased production caused by 
higher prices in compact states will virtually eliminate the local 
demand for milk from efficient producers outside of compact states. 
While the market remains open in theory, compact states will be saying 
to Idaho and other noncompact farmers, ``sorry, but we don't need your 
milk anymore.'' Let's face it, dairy compacts are nothing more than a 
mean spirited attack on other states, skillfully disguised as a cure 
for small dairy farmers.
  If the regional inequities and schisms created by interstate dairy 
compacts are not reason enough for my fellow senators to reject this 
amendment, then I hope you will vote against it simply because it 
violates the basic premises of our Constitution. The establishment of 
regional trade barriers through interstate dairy compacts would 
undermine the interstate competition that fostered the birth of the 
nation and that has been so critical for the sanctity of our 
Constitution. No amount of repeating the unsupportable claim that 
interstate dairy compacts are a manifestation of states' rights will 
make it so. The Founding Fathers would surely cringe if they were 
subjected to that argument in defense of dairy compacts. They knew that 
the nation would not last if they permitted some regions to be walled 
off at the expense of others. That's why they rejected an Articles of 
Confederation and chose a Constitution anchored by the Interstate 
Commerce Clause. That's also why three Constitutional scholars who 
appeared at a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing last week testified 
against interstate dairy compacts.
  If dairy compacts pit region against region in the Senate, damage 
dairy farmers in noncompact states, cause great harm to consumers, and 
undermine the Constitution, then why are we even having this debate? It 
should be an open and shut case. Perhaps it has to with the desire of 
some of my colleagues to do something for the small family dairy 
farmers in their states. That may be an important objective. However, 
make no mistake about it. Dairy compacts are a terribly inefficient and 
ineffective way of achieving that goal. If you want to help small dairy 
farms, this is the worst way to do it.
  The chart on my right (left) makes this abundantly clear. Here are 14 
of the 28 states that the proposed amendment would allow to join the 
Northeast and Southern Dairy Compacts. The chart shows that small 
farms--those with less than 50 cows--on average, would receive only 
between $1,100 to $5,200 a year from dairy compacts. This is hardly 
surprising since each farmer receives the same price increase for every 
gallon of milk they produce. Thus, the large farms receive huge 
subsidies, while the small farms receive only a drop in the bucket. The 
bottom line is that a few thousand dollars in extra income is not 
sufficient to ensure long-term economic viability for these small 
farms.
  The Commissioner of Agriculture in Massachusetts, who is a member of 
the Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, seems to agree. Last October, 
he put before the Commission a formal proposal that would have 
redistributed the Compact's revenues away from big farms and to the 
small farms. The proposal, which was essentially dead on arrival, has 
never been adopted. Why? Because dairy compacts have nothing to do with 
saving small family farms.
  For the sake of argument, however, let's assume that the primary goal 
of dairy compacts is to increase the incomes of small family farms. 
That would make sense since the Census of Agriculture reveals that in 
New England, Mid-Atlantic states, and the South, 76%, 86% and 88% of 
the farms

[[Page S10150]]

that have left the dairy business since 1982 have had less than 50 
cows. Clearly, small dairy farmers are the most vulnerable ones. Let's 
also assume, for the sake of argument, as compact proponents insist, 
that dairy compacts keep small farms in business.
  Then we can answer the question: is this a good use of the public's 
money. If we look at the table to my right (left), we can see how 
amazingly inefficient dairy compacts are at transferring money to small 
dairy farms. The relevant question here is: how much do dairy compacts 
cost consumers for each small dairy farmers saved? The answers provided 
in the table are alarming. For the 14 New England, Mid-Atlantic and 
Southern states it takes anywhere between $90,000 and $632,000 a year 
in higher milk prices to provide a single small dairy farmer with a 
meager subsidy of only $1,000 and $5,200. At the extreme, for every one 
dollar of subsidy the compact gives to a single small dairy farmer, it 
costs the public roughly $632 in higher milk prices! $632 dollars spent 
to achieve a one dollar impact! That is truly a public policy 
embarrassment!
  Is this really how the Senate wants to force the public to spend 
their money? I certainly hope not! Dairy compacts give new meaning to 
the expressions ``bureaucratic ineptness'' and ``government 
inefficiency''. Remember the legendary stories about the Pentagon 
spending thousands of dollars for a toilet seat? When you take the time 
to look at the evidence, it becomes clear that dairy compacts make 
those expenditures look efficient by comparison. This is surely not the 
legacy that any members of this body will want to carry with them 
through their careers.
  In closing, this is no way to legislate dairy policy. We need to work 
on a national policy that is fair to all farmers and that makes us more 
competitive on the world market. Dairy compacts are anti-consumer, 
regionally divisive, anti-farmer, contrary to the heart of the 
Constitution, ineffective and hopelessly inefficient. I urge Senators 
to vote no on the Jeffords amendment.
  Mr. President, again, when we think of dairy, oftentimes we think of 
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Vermont. Let me tell you when we think that 
way, we are not thinking total because California, Texas, and Idaho are 
some of the leading dairy producers in the Nation. My State is sixth in 
the Nation right now and growing very rapidly into fifth place, and 
within a few years it could even be fourth place.
  What is being proposed today is not good for our Nation's dairy 
industry. It is regionalism at its worst. It is establishing economic 
barriers that don't allow the reasonable flow of commerce, and while it 
is early on argued as good for producers, let me suggest that in the 
end when you create these barriers it is wrong and bad for producers. 
When we struggle to create agriculture policy in this country, we 
struggle to create uniformity.
  In the dairy industry, uniformity is critically important for the 
growth and the overall strength of that industry, both for the 
producers and for the consumers.
  I hope we will oppose the cloture motion.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a chart on the 
effects of the compact on small dairy farms.
  There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                        DAIRY COMPACTS ARE THE WORST WAY TO TRY TO HELP SMALL DAIRY FARMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Annual
                                                                   consumer    No. farms    Annual      Annual
                                                                    cost of    with less    compact    consumer
                              State                                compacts     than 50     subsidy     cost to
                                                                      (in        cows      per small   save one
                                                                   millions)                 farm     small farm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL..............................................................         $20          52      $1,100    $385,000
CT..............................................................          14         100       3,800     140,000
FL..............................................................          43          68       2,500     632,000
GA..............................................................          35         176       3,900     199,000
LA..............................................................          16         143       4,000     112,000
MA..............................................................          27         157       4,300     172,000
MD..............................................................          25         256       1,200      97,000
MS..............................................................          12         115       5,000     104,000
NJ..............................................................          38          67       3,400     567,000
NC..............................................................          35         180       5,100     194,000
SC..............................................................          17          60       4,300     283,000
TX..............................................................          82         603       2,900     135,000
VA..............................................................          32         355       5,200      90,000
WV..............................................................          12         134       4,700      90,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 minute.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I must state a deep disagreement with my 
friend from Idaho. We are not talking about any kind of limitations at 
all. The compact we have in Vermont allows anybody to be able to come 
and sell in our market. We are talking about the ability of States to 
do what California and Idaho already do because they are so large, and 
that is to have their own milk orders. All we want to do is be able to 
form together--and I point out that when the opposition asked OMB to 
make a determination as to whether or not our farmers were in any way, 
through this pact, violating anything, they came back and said it would 
even save money for some. Look at this chart. This is the end. This 
shows what happens. If you go with 1-B instead of 2-A, the whole 
country, including Idaho, loses money. Why my good friend wants to have 
his farmers lose money, I don't know.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I urge a vote for cloture so we can fully debate this.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     motion regarding the dairy compact amendment:
         Trent Lott, Jim Jeffords, Susan M. Collins, John H. 
           Chafee, Fred Thompson, Richard Shelby, Olympia J. 
           Snowe, Christopher Bond, Jesse Helms, Paul Coverdell, 
           John Ashcroft, Strom Thurmond, John Breaux, Jay 
           Rockefeller, Arlen Specter, and Patrick Leahy.


                            Call Of The Roll

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been 
waived.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the motion to recommit the bill, S. 1233, with 
instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 252 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Ashcroft
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Dodd
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). On this vote the yeas are 53, 
the nays are 47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1507

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Ashcroft 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1507) was agreed to.

[[Page S10151]]

  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the Ashcroft 
amendment was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of 
Kentucky, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ROBERTS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                Amendment No. 1509 To Amendment No. 1499

               (Purpose: To make a perfecting amendment)

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], for himself, Mr. 
     Santorum, Mr. Craig, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Burns, Mr. Brownback, 
     Mr. Hagel, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1509 to amendment No. 1499.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, we have had a great deal of discussion in 
regard to the kind of emergency assistance we would all like to see 
happen in the Senate. We have heard quite a bit of debate as to what is 
appropriate.
  I have a package that has been endorsed by about six or seven 
Senators--Senator Burns and Senator Santorum, more especially, who have 
been especially helpful--Senator Craig, Senator Grassley, Senator 
Grams, Senator Hagel, all of the cosponsors, to try to reach some 
accommodation. I am not sure, but perhaps we could conclude this debate 
and simply have a vote within, I would say, a half hour. I do not know 
what my friends and colleagues on the other side would say about that, 
but I make a recommendation and seek unanimous consent that debate on 
this amendment be for 30 minutes, with 15 minutes divided equally.
  Could there be an agreement on that? I see the distinguished 
Democratic leader nodding his head.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator from Kansas would yield.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I think a 30-minute timeframe, equally divided, would be 
appropriate. We have debated the issue now for some time. This is 
another iteration, in our view, that is completely unacceptable, but we 
would be happy to talk about it. Thirty minutes would be acceptable to 
us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator from 
Kansas if the amendment has been made available to others of us on the 
floor. I think the Senator mentioned seven Senators he has worked with, 
but is the amendment available at this point?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Basically, the amendment is the same as I have discussed 
with my friend and colleague, with the addition of $400 million for 
disaster assistance, after talking to the Secretary of Agriculture as 
of this morning. But we have a summary of the amendment, and we will 
endeavor to make as many copies as we can during the debate.
  I think most of my colleagues on that side--and we have been trying 
to work together--understand what is in the amendment. But without 
question we will make the copies available to you.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after the disposal of the Roberts 
amendment, it is my understanding that there would then be room for 
amendments; is that correct? I ask the parliamentary situation after 
the disposal of the Roberts amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, sir, additional amendments would be in 
order.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be in order 
after the disposal of the Roberts amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, could the Senator share 
with us what his amendment is about?
  Mr. McCAIN. It is the elimination of the sugar quota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection to the offering of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is agreed to.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair.
  I say to the distinguished Democratic leader, I would have hoped that 
he could have described my amendment as perhaps acceptable as opposed 
to the completely unacceptable amendment by the Senator from Arizona, 
and I would hope that would be the case.
  It is my understanding now we have 30 minutes of time and 15 minutes 
on a side. I am going to yield time to the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania who has been a real help to us in trying to put together 
an amendment that will be acceptable to all parties.
  I do also thank my friends across the aisle, more particularly 
Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad and Senator Harkin. We had a 
discussion yesterday. I know this amendment does not cross every ``t'' 
or dot every ``i'' in their eyes, but I would say to them that we on 
our side have tried to move at least to a compromise bill that could be 
worked out.
  I had a telephone conversation with Agriculture Secretary Dan 
Glickman about 45 minutes ago. I want to point out that the Secretary 
of Agriculture, and many on the other side, and many on this side, have 
had the opportunity to work on many farm bills together.
  There have been 13 emergency or supplemental bills in the last 10 
years in regard to agriculture. That shows you the tremendous change 
that occurs in global agriculture. We have worked together on many of 
these bills. Secretary Glickman and I are very good friends. We have 
very strong differences of opinion from time to time; there is no 
question about that, but we have tried to work together as a team on 
behalf of agriculture.
  In regard to this debate, I suggest to everybody that today is the 
day for compromise and teamwork on behalf of our hard-pressed farmers 
and ranchers. I do not think they want us debating over and over again 
the philosophy or the ideology in regard to farm bills. What they want 
is emergency assistance, and we can then address the problems that we 
have all talked about in regard to a long-term agenda on behalf of 
agriculture.
  Today is not the day to express strong opinions about the current 
farm bill or assess blame or make the political rhetoric. We have had 
those days.
  Today is the day to pass an emergency bill. Senators Burns and Gorton 
and Santorum and Grassley and Grams and Hagel and I have offered an 
amendment, now endorsed by the National Association of Wheat Growers, 
the American Soybean Association, and the American Farm Bureau. 
Obviously, we have not had enough time to contact all of the commodity 
organizations, all the farm groups. But I think, without question, most 
of the farm groups, if not all, certainly support this approach.

  What does it do? The purpose of this amendment is to provide direct 
income assistance to farmers and ranchers in the fastest way possible. 
I know my colleagues across the aisle would prefer a different way, or 
at least a portion of this assistance to come in a different way, in 
what is called the LDP program. That is an acronym for the Loan 
Deficiency Payment.
  This amendment does provide the assistance through the transition 
payment, which will provide assistance to farmers in 10 days. We went 
the LDP route during the last emergency assistance--or to be more 
accurate, there was emergency assistance granted in the last emergency 
bill.
  It took the Secretary of Agriculture 6 to 8 months to get assistance 
to farmers. We do not need to do that. So it is the fastest way 
possible. As I have indicated, it is through the structure called the 
additional transition payments that are contained in the farm bill. It 
does it with additional payments of 100 percent.
  Let me say something about the 100 percent for those farms that are 
in program crops. It means not only do you get a transition payment; 
you get another transition payment 100 percent

[[Page S10152]]

equal to that. I will venture to say, with that payment most farmers in 
America, in terms of wheat and corn and your basic crops--and, yes, in 
regard to cotton and step 2, which is another program--that extra 
income assistance will move those prices at least to the cost of 
production and maybe even more.
  As opposed to other amendments, this approach that has been offered 
does not change current farm program policy. You do not need to rewrite 
the farm bill during the appropriations process or during an emergency 
bill.
  You may have very strong beliefs about this farm bill. I do. But now 
is not the time to rewrite the farm program in regard to this emergency 
bill. We can do that next year. I hope we do not in the middle of an 
election year, but obviously people have strong beliefs. I do not 
believe this is the appropriate place.
  The bill also provides assistance to soybean and oil seed 
producers. It provides assistance to livestock producers, to cotton 
producers, with regard to the step 2 program that has been so 
eloquently described by the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, and to specialty crop 
producers and others who do not receive program crops.

  I say to Senators paying attention--I hope they are, either in their 
officers or wherever they are--all of you who represent farmers who do 
not have program crops not covered by the farm bill, this amendment 
provides the most assistance to those who are in specialty crops and 
others. We do not go down every commodity and raise amendments such as 
the one that is going to be introduced by the Senator from Arizona. 
Some of these commodities, some of these programs raise a lot of 
objections. We have had historic debates in that regard. Let's not go 
down that path. We give money to the Secretary of Agriculture for 
specialty crops. Only the USDA can determine which of those crops, 
which of those regions really need the assistance. I think that 
approach is best.
  Most important, it contains funds for crop insurance reform to keep 
the crop insurance premiums at current levels. We reduced them last 
year. They will spike up again. So we have money to keep those at that 
level.
  I tell my colleagues, finally, those of us who have tried to keep 
this bill under $7 billion for budgetary concerns, we have also 
provided another $400 million for disaster assistance as a result of 
talking to the Secretary of Agriculture, who was in West Virginia with 
Senator Byrd yesterday. We have all seen on television the effects of 
drought. Anybody who comes from farm country understands the effects of 
drought. Secretary Glickman said: I need money immediately. So we 
provided $400 million. Will it be enough? I don't know. But at least in 
terms of that request, I think it is appropriate. As I say, Secretary 
Glickman was in West Virginia with Senator Byrd, and the need is very 
crucial. That brings the total of the package to $7.5 billion, but we 
have a drought on hand and we have an emergency.
  All this assistance is provided without each commodity or specialty 
crop coming to the table in a bidding war. We have already had that, 
reopening, as I have indicated, the historic and unneeded debates of 
the past. Instead we have emergency assistance that will provide 
farmers needed assistance down the road. If you want to look at farm 
program policy in future debates with hearings, perhaps that is 
appropriate.
  How much time does the Senator require?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Three minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, might I inquire how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania, who, I might add, is a valuable member of the Agriculture 
Committee and who talks with us continually about farmers who are not 
in the program crop arena, the value of crop insurance, and the value 
of disaster assistance, because there are some areas of the country 
that need assistance that are not covered by the farm bill. I thank the 
Senator for his contribution.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the distinguished former chairman of the House 
Ag Committee and obviously one of the most knowledgeable people on 
agriculture in this country. It has been a pleasure to work with him.
  To pick up on the point he just made, I will speak to Senators who do 
not come from areas which have program crops, places such as 
Pennsylvania, many of them, places such as Pennsylvania, New York, and 
Maryland, and most of the New England States, where previous emergency 
packages had very little to offer for those of us who have farmers 
experiencing difficulty in that area of the country.
  Obviously, we are experiencing horrible difficulties with the drought 
that is occurring in the Mid-Atlantic region. I did not vote for either 
of the packages yesterday because I didn't think they offered anything 
of real value to the farmers that I represent and to the region of the 
country that I try to represent on the Agriculture Committee. But this 
package does.
  Three things the Senator from Kansas just mentioned: No. 1, the money 
for specialty crops--most of the crops that are grown in Pennsylvania 
are specialty crops; they are not program crops--$300 million; $400 
million for help with crop insurance premiums. We need to get more 
people in the Crop Insurance Program in Pennsylvania. If my farmers 
said one thing to me overwhelmingly, it was: Of all the things you can 
do to help us, give us some money to help us begin to get into crop 
insurance, to begin to insure ourselves against these losses and 
against the fluctuations of the market.
  Farmers want to be self-sufficient. They don't want disaster 
payments. They don't get AMTA payments. What they want is some 
mechanism where they can begin to control their destiny and ensure some 
income for their family. That is what we are trying to do, to help them 
in transitioning.
  Finally, $400 million, as the Senator from Kansas just mentioned, for 
disaster assistance for this year's 1999 crops. Obviously, we have no 
idea what the extent of the drought is going to be and the damage, but 
it is going to be extensive. It is going to be very tough on our 
farmers in Pennsylvania and throughout the Mid-Atlantic States.
  I say to all those Senators who represent that area of the country, 
you now have a bill you can vote for that is going to do something 
meaningful for your farmers. I hope we can get bipartisan support for 
this amendment and get this acted upon quickly.
  I thank the former chairman and distinguished member of the 
Agriculture Committee for his terrific work on this amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes, and I 
think my colleague, perhaps both of my colleagues, would like to add a 
comment.
  My hope has been, and still is, that we will have a bipartisan 
solution to this issue today. This is not such a solution.
  A number of discussions have taken place with a number of Senators 
from both sides of the aisle. We face the same crises: collapsed prices 
in rural America and a drought that is spreading across our country.
  There is not a Republican or a Democratic way to go broke on the 
family farm. It is just human misery and tragedy that allows those to 
lose their hopes and dreams and lose their farms because of economic 
collapse in Asia or price collapse in the U.S. or the worst crop 
disease of a century or a wet cycle that means 3 million acres can't be 
planted in our State this spring. It is not the farmer's fault. So we 
need to do something. The question is, What do we do?
  We have had several different plans. This is the third, I guess, that 
will be voted on in the Senate. It is short on disaster aid, as we 
know. We know there is a disaster occurring. Turn on the television set 
and listen to the newscasts. They say it is the worst drought in a 
century in some parts of this country. We might as well be prepared to 
face that. We ought to add some of that to this legislation.
  Second, my colleague, in his presentation of the amendment, talked 
about dollars going to producers immediately. As we all know, AMTA is 
going to get dollars to people who aren't producing. That is one of the 
problems.

[[Page S10153]]

 AMTA is a payment scheme based on 1991 and 1995 production history. 
They are going to be sending money to the people who aren't producing 
anything.
  One other point: My expectation is that this amendment does not 
change the payment limits. I wonder how many of my colleagues know that 
the potential, under this approach--and I am able to be corrected, if I 
am inaccurate--the potential under this approach is to pay $460,000 
essentially to a farmer, $460,000 as a new payment limitation. The 
$80,000 payment limit under current law is doubled. So for AMTA and 
LDPs, the potential is $460,000 for a producer.
  Who wants to tell a wage earner in some community someplace that we 
want you to pay taxes so we can give a little help to family farmers? 
And by the way, some might get $460,000. What kind of a payment limit 
is that? How does one describe this as help to family-sized farms?
  We don't need to help agrifactories in America. We don't need a 
Department of Agriculture. We don't need a farm program. If our future 
is in agrifactories, we don't need to construct these kinds of programs 
or have a Department of Agriculture, for my money.
  The purpose is to try to protect and help and nurture family farming 
as an enterprise in this country because it strengthens our country. 
But $460,000 in payment limits? A potential farmer will get $460,000? 
What kind of nonsense is this? My expectation is that it is still part 
of the amendment. My hope is that we will still have an opportunity for 
a bipartisan solution today.
  Those of us who come from farm country, in both the Republican and 
Democratic Parties here, serve the same interests, have the same 
desire, and have the same passion to try to help family farmers get 
through this troubled period.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend from Kansas will 
yield for a couple of questions so I can better discern what we have 
here. I ask the author of the amendment exactly how this differs from 
the last package, the Cochran amendment, which is set aside right now. 
As I look at it, the difference between this package and what we voted 
on yesterday, the Cochran amendment, is $400 million for crop insurance 
premium reductions and $400 million for disaster payments for 1999 crop 
losses. Is that correct?
  Mr. ROBERTS. That is correct. That is not all of the differences, but 
the Senator has accurately described two of the differences.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, I have looked at other things in the bill and I 
can't find any differences other than that.
  Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, what we tried to do with the 
approach, rather than specifically mentioning some of the crops that 
have been in controversy on the floor from time to time--and I am 
talking about sugar and peanuts and tobacco--we have simply provided a 
fund for the Secretary of $300 million for specialty crops and others 
not specifically mentioned elsewhere in the amendment.
  In talking to Secretary Glickman as of this morning and going over 
specified funding for these crops, which may or may not need assistance 
in regard to weather problems or lost income problems, he indicated he 
would rather have that at his discretion. After all, it is the USDA, in 
the end result, that would be able to determine at the end of the crop 
years, after harvest, specifically what the situation is.

  When I mention specific numbers for these particular programs, I am 
not going to indicate that the Secretary is endorsing this bill in 
total by any means, but I think his preference would be that he would 
have the discretion to address these as needed, as opposed to saying we 
are getting X number of dollars for this particular program. Then we 
get into a bidding war, and the Senator knows that is what has happened 
in the past.
  Mr. HARKIN. Again, I ask the Senator, there was, if I am not 
mistaken, in the Cochran amendment $300 million for specialty crops; is 
that right? I thought that was in the Cochran amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, I don't have a copy of the 
Cochran amendment with me. In our original amendment it was $200 
million. We increased that to $300 million. The Senator may be correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am told it was $50 million in the Cochran.
  Mr. ROBERTS. That is correct. I thank the Senator for reminding me.
  Mr. HARKIN. The other point--and, again, I ask the Senator; maybe he 
can't figure it out now, but maybe his staff can pencil it out--as I 
look at the bill, you have reduced the livestock and dairy portion of 
the Cochran amendment from $325 million to $250 million.
  Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator has those figures, I am sure that is 
correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am just looking, and it is hard to discern things 
sometimes in these bills. I am told by my staff the total amount of 
funds for livestock is reduced from $325 million to about $250 million. 
If I am wrong, correct me.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I now have staff here; I now have my brains on the 
floor, so I am happy to respond.
  Mr. HARKIN. In examining this amendment now before us, the difference 
is about $800 million, give or take a little bit. So while the package 
yesterday was about 6.9, this raises it to about 7.7, if I am not 
mistaken.
  My opinion on this, Mr. President, is that while we are making some 
movements here, I think things are working right.
  I yield again to my friend from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Cochran 
amendment had--I apologize to my friend and colleague because I don't 
have the specifics of the Cochran amendment here, and I should. Staff 
has informed me that there was $350 million for livestock payments at 
the discretion of the Secretary, and we provided $250 million. I am 
making an assumption, but most of the problems we are experiencing now 
are in the Senator's area in regard to hog producers.
  In talking with Secretary Glickman today, I don't think we can make a 
determination yet as to where most of that money would go--the extra 
$100 million, if in fact we can call it extra. Well, it goes from $350 
million to $250 million. It went to crop insurance, and it went to 
adding $100 million more on the disaster side. It was a matter of 
priorities.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for clarifying that.
  Again, I make the point that I think we do see some movement. I am 
still hopeful we can reach a decent compromise on these packages. I 
believe that is accomplishable.  I think we can accomplish that.

  I might just say that I think the $400 million in disaster payments 
for this year, I say to my friend from Kansas, is still inadequate, too 
low. From all of the indications we get from disasters up and down the 
east coast, in the Mid-Atlantic States, plus some of the disaster we 
have had out in North Dakota and other places, and flooding, as we have 
had in my State of Iowa, $400 million is simply not going to be enough 
to handle the disasters this year. I think we need to work a little bit 
more on that in terms of disaster payments for this year.
  The $400 million you put in for the crop insurance, I applaud. We had 
that in our bill. I think that is a good measure. I am a little 
concerned about the payments for oilseeds. Here is where we get into 
the policy issue on the AMTA payments and LDP.
  Mr. ROBERTS. May I ask a question of the Senator? Would he yield for 
a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I think I am probably running out of time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I will make it brief. We have $400 million for the 
disaster program. That is a commitment to agriculture to know that the 
Secretary can begin to work on the problem in the Atlantic States. That 
doesn't mean if down the road we have continued droughts--it is the 
worst in a hundred years in the Atlantic region--that we will not be 
committed to doing what we have to do. But to do it here, we have no 
way of knowing what that crop damage will be. So I urge the Senator to 
say here is $400 million in regard to all of the problems we are 
experiencing in terms of national disasters, and it doesn't mean that 
down the road that could not be addressed; we just don't

[[Page S10154]]

know at this particular time. I don't think it would be responsible to 
add a whole bunch more money when we don't even know.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. We can work on that. The Senator may 
not be wrong on that. That may be closer to what we probably should be 
doing. There are other things in that disaster part I tell the Senator 
to look at. We did not completely fill the needs of last year's 
disaster. I think the Senator from North Dakota can talk about that. We 
had about $300 million in our bill just to meet the disaster needs of 
last year that were not fully paid for. So I ask you to look at that. 
You may be right on not anticipating or knowing exactly where the Mid-
Atlantic States are right now. But there are other things we had in our 
disaster bill that we do know about and that do need to be addressed.
  Lastly, I want to say again, on the payments to oilseeds, which is in 
the Senator's bill, which is about $500 million, this really gets to 
the heart of whether we should have all AMTA payments or some mix of 
that and LDPs. Under AMTA payments, of course, you don't get any 
payments for soybeans. Under LDP, you do. Under the proposal we had, 
which our side offered yesterday, under LDP, we estimated there would 
be about $1 billion that would go to soybean producers for their losses 
this year. Under the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas, 
there is $500 million in payments to all oilseeds, including soybeans. 
So we had not only $1 billion in the LDP, we had about $1 billion in 
purchases. So the $500 million is about a fourth of what we estimated 
the need would be for oilseeds.
  That is why I still hope we can reach some compromise on having a 
blend of AMTA payments and LDP payments, because I think LDP payments 
would more adequately respond to the needs of oilseeds than would a 
$500 million payment.
  Other than that, as I said, I think there is some good progress here, 
and I think there is some basis for reaching some kind of compromise 
agreement before the Sun sets today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield time off the Democratic side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are making progress. I can feel the 
concrete breaking. I don't think we are quite there yet because at this 
point this is not a bipartisan proposal before us. There has not really 
been a negotiation between the two sides. There has been a negotiation 
on the other side.
  There are a number of things I believe are deficient in terms of the 
proposal that is before us. We do not keep the promise of the disaster 
package of last year. We devised a formula. We didn't fully fund it. 
The result was that people got 85 percent of what was promised.
  No. 2, there is not sufficient money for the crop losses that are 
occurring now. Some say, well, we don't know the full amount. That is 
true. But I can tell you that we know enough to know that $400 million 
is not going to solve the problem. In my State alone, we know the 
flooded land losses. We absolutely know what has occurred there. Three 
million acres have not even been planted and millions more planted 
late.
  In the Democratic alternative, we have $250 million for flooded 
lands. I don't see anything specifically set aside in this proposal--
not $1 is set aside--specifically to address the problem of flooded 
lands. That is just not acceptable. Partly because of the way this came 
about, I suppose it is the result.
  We have not had a true discussion. We basically had the other side 
saying this is it, take it or leave it. On that basis, we don't have 
much choice but to leave it because it does not address the needs of 
the people we represent.
  I say that as a preface to the remarks that are more positive; that 
is, there are some very good parts of the proposal the Senator has 
advanced, the chief being the crop insurance of $400 million. That goes 
in exactly the right direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time of the opponents has expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, who has worked very hard on this 
proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kansas. I will be 
very brief.
  I do not know of any piece of legislation that has ever been proposed 
having to do with agriculture that has been perfect. If there is one 
place where it is hard to find a one size fits all, it is in this 
business of agriculture because we are diverse in climate, in growing 
conditions, in crops, and everything else. It is pretty tough to find 
that perfect bill.
  What we have sought is balance. On balance, I think this addresses 
the needs as we think they are now, and also it is a step towards what 
we think it will be at the end of the crop year. I think it is very 
important that the commitment to agriculture is here. Without changing 
programs, putting cash on the farm as fast as we possibly can is in 
this piece of legislation.
  Let's take it for what it is. Sure, we can sit and pick it apart. 
Yes, we would like to see some things changed for Montana that won't 
fit the things in Mississippi. But I think what we have is balance.
  With the leadership of Senator Roberts and Senator Craig, and a lot 
of us who have worked very hard on this for a long time, knowing the 
prospects in front of us, I thank them for their leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
distinguished Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, who has also worked 
extremely hard on this compromise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in the course of the last 2 days, we have 
attempted to understand and define the situation in agriculture. The 
chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee yesterday did 
an excellent job of crafting a package that goes to the heart of the 
problem.
  Yesterday, I had hoped we could include crop insurance in it so we 
could keep that management tool alive, shaping it so that it becomes 
more usable to farmers, so that we are not here again after a disaster 
occurs trying to define that disaster. As we have heard in conversation 
this morning, it is nearly impossible to define at this time.
  This particular amendment offers $400 million to maintain the 1999 
level for crop insurance premium write-downs. It also deals with 
speciality crops in a way that I think is very important in 
understanding farming diversity. At the same time, it still strikes 
that balance in working to limit well beyond what those on the other 
side had offered, and I support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, can I ask the distinguished Senator, if I 
could finish up my time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thought the chair had announced that all time had 
expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Idaho has 
expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I apologize to the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I may go step 1 instead of step 2.
  Mr. President, on the definition of ``bipartisan,'' bipartisan is 
where you accept our view and not your view, and different Senators can 
define that depending on their strong opinion.
  Let me point out that when this started, the amount of funding was 
somewhere between $4 billion and $5 billion, and many thought that was 
too much. It is now $7.5 billion. If that isn't compromise, and some 
would think in the wrong direction, I don't know what compromise is.
  Let me point out that Senators came to me from both sides of the 
aisle. This

[[Page S10155]]

has not been exclusively a Republican initiative by any means. They 
worried that too many of these programs were not specified, and they 
had a lot of problems with those individual programs.
  Let me point out that when I met with my good friends and colleagues 
in that Cloakroom and discussed this issue for about 20 minutes, if 
that isn't bipartisan, colleagues, I must have been in the wrong 
Cloakroom.
  Now we are into a discussion as to whether or not there is enough 
disaster assistance when the Secretary of Agriculture indicated that 
$400 million was at least a first step for him to take a look at it. 
Then we are into these acronyms of LDP and AMTA. That is why people's 
eyes glaze over when we have any debate on farm program policy. We 
ought to give the money out. Under AMTA, you get it in 10 days. Under 
LDP, it takes months. We are arguing about acronyms and we are arguing 
about numbers.
  Let's get the assistance to farmers and end this debate and don't 
change the farm program policy.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, has all time been yielded or used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1509. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 253 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--33

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mack
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand it, the order is the 
Senator from Arizona will offer an amendment at this point. My purpose 
for rising is to confirm that and also to ask if we can get an 
agreement to limit time for debate on the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, that is the order.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                Amendment No. 1510 To Amendment No. 1499

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the sugar 
             program, other than the marketing assessment)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 1510.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. 7  . SUGAR PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel of the Department of 
     Agriculture to carry out section 156 of the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272), other than subsection 
     (f).
       (b) Marketing Assessment.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act or any other Act shall be used to pay 
     the salaries and expenses of personnel of the Department of 
     Agriculture to carry out and enforce section 156(f) of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272(f) through 
     fiscal year 2001.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if it is agreeable with the distinguished 
managers on both sides, I offer a unanimous consent agreement for 1 
hour equally divided, 30 minutes on either side.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition 
of the McCain amendment, I be recognized to offer an amendment on dairy 
compacts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, I was not able to hear what 
the Senator from Pennsylvania was suggesting. Will the Senator repeat 
the request?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may respond to the distinguished 
majority leader, I have been trying to get this amendment up. In order 
to get it sequenced, I have asked unanimous consent to bring up an 
amendment on dairy compacts. A number of Senators intend to discuss it 
briefly and not to press it to a vote because it is legislation on an 
appropriations bill, but we think it important to consider the matter 
so it may be taken up in conference.
  Mr. LOTT. I withdraw my reservation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Arizona 
regarding time? Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, did we agree 
to an hour equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not, I want to let my colleague, the Senator from Wisconsin, know that 
I have been working with Senator Specter on this issue.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order.
  Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask to be recognized for as much time as I may use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment for myself, 
Senator Gregg--I am sure Senator Feinstein--that will prohibit the 
Agriculture Department from using Federal funding for administering the 
various and sundry programs that benefit the sugar industry. This 
amendment is carefully tailored by just cutting off funds so that it is 
not in violation of rule XVI.
  The amendment is to send a strong signal to my colleagues that it is 
time to end the heavily subsidized sugar program. The Federal 
Government is burdened with an unnecessary and unprofitable loan 
program for big sugar producers and enforcing mandated import quotas on 
foreign sugar.
  The sugar program has long since outlived its purpose. It was 
originally enacted in the Depression era to aid our flailing economy. 
As our economy resurged, the need for sugar subsidies diminished. 
Congress recognized this by eliminating the program in 1974, but

[[Page S10156]]

proponents of the sugar program were able to resurrect it in 1981 
proving again that in this city nothing is ever effectively killed if 
it is subsidized to special interests. Efforts were made to abolish the 
program once again in the 1996 farm bill, but defenders of the sugar 
program kept it alive and even extended it.
  The sugar program is a system of Federally-subsidized loans, import 
restrictions and protective price supports that equates to little more 
than corporate welfare. The present program restricts foreign 
competition and ensures a high domestic price for sugar far in excess 
of world prices. The Agriculture Department also guarantees loans for 
sugar processors and producers that may not be fully repaid in dollars 
back to the Government. The current law allows loan borrowers to pledge 
sugar as collateral to satisfy repayment obligations.
  Several independent reviews of the sugar program have demonstrated 
that the biggest economic burden of this program falls on the American 
taxpayers. The Heritage Foundation stated that ``the sugar program is 
big government and corporate welfare at its worst.'' Given the big 
government and corporate welfare we have in this town, that is a pretty 
impressive statement. The Coalition for Sugar Reform, counting among 
its members such groups as the National Audubon Society and Citizens 
Against Government Waste, and others, has touted this program as 
burdensome and unfair to the consumer. These groups are leaders in 
advocating for reform and eventual elimination of this costly subsidy.
  The continuing existence of the sugar program has resulted in U.S. 
consumers paying three times the current world price for sugar and 
sugar-contained products. The General Accounting Office estimates that 
sugar price supports force American consumers to pay $1.4 billion every 
year in artificially inflated sugar prices. Mandatory price quotas keep 
the price of American-grown sugar at roughly 22 cents a pound compared 
to 6 cents a pound for sugar grown in other parts of the world.
  This is truly outrageous. Defenders of the sugar program support 
these inflated consumer prices by claiming that the sugar program is 
critical to the viability of our domestic sugar industry. Reports have 
shown that we are hurting our viability as a domestic sugar industry by 
continuing this program because America's farmers cannot compete with 
foreign markets and are forced to close sugar refineries. Since this 
program has been in effect, 12 of the 22 U.S. sugar refineries have 
been forced to close, eliminating thousands of jobs.

  In the February 1998 Reader's Digest, there is a story about the 
Nation's largest candy-cane manufacturer opening a plant in Jamaica in 
order to stay competitive with foreign companies. Sugar prices in 
Jamaica are as much as 50 percent cheaper than in the U.S.
  Yet, the sugar program continues to reap benefits for a small sector 
of the sugar economy. Only by political clout has this corporate 
welfare program survived.
  A close examination of this program reveals that its true benefits 
are only realized by big sugar tycoons. Less than one percent of the 
Nation's sugar growers gobble up 58 percent of the program benefits. 
These are not small family farmers. In a recent year, 33 cane sugar 
growers obtained more than $1 million each from this Government 
boondoggle. In fact, one grower received $65 million.
  The average consumer is not aware that food products, like candy, 
cereal or ice cream, are subject to a higher price dictated by the 
Federal Government--and it is a price that is likely to be twice as 
high because of sugar price supports. Not too many average grocery 
shoppers realize they are paying at least 10 cents more per pound of 
sugar because of these costly sugar mandates.
  We cannot ask American consumers to continue to pay more for sugar 
than the rest of the world. This richly sweet program for big sugar 
producers has a sour aftertaste for average citizens and our Nation's 
economy.
  What I am proposing, because of rule XVI, is simply a one-year halt 
to the sugar program. The American consumers would be held harmless for 
one year to give us time to undertake a long overdue debate on 
legislation to reform and phase out the sugar program.
  This amendment retains the sugar industry's responsibility to pay a 
miniscule assessment on domestic sugar, although I would be glad to 
eliminate that. I do not think that is a very important aspect of this 
amendment. With all the benefits received by the sugar industry, this 
relatively small assessment is supposed to be the sugar industry's sole 
contribution to reducing annual budget deficits. Last year, this 
assessment generated $37.8 million in revenues. With all that the 
Federal Government and the American consumers have spent over the years 
to support this inflated sugar program, this modest return of revenues 
to the treasury is certainly warranted, although I would be glad to 
eliminate it.
  I believe we should end the subsidies to the sugar industry and 
eliminate the sugar program that is unfair to consumers. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment and bring fairness back to our 
American consumers.
  Mr. President, in the New York Times of Monday, July 14, 1997, they 
talked about:

       . . . $1.5 billion a year from consumers to a handful of 
     large sugar growers. Almost half of the benefits from the 
     sugar program go to little more than 1 percent of growers. . 
     . .
       There is a second, powerful reason to eliminate sugar 
     subsidies. They breed excessive production of sugar cane in 
     environmentally sensitive areas. In the Florida Everglades, 
     about a half-million acres of wetlands have been converted to 
     sugar cane production. Excessive sugar cane production has 
     interrupted water flows and contaminated the Everglades with 
     polluted agricultural run-off.

  When I argue for campaign finance reform, I refer to a well-known 
family in Florida that has realized the American dream, the Fanjul 
brothers. Alfonso Fanjul is the chairman and chief executive officer of 
Flo-Sun, a prominent Democrat who cochaired President Clinton's 1992 
Florida campaign.
  Jose ``Pepe'' Fanjul, is a prominent Republican who served on the 
campaign finance committee of 1996 GOP Presidential candidate Bob Dole. 
He also is vice chairman of the National Republican Party's finance 
committee.
  They are major--major--givers of soft money, major contributors.
  I will include in the Record that during the 1995-1996 election 
cycle, members of the Fanjul family contributed $774,500 to Federal 
campaigns. It is an excellent investment. In return, a grateful 
Congress maintains a sugar price support program worth approximately 
$65 million annually to the Fanjuls.
  That is a pretty good investment; and they are getting a great return 
on it.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think we have to go back and forth.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am willing to accommodate the Senator 
from New Hampshire. I understand he has a time conflict.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona and appreciate the opportunity to 
join him on this amendment which is one of those amendments that comes 
to the floor of the Senate supported by logic, common sense, and good 
economics, but is opposed, regrettably, by the forces who wish to take 
advantage of the farm program for the purposes of promoting a product 
in a noncompetitive, nonmarket-type process.
  The Senator from Arizona has outlined some of the harm that is done 
by the President's sugar program. Most of that harm is directed at the 
American consumer who ends up paying $1.4 billion in taxes for all 
intents and purposes because it is a fee, a cost of sugar, they now 
incur which exceeds the market price of sugar they end up paying--a 
$1.4 billion surcharge on the American consumer in order to keep in 
place a sugar industry which is totally noncompetitive.
  If you were to describe the sugar industry, you would think you were 
describing the Cuban sugar industry, not the American sugar industry. 
The sugar industry sets the price. The price is at least twice the cost 
of sugar on the world market. And then essentially it guarantees that 
the sugar grower

[[Page S10157]]

and the processors will be able to realize that price.
  Who pays the burden? The consumer. They end up paying twice as much 
for sugar as sugar is worth on the open market. What does that 
describe? That describes a nonmarket system of selling a product. That 
describes essentially a socialist system of selling a product. That 
describes a system that might have worked in Eastern Europe 15 years 
ago or might have been used in Eastern Europe 15 years ago--it 
obviously didn't work--or a system which may still be in place today in 
Cuba. But it certainly doesn't describe a system one would expect the 
United States, the force for a free market economy in the world, would 
be putting forward for the purposes of producing a commodity such as 
sugar. The effect, however, goes well beyond the fact that consumers in 
America are paying this $1.4 billion in extra cost, which is 
essentially a tax on them.

  This sugar program stifles competition. Seventeen growers get 38 
percent of the benefit of this program, 17 growers. Why is that? 
Because there isn't any competition in the system. It discourages 
international trade. We look at our Caribbean neighbors and we say: How 
can we help you? Then we essentially invade Haiti and spend literally 
hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars to try to stabilize 
that economy to no avail, where at the same time we are saying to Haiti 
and all the other Caribbean nations who are capable of producing sugar, 
no, we are not going to purchase your sugar because we are going to 
subsidize our sugar, and we are going to essentially close you out of 
our markets.
  It harms the environment. As has been pointed out by the Senator from 
Arizona, the sugar cane growing in Florida has had a serious impact on 
the quality of the environment of the Everglades, a key area of natural 
regeneration in the southern Florida area.
  It affects jobs. Why does it affect jobs? Because if you don't have a 
competitive industry, you don't have a marketplace approach, you are 
essentially putting in a straitjacket the production capabilities of 
the American economy.
  Why is America the most productive country in the world? Because we 
are the most free market country in the world. That free market creates 
jobs. People have the opportunity to compete. People have the 
opportunity to grow their industries. In the sugar industry, we have no 
competition because we have a process which is essentially a socialized 
system, and it requires unnecessary government involvement in the 
production of a commodity.
  Why should the American people have to depend on the Federal 
Government to price the product of sugar? It makes absolutely no sense. 
Why shouldn't the marketplace price the product of sugar? That is what 
we do with everything else. If you go out and you buy a Ford car, the 
Federal Government doesn't say to Ford: It doesn't matter how many cars 
you sell or who you sell them to, we are going to pay you $20,000 per 
car; and if you only sell the cars for $17,000, it doesn't matter 
because we are going to pay you $20,000 anyway.
  We don't say it to Apple Computer. We don't say it to Microsoft. We 
don't say it to the housing industry. But we do say it to the sugar 
producers in this country. It doesn't matter how much sugar you 
produce; it doesn't matter if your production costs are twice what they 
may be in the world market; it doesn't matter. We are going to set the 
price. We are going to pay you the price and the price is going to have 
no relation to demand. It is going to have no relation to competition. 
The only thing it is going to have a relation to is the amount of 
revenue that is going to fall into the pockets of a very small number 
of growers in this country today who benefit from this program.

  It is interesting, as we look at the farm programs in this country, 
there is only sugar left that has this sort of a protection. It is able 
to accomplish this because it has diffused the issue of the maintenance 
of this outrageous subsidy across the entire American consumer base. 
Rather than having it flow directly out of the American Treasury into 
the growers' pockets, this program has been structured so that it flows 
directly out of the consumer into the growers' pockets. Because of 
that, there has been a winking at this program; this program has sort 
of slipped through the cracks, where the rest of the farm commodities 
in this country have been forced to have some relationship, under 
Freedom to Farm, of having their product production tied to the product 
demand. Sugar has not been subjected to that test at all.
  So we have a program that should never have been put in place in the 
first instance because it is so atypical to a marketplace economy. But 
clearly, with the passing of Eastern Europe and the concept of a 
socialized marketplace, it clearly should not be surviving today, yet 
it does survive.
  I think the Senator from Arizona may have touched the reason. It is 
political influence. It is the capacity of the grower community to 
assert its influence within the legislative process. But it still is 
not fair, and it is not right. It is not appropriate to ask the 
American consumer to spend $1.4 billion of their hard-earned money on a 
commodity simply to benefit a small group of growers--17 growers 
getting 38 percent of the benefit.
  That $1.4 billion could go a long way towards educating children, 
towards getting better child care, towards improving the lifestyle, the 
health care, even the nutrition of the people who are paying that 
price. Yet that money is not going to go to those purposes. Instead, 
that money is going to flow simply to support an industry which has 
totally separated itself from the free market.
  I strongly endorse this amendment. I have offered it in the past 
myself. I hope this time the Congress will step up and recognize that 
it should vote on behalf of the consumers and abolish this outrageous 
tax and put to rest this last vestige of Eastern European economics in 
the United States.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to tell the Senators from New 
Hampshire and Arizona that this is a sweet deal, but I can't say that 
because they are obviously deadly serious and, in my opinion, are 
dramatically misrepresenting a program that has not slipped through the 
cracks at all. It was negotiated and put in the 1996 farm bill to 
benefit hundreds of growers in my State and in other States across the 
Nation. It is to develop a program that doesn't cost the taxpayers of 
this country one dime.
  For the Senator from New Hampshire to say that a consumer goes to the 
marketplace and buys a candy bar, and therefore is paying a government 
tax is false on its face and false by its fact. They are paying what 
the candy bar company retails the product for.
  Let me repeat for the record and for all listening, sugar farmers, 
cane or beet sugar raisers, in this country do not receive one 
Government payment. There is no subsidy involved. Instead, there are 
loan programs they can use for marketing purposes, and they pay them 
back with current interest rates. The Senator from Arizona knows that. 
That is the way the program works. He is striking that out, but he is 
leaving the assessment in place. So he is saying: You can't have a 
relationship to your Government where we are going to tax you if you 
raise or produce sugar in this country.
  USDA estimates the sugar program saves taxpayers $500 to $700 million 
per year in deficiency payments on corn farmers and others who are 
paying an added 25 cents for the value of that product. These are the 
facts with which we are dealing. Governments of all sugar-producing 
countries have directly intervened in their production and have 
dramatically subsidized that production, driving down prices in the 
world market. Those are the facts that our growers deal with on an 
annual basis. American workers in 42 States benefit from the sugar 
policy. The sweetener industry has a positive annual impact of about 
$26.6 billion in the U.S. economy, and they add about 420,000 jobs to 
that economy.
  Here is the strange fact: You are being told sugar producers are 
making lots of money and the consumer is paying for it.
  When we passed this new farm program in 1996, from that time forward,

[[Page S10158]]

the price of cane sugar has dropped about 5 percent to the producer. 
The cost of beet sugar has dropped about 13 percent.
  Now, it is interesting that sugar products have gone up 20 to 30 
percent, so the consumer is paying more, but the producer is getting 
less under this program. So when you have a Senator standing on the 
floor saying the producer is making out like a bandit, well, if a 13-
percent reduction in beet costs and a 5-percent reduction in cane is 
real--and it is--who is making out like a bandit? I guess it is the 
retailer or manufacturer that has nothing to do with this. It is the 
marketplace at work.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  I rise in support of the McCain amendment. I first got involved in 
the sugar program when the last remaining West Coast sugar refinery 
came into my office to essentially say they were in the process of 
being put out of business by this program because they could not buy 
enough sugar on the world market to refine it. That refinery is C&H 
Sugar. I found that the sugar program is little more than a system of 
import restrictions, subsidized loans, and price supports that benefit 
a limited number of sugar growers.
  Recently, Congressman George Miller and I asked the GAO to take a 
look at the sugar program. A week ago, they put out this report 
entitled ``Sugar Program: Changing the Method For Setting Import Quotas 
Could Reduce Costs to Users.'' In short, the GAO found that the USDA's 
policy has allowed too little sugar to be imported into the country. 
This has increased costs to consumers and restricted our domestic 
refineries' access to sufficient quantities of sugar.
  The GAO found:

       USDA has continued to target the same stocks-to-use ratios 
     for determining annual tariff-rate quotas, despite the fact 
     that the resulting quotas have maintained domestic market 
     prices that are 2 or more cents higher than necessary for 
     avoiding loan forfeitures. This imposes unnecessary costs on 
     U.S. sugar users--about $400 million annually.

  They also found that:

       USTR's current process for allocating the sugar tariff-rate 
     quota does not ensure that all sugar allowed under the quota 
     reaches the United States market.

  This finding is particularly troubling to me. By limiting the amount 
of raw cane sugar available for production, 40 percent of the jobs in 
the sugarcane refining industry have been lost in this country. Since 
1982, 9 out of 21 cane sugar refineries in the United States have been 
forced out of business by this program. Those that have remained open 
are struggling to survive under onerous import restrictions.
  I first became involved in this issue in 1994 when David Koncelik, 
the president and CEO of the California and Hawaiian Sugar Company, 
informed me his refinery was forced to temporarily close because it had 
no sugar. This 93-year-old refinery is the Nation's largest, and the 
only such facility on the West Coast. C&H refines about 15 percent of 
the total cane sugar consumed in the United States.
  C&H requires in excess of 700,000 tons of raw cane sugar to meet its 
sales demand. Hawaii is C&H's sole source for its domestic raw cane 
sugar needs. But Hawaii's cane sugar industry has been in decline for 
over 10 years. This has meant that C&H is forced to cover over half of 
its annual consumption through imports from other countries.
  The highly restrictive sugar import system forces C&H to pay an 
inflated price for raw sugar from both domestic and foreign suppliers. 
This is just plain wrong. Even more devastating, however, the quota 
system limits the amount of sugar available to the refinery. Simply 
put, C&H has been unable to get enough sugar to refine, and it has been 
forced to close its doors on several occasions. This is as a result of 
the sugar program.
  In a letter to me, Mr. Koncelik notes:

       The C&H Sugar refinery in Crockett, California, was forced 
     to close from November 8 to November 15 because it ran out of 
     raw sugar. This closing is extremely costly. Other competitor 
     refineries, Savannah and Domino, have had similar 
     experiences. The Government-imposed shortage is forcing up 
     the market price for raw sugar to levels that are bankrupting 
     refiners.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Dear Senator Feinstein: The USDA is unnecessarily 
     disrupting operations and injuring the nation's cane sugar 
     refining industry by failing to increase the annual sugar 
     import quota to adequate levels.
       The C&H Sugar refinery in Crockett, California was forced 
     to close from November 8 to November 15 because it ran out of 
     raw sugar. This closing is extremely costly. Other competitor 
     refineries, Savannah and Domino, have had similar 
     experiences.
       The Government-imposed shortage is forcing up the market 
     price for raw sugar to levels that are bankrupting refiners. 
     The tight import quota is keeping the price of raw sugar well 
     above the Government support level, and well above the level 
     at which Government loan forfeitures might occur. The 
     increase in the cost of raw sugar since 1994 has cost the 
     refining industry in excess of $80 million.
       The structure of the market is such that refiners cannot 
     cover these increase costs in the refined sugar market. As a 
     result, C&H and all other refiners are losing money, and some 
     have for three years.
       In addition, the deplorable condition of the refining 
     industry has triggered justifiable concern within the food 
     processing industry over the sugar supply. In the absence of 
     a viable refining industry, which accounts for over 50 
     percent of refined sugar sold in the United States, the 
     specter of temporary food plant closing is real and not 
     imagined.
       There is an urgent need for an immediate and, this time, 
     meaningful increase in the sugar import quota. I would 
     appreciate it if you would discuss this matter with Secretary 
     Glickman and Ambassador Kantor.
           Sincerely,
                                                   David Koncelik,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The reduced production capacity has resulted in a 
severe downsizing of the workforce at this refinery. As recently as 
1987, C&H employed over 1,400 people. These are not minimum wage jobs 
we are talking about; the average employee in the cane refining 
industry earns about $43,000 a year. In 1995, C&H had to eliminate 30 
percent of its workforce just to remain viable under the quota system 
mandated by the sugar program.
  C&H now employs just over 500 people. These jobs and many others 
around the Nation are at risk if reforms are not made to the sugar 
program.
  In addition to choking off the refineries' access to sugar, the U.S. 
sugar policy also has had an adverse impact on consumers. An earlier 
report by the GAO found that the program costs sugar users an average 
$1.4 billion annually, as has been mentioned. That equates to $3.8 
million a day in hidden sugar taxes.
  The report found that:

       Although the sugar program is considered a no-net-cost 
     program because the Government does not make payments 
     directly to producers, it places the cost of the price 
     supports on sweetener users--consumers and manufacturers of 
     sweetener-containing products--who pay higher sugar and 
     sweetener prices.

  What this means is that, unlike traditional subsidy programs, the 
funds don't come directly from the Treasury. Instead, the sugar program 
places the cost on consumers by restricting the supply of available 
sugar which causes higher domestic market prices. This is our 
Government program; it makes no sense.
  On numerous occasions over the past 5 years, I have asked the 
administration to reform the sugar program. Simply increasing the 
amount of sugar available through the import program would provide 
immediate relief to C&H and all other domestic refineries. To date, no 
such permanent reform of the program has occurred. In the absence of 
these reforms, Congress must take stronger action.
  Congress has had opportunities in the past to kill this program and 
we have not taken them. As a result, workers have lost jobs and 
consumers have lost money.
  Regardless of what happens with this amendment, the effort to reform 
the sugar program is not going to end. Senators Schumer, Chafee, Gregg, 
Moynihan, myself, and others have introduced legislation that would 
phase out the subsidy over the next several years.
  If the administration refuses to work with us to make the program 
responsive to the needs of the domestic sugar refinery industry and to 
our consumers, we will have no choice but to push for passage of this 
bill.

[[Page S10159]]

  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Louisiana 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding time.
  It is not unusual that we are doing the sugar amendment again. It 
seems that we do it about every 2 years. We have been doing it for 
probably the last 20 years.
  It is interesting that this time we are doing it on a bill that is 
designed to help American agriculture, except that I think this 
amendment is being offered to try to eliminate an entire farm program 
for only one commodity. But this amendment is on a bill we are working 
on to try to help American agriculture. So I guess the only thing 
unusual is not that we are doing a sugar amendment but that we are 
doing it on a bill that is designed to help American farmers. And, of 
course, the amendment would do the exact opposite.
  It is interesting that some of my colleagues said, well, the program 
only helps a couple of folks in south Florida when in truth the fact is 
that about 420,000 people earn their living every day either directly 
or indirectly because of the sugar industry.
  The distinguished Senator from Hawaii knows its importance in the 
State of Hawaii. He has been involved not only with sugarcane-producing 
States but also sugar-beet-producing States. It is a program that has 
actually undergone a great deal of change and modification and 
improvement over the years.
  In the last farm bill, which was in 1986, we made some serious 
changes in the sugar program. I think most people involved in it said: 
Look, we are going to try to make the program better than it has been, 
and we are trying to address some of the legitimate concerns but also 
trying to provide some protection for this very important American 
industry, to do it consistent with our international obligations. We 
have done that. Domestic production controls were eliminated. There is 
no limit on how much you can produce in beets or in sugar. You can do 
as much as the market will bear.
  The guaranteed minimum price was eliminated. It is one of the few 
commodity crops that doesn't have a minimum guarantee of what the 
farmer is going to be receiving from the Government.
  We had a special tax for deficit reduction in the last farm bill, 
which was increased by 25 percent.
  This means sugar farmers were actually given an assessment to pay for 
the Federal deficit. Of course, now that the deficit is gone, it makes 
a great deal of sense to eliminate the assessment.
  Minimum imports--talking about not getting enough sugar--in the last 
farm bill were increased by about 20 percent, a substantial increase 
over the previous years' pattern on the amount of sugar being imported 
from about 41 countries that are greatly helped by the program.
  Forfeiture of sugar crop penalties were imposed.
  The point is that we made some serious changes to the program in 
order to improve it. So to come before the Senate, on a bill that is 
designed to help farmers, and offer an amendment to hurt farmers sort 
of seems inconsistent. But, well, what else is new?
  The other point I would make is how many Members of Congress have 
letters from constituents complaining about the price of a candy bar?

  How many of us have stacks and stacks of letters complaining about 
the price of a soft drink, or stacks of letters complaining about the 
price of a 5-pound bag of sugar in the supermarket?
  They don't do that because it is not a price that is out of 
proportion to what it has been in the past. Because of the program, it 
has not spiked upward or crashed downward but has remained fairly 
stable so that people can predict what it is going to cost for a 5-
pound bag of sugar.
  It is interesting that the only real complaints about the price of 
sugar come from the large industrial users and not from consumers in 
America.
  I remember my colleague, Senator Craig, was here back in the old 
days, I would say, when we first started these debates, and Senator 
Inouye was there, of course. It was the soft drink manufacturers who 
complained about the price of sugar. It made them charge too much for 
their soft drinks because they had sugar in them. Then they eliminated 
the sugar, and the price of the soft drinks went up even more. The 
actual can of soft drink with no sugar was selling for more than the 
price of a can of soft drink with sugar. They said, well, the price of 
sugar is making us raise the price of the soft drink.
  Then they went to sugar-free drinks, and they charged more for that 
than they did for the can with sugar in it. They actually increased the 
price of soft drinks about four times because it said the sugar price 
went up.
  Guess what happened when the price of sugar went down? Did they 
reduce the price of a soft drink? Don't hold your breath. They did not. 
The price of soft drinks kept going up.
  The only complaint we have about the sugar program to any extent 
outside the Chamber is from the professional lobbyists and the large 
industrial users which, for the most part, have changed over to the use 
of corn sweeteners and other things in the soft drink industry.
  I suggest that what we have is a program that works better than most 
farm programs because it doesn't have any Federal tax subsidy being 
used to hurt the income for sugar farmers. We use it by trying to 
regulate foreign companies from dumping cheap subsidized sugar from 
other countries onto the U.S. market. Some would way that is pretty 
good. Why don't you let them do that because then the price of sugar 
would be much lower? The problem with that theory is if they knocked 
out all of the American beet farmers and sugar cane farmers, the price 
would be lower for a short period of time, but when they monopolize the 
market and again control the market, they certainly would have the 
ability to exercise a sugar cartel and charge whatever they wanted, and 
we couldn't compete.
  In summary, we made great changes in 1996. The program is working. 
Consumers are not complaining. They have a stable price for a very 
important product.
  Like we say back home in Louisiana, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix 
it.'' Not only is it ``ain't broke,'' but it works very well, and 
should be maintained.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Hawaii 30 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the 
eloquence and wisdom of the statement of my friend from Louisiana.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is kind of fun to have these debates. I 
look forward to a chance to once again talk about how the world sugar 
industry works.
  The Senator from Arizona indicated that we are having to pay three 
times the world market price because of the sugar program. It is just 
not right. That isn't the case. It appears to be the case, but it is 
wrong. Here is the reason it is wrong.
  The vast majority of sugar in the world doesn't sell on the world 
market. The vast majority of sugar in the world sells under contract. 
Those contract prices are much higher than the so-called world market 
price. The world market price is a dumping price. It is what happens 
when producers produce more than they contracted for. They take that 
excess and they dump it on the market and sell it at fire sale prices.
  The world market price they talk about is, in fact, not a world 
market price. It does not represent what sugar sells for. It is totally 
misleading. As a result, you come to a wrong conclusion.
  The truth is that the last time we took away the sugar program, what 
happened to the price of sugar? Did the price of sugar go down? Does 
anybody remember? The price of sugar shot up. My, what a surprise.
  This sugar program is supposed to be producing higher prices. Yet 
when it was removed the last time, sugar prices

[[Page S10160]]

did not go down; they went up. In fact, they went up dramatically.
  It is because people do not understand how the sugar market works. 
This program in effect stabilizes prices.
  Every country has a sugar program. In fact, every country that is a 
producer has a program. Our major competitors spend much more on theirs 
than we do on ours.
  This program helps stabilize prices for consumers and for producers.
  When sugar prices fall, do candy prices fall? Let's go back and look. 
Let's check the record. Interestingly enough, the last time we saw 
sugar prices fall we also saw candy prices go up. We saw cereal prices 
go up. The fact is there is almost no relationship between the price of 
sugar and the finished products that some are talking about. In fact, 
this program stabilizes prices for consumers and for producers.

  Finally, on the question of who benefits, those who are producers 
clearly benefit from stabilization. I believe those who are consumers 
benefit from stabilization. In my State, we are not talking about a 
bunch of rich folks; we are talking about family farmers who are in 
deep trouble right now. If we take away this program, they will be in 
even deeper trouble.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I inquire the amount of time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 18 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to endorse the comments of my 
associates who have spoken in the last few minutes. This is an 
interesting program. We have been through this before. We went through 
it in 1996. There were extensive changes made in the farm bill in 1996 
that resulted in a number of changes. We have a program that has 
provided consumers with low, stable prices. It operates at no direct 
cost to the taxpayers. It helps reduce the Federal deficit and creates 
420,000 jobs.
  The Senator from California was talking about the closing of one 
plant. I am talking about growers, family farmers in Wyoming. I don't 
recognize the description by the Senator from Arizona of the people who 
are involved. That is not the way we do it.
  A number of things have changed that I think are very important. It 
was mentioned, when we didn't have a sugar program, the average cost of 
raw sugar was up to nearly 70 cents. It is now somewhere in the 
neighborhood of 20. Sugar policy benefits consumers. In developed 
countries, the average price is 60 cents; the highest is 92. The U.S. 
price is 41. We are 32 percent below the average consumer price for 
sugar.
  It has been pointed out that at the same time raw sugar prices have 
gone down almost 6 percent, the cost of products such as cereal have 
gone up 18 percent; ice cream, 18 percent; candy, 20 percent; cookies 
and cakes, up 25 percent. That is not the reason the cost of goods has 
gone up.
  Under the farm bill, there is no minimum price guarantee. They have 
no recourse loans other than when there is an exception to the imports. 
Sugar farmers receive no Government payment and have not since the 
1970s. Indeed, they do pay a marketing assessment that goes to reduce 
the deficit, an unusual characteristic.
  This business of the ``world price'' that has been discussed is 
clearly a dump price. The average production cost is 18 cents; the 
average world price is 9 cents. Figure out if that is really the market 
working. Of course it isn't. It is a dumped price.
  The farm bill is not the time to discuss the sugar bill. It was 
extended in 1996 in the farm bill, to be reviewed again in the year 
2002. The sugar industry is very happy to reduce the import quotas if 
the rest of the world does the same thing.
  We are talking about small producers, not huge money conglomerates. I 
am a little offended at the idea that soft money is the reason that 
people support this program. This is a program that has served us well. 
The time when we are talking about strengthening agriculture is not the 
time to do this.
  I urge my associates in the Senate to reject this amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield the Senator from Louisiana 2 minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the 
remarks of my senior Senator from Louisiana who has led this fight 
successfully for many years and who has crafted a program that is 
working not only for sugar growers in 40 States around the country, 
with over 400,000 jobs represented directly or indirectly, it is also 
actually working for the refineries and the consumer.
  I am surprised that this amendment has come up, particularly at this 
time. I don't believe it is good to kick farmers while they are down. 
That is what this amendment does. The rural economies in our country 
are really struggling. Commodity prices from the west coast to the east 
coast, to Louisiana, up to the Dakotas, have been at historic lows. We 
are struggling to find the balance as to how our agricultural community 
can compete.
  The sugar growers in Louisiana are highly efficient. We can compete 
with farmers all over the world, but we can't compete with foreign 
governments. That is what this whole issue is about. This sugar program 
is working for everyone. It costs the taxpayer nothing. It has actually 
been a revenue raiser since 1991. Now is simply not the time to kick 
the farmers when they are down.
  I associate myself with the remarks of my senior colleague from 
Louisiana. I thank the manager for giving me and other Senators time to 
speak on this important issue, and I yield back the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her 
very important and direct statements about this issue.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, 
Senator Craig, Senator Breaux, and others on the floor, in opposing 
this amendment.
  I find it interesting; whenever we talk about sugar, we talk about 
the ``world price,'' which doesn't have any relationship to anything of 
importance. The people who describe ``world price" are people who go to 
a sidewalk sale in front of a store and pick up some odds or ends that 
somebody is trying to sell at 90 percent off list price and then say: 
Look what I bought this for; this is the price for that product.
  No, it is not; it is a sidewalk sale.
  The same is true with sugar. Most sugar is traded country to country 
by long-term contract. Very little sugar is moved on the open market. 
That which is represents an overhang and surplus and represents the 
dump price or the surplus price. Those are the facts.
  Somehow there is a notion we should be the victims in this country as 
a group of producers; whatever the lowest common denominator is, we 
ought to ride the elevator to the bottom with everybody. Calling the 
price of sugar on the world market the world price is a misnomer. Most 
sugar is traded by contract, and it is traded in circumstances where at 
least you get back the cost of production and a decent profit.
  This price they are talking about, don't be fooled by it. It doesn't 
mean anything. It is not related to the production of sugar in this 
country.
  Now, who is producing sugar? I find it ironic that in the middle of 
this discussion about the farm crisis, in the middle of the discussion 
about the plight of families out there struggling to survive, when the 
Asian economy has collapsed, exports are down, and prices have 
collapsed, and in my State we have had the worst crop disease in 100 
years, and my State had 3 million acres that could not be planted 
because it was too wet this spring, we are told there is one part of 
the farm program that ought to be dismantled.
  At least this is a part of the farm program that works and has 
historically worked. It doesn't cost Federal money. It doesn't cost the 
taxpayer anything. It provides stability of sugar prices for the 
American consumer. It provides some modicum of stability for the 
producers.
  Who are the producers? Family farmers. I was in a room with 1,000 of 
them in Fargo, ND. These are folks who work on that tractor in the 
winter, get it all ready, and then take all the risk

[[Page S10161]]

to put the crop in, plant those beets, take the risk of the harvest, 
and take the risk through their cooperative. These are good people, and 
they are going through tough times. The last thing in the world we 
ought to do is pull the rug out from under those people who are 
producing our beets and cane and decide we should dismantle this 
program.
  There is so much in the farm program that doesn't work, and I have 
been on the floor for days talking about it. Why go to the part of the 
farm program that has worked historically to help the producer and say, 
by the way, let's find something that does work and get rid of it? It 
doesn't make any sense at all.
  Let me conclude by saying this is about family farmers as far as I am 
concerned. It is not about the theory of sugar production or a sugar 
program or a world price. It is about providing stability for 
consumers, yes but it is about providing stability of income for some 
families that are trying to make a living on the land in this country. 
It is not easy for them. This program is helping them without cost to 
the American taxpayer. This program has helped them without injury or 
cost to the American consumer.

  This program is well conceived and well constructed, is contributing 
something, and is an asset to American family farmers in this country. 
The last thing in the world we should do, and the last time we ought to 
do it, would be to get rid of the sugar program at this point in this 
debate on the farm program. We ought to preserve the sugar program. We 
ought to fight for it and preserve it because it works. We ought to do 
that in the context in which we are working today, to help family 
farmers in other ways as well, with the disaster program, the response 
to the farm crisis, and perhaps a change in the underlying farm law at 
some point in the future.
  But this is narrow. This is an amendment that says let's get rid of 
the sugar program. I was unaware of this amendment until an hour or so 
ago. I did not see any organization developing in the Congress or in 
the Senate to say let's have a discussion about this. This is a program 
that has worked so well. Then we have an amendment and then debate for 
an hour. I think that describes the difficulty.
  Let us support the sugar program. Let us defeat this amendment. It is 
important for family farmers in this country to do so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 7 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux, for his closing comments. Before doing so, 
let me say both the cane interests that he represents and the beet 
interests that I represent have worked together over the years to build 
a program that many have outlined today. It works well in the market. 
The Senator from Wyoming has played an important role in helping define 
that program.
  Let me yield to the Senator from Louisiana for his closing comments.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I say to our colleagues who may be 
watching some of this debate, the last time this amendment was 
offered--and it is offered to the Senate on an annual basis--was on the 
Senate Agriculture appropriations bill in 1997. The distinguished 
Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, at that time moved to table the 
effort to do away with the program. I remind all Senators we had a 
recorded vote and 63 Senators voted to table it at that time.
  I hope people understand the program is working. We made major 
changes in 1996. It operates at no cost to the taxpayers and has 
provided a stable floor of prices for the product, sugar, that we 
import and produce domestically.
  The point again is, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' It is 
working as we in the Congress intended it to work. It is working for 
producers and consumers. This is something that is almost a rarity in 
agricultural programs. It has been very difficult to come up with a 
proper balance.
  This program is working. It is working as Congress intended. We 
should keep it and not try to kill it when it is working as well as it 
is.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Florida 1 minute.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the statement 
that was made earlier relative to the role of the Florida sugar 
industry and the Florida Everglades. As one who grew up in the Florida 
Everglades and feels deeply about the importance of the State and 
national effort which is underway to restore them, I think it is 
important to set the record straight.
  The sugar industry has appropriately been designated for a major part 
of the effort to restore the Everglades. Thus far, they have not only 
met but exceeded the requirements that have been imposed for the 
reduction of phosphorus from the waters before they enter the main part 
of the Everglades. Sugar has participated in the development of a 
restudy plan, which will soon be debated by this Senate, and sugar has 
been a strong supporter of the restoration of the Everglades through 
the Corps of Engineers restudy plan.
  It is important for the success of the salvation of the Everglades 
that each of the stakeholders play their role. I can state at this time 
that sugar is playing its appropriate role and a strong sugar industry 
is going to be a key element in achieving the objective of saving the 
Florida Everglades.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me close out the debate on this side of 
this issue by saying to Senators that you will have an opportunity to 
vote to table the McCain amendment in a few moments. It is an amendment 
that really does not face the reality of the situation today. While 
product prices across the country, are low, we have one program in 
agriculture that is working reasonably well. That is a program that, in 
value to the farmer, beet or cane, since 1990, has actually gone down. 
But it has not translated through to the consumer because the sweetener 
industry, and the confectionery industry have continually raised their 
prices. This is not a subsidy, nor is it a cost to the taxpayer. There 
is no net cost to the taxpayer. All of these recourse loans are repaid 
at current interest rates. It is important to recognize it is a way of 
marketing and effectively distributing the product of this agricultural 
producer.
  It has also been clearly pointed out that you cannot compare current 
values and markets with world markets because most sugar around the 
world is sold on contract. That which is not is dumped to the bottom. 
So to compare that, it is not even apples and oranges; it is apples 
compared with nothing.
  It is important this program be retained. We revised it dramatically 
in 1996 in the new farm program, and it has worked effectively since 
that time. I hope those who supported us in 1996 on a similar amendment 
will stand with us today, in behalf of the American producer, both cane 
and sugar beet and the American consumers. American consumers find 
themselves paying substantially less than other consumers, some nearly 
$1 billion less on an annualized basis than other comparable consumers 
around the world in developed nations that are large consumers of 
sugar.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to table the McCain 
amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as I listen to all the evils attributed to 
the sugar program during today's debate on the McCain amendment, I 
hardly recognize the tiny white crystals that sweeten my cereal each 
morning.
  Sugar is an essential element of human nutrition. It's also one of 
the least expensive food items you will find in an American kitchen. 
When you go to a restaurant, there are only two things available at no 
charge and in unlimited quantity: water and sugar. Despite these 
achievements, sugar is being abused and maligned on the Senate floor.
  As I listen to the criticism of the sugar program,I think that some 
of my colleagues have lost sight of a basic fact that American 
consumers clearly understand: sugar is probably the best bargain you 
can find at the grocery store today. A pound of refined sugar

[[Page S10162]]

costs 39 cents. American sugar farmers and the U.S. sugar program help 
make sugar affordable.
  Consumers elsewhere around the globe do not enjoy the low prices we 
have in America. If you visit a grocery store in other industrialized 
nations you will get ``sticker shock'' when you pass the sugar display. 
In Tokyo, consumers pay nearly 90 cents for a pound of sugar, more than 
twice the U.S. price. In Europe, prices average 50 to 70 cents per 
pound. Obviously, sugar is no bargain in Europe and Japan.
  On average, the retail price for a pound of sugar is 54 cents in 
developed countries--38 percent more than the price in American 
supermarkets. Consumers in developing countries pay a significant 
premium for sugar. When they go to market, all they get is the same 
one-pound box of sugar as we do in America, but they pay substantially 
more for it--38 percent more.
  Thanks to a farm program that assures stable supplies at reasonable 
prices, sugar is a remarkable bargain for American consumers. U.S. 
consumers pay an average of 17 cents less per pound of sugar than their 
counterparts in other industrialized nations. Low U.S. prices save 
consumers $1.4 billion annually. That's why I say that the sugar 
program is a great deal for American consumers. Thanks to the sugar 
program, U.S. consumers enjoy a plentiful supply of sugar at bargain 
prices.
  I thank my colleagues for rejecting this amendment. If Congress 
terminates the sugar program, not only will a dynamic part of the 
economy disappear from many rural areas, but consumers will also lose a 
reliable supply of high-quality, low-price sugar.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain amendment 
and urge my colleagues to support American agriculture by supporting a 
program that has consistently proven its worth to American consumers.
  Our current sugar program provides consumers one of the cheapest 
prices for sugar in the developed world. In 1998, U.S. sugar prices 
were approximately 32 percent below other developed countries.
  One reason for these low prices has been the obvious success of the 
current Sugar program. The purpose of the program is to protect the 
incomes of domestic sugar producers by supporting domestic prices. The 
program does this by making available loans to sugar processors and by 
restricting sugar imports. There is no cost, therefore, to the American 
taxpayer.
  Because of the support this program has given America's sugar 
producers, American consumers have benefitted from a healthy industry 
that has provided us a steady, quality product. Consider, however, what 
could happen if our domestic sugar industry was suddenly forced out of 
business by heavily-subsidized, low-quality foreign sugar. Could we 
guarantee that sugar prices would continue at an affordable level, or 
that American consumers would receive a high-quality product that was 
produced under safe, healthy conditions?
  When we compare the cost of U.S. sugar with the price of sugar on the 
world market we must also not forget the other benefits that come from 
a healthy domestic sugar industry, including the benefit of increased 
employment for our rural communities. Economies in rural communities 
are not like economies in more urban settings. Rural economies cannot 
make the kind of rapid adjustments that are available to more populated 
areas. When a sugar processing plant of about 250 people goes out of 
business in rural America, even though its number of employees may seem 
small under urban standards, those 150 employees can make up a large 
percentage of the local work force. The impact of this sudden high 
unemployment can resound through such a community for many, many years.
  Furthermore, it is unfair to compare the cost of U.S. sugar with the 
price of sugar on the world market because when we look at the actual 
source of the world price we learn it is not an accurate or comparable 
price. In reality, it is a dump price, or in other words it is the 
price sugar-exporting countries get for dumping their highly-subsidized 
sugar on world markets.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support 
America's farmers and to support America's consumers by opposing this 
amendment.


                    Amendment No. 1510, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment by removing part (b) of this amendment. That has to do with 
the marketing assessment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, the 
amendment is modified.
  The amendment as modified is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. 7. SUGAR PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel of the Department of 
     Agriculture to carry out section 156 of the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272), other than subsection 
     (f).

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am always entertained by this debate, 
especially by my friend. I understand the argument of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle because they have a philosophy concerning big 
government and government has the answer to our problems and we should 
subsidize industries and also practice protectionism. I understand 
that.
  It is a little harder for me to understand the philosophy on this 
side of the aisle, which is supposed to be less government, less 
regulation, fewer subsidies, lower taxes, and looking out for the 
individual.
  The combination of import restrictions, guaranteed prices, and 
subsidized loans keep the prices artificially high. There is no 
objective economist in America who will disagree with that. There will 
be people in the sugar growing industry and those who represent States 
where sugar is grown, but that is a fact. It transfers about $1.5 
billion a year from consumers to a handful of large sugar growers. 
Almost half the benefits from the sugar program go to little more than 
1 percent of growers. The high prices act as a tax on food, and it hits 
hardest at poor families who typically spend a large fraction of their 
budget on food and other necessities.
  If this proposal passes, according to any objective economist, 
including our much respected Heritage Foundation and others, the sugar 
price could fall 20 cents for a 5-pound bag.
  The advocates justify their subsidies as needed to counter foreign 
subsidized imports and protect the jobs of domestic workers. Neither 
argument withstands scrutiny. There are ample rules to prevent foreign 
countries from dumping Government-subsidized sugar in the U.S. markets. 
Also, by propping up raw sugar prices, the program has driven half the 
U.S. sugar refiners out of business or out of the country, taking the 
jobs with them.
  Mr. President, I am sorry to see the Senator from Florida defend the 
sugar growers because everybody knows, and any environmental 
organization will agree, that what has happened in the Everglades has 
caused enormous damage.
  I ask unanimous consent for 60 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Whether they are willing to kick in and fix it is one 
thing, but I think any environmental organization would attest to the 
fact that the increase of a half million acres of sugar growing around 
the Everglades has done significant damage to the Everglades.
  I am glad they are being forced to pay for part of the cleanup since 
they are clearly a great part of the problem. I also think it is wrong 
when one family gets $35 million in subsidies--35 million of taxpayer 
dollars. I think it is wrong. I think most Americans think it is wrong, 
too. I do not expect to win this amendment, but some day we are going 
to realize that by subsidizing big producers, whether they be for sugar 
or anything else, the American people will grow a little weary of this 
kind of expenditure of their taxpayer dollars and demand we change.
  I yield back my remaining time. I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Has all time been used or yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been used or yielded back.

[[Page S10163]]

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1510, as modified. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 254 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--33

     Biden
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Collins
     DeWine
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gregg
     Hutchinson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mack
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Pennsylvania is 
recognized.


                Amendment No. 1512 To Amendment No. 1499

(Purpose: To reauthorize, and modify the conditions for, the consent of 
   Congress to the Northeast Dairy Compact, to grant the consent of 
Congress to the Southern Dairy Compact, and to require the Secretary of 
Agriculture to use certain methods for pricing milk under consolidated 
                     Federal milk marketing orders)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1512 to amendment No. 1499.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. SPECTER. This amendment calls for the creation of a dairy compact 
that would extend beyond the New England States, which currently have a 
dairy compact, and would include a number of other States, such as 
Pennsylvania, New York, and others. The purpose of this dairy compact 
is to stabilize the price of milk. The price of milk has fluctuated 
enormously. In December of last year, it was as high as $17.34 per 
hundredweight; in June of this year, it went down to $11.42 per 
hundredweight.
  There is currently a dairy compact in effect for the Northeastern 
States--not including Pennsylvania or New York--which will expire in 
October of this year. The compact will provide some stability in the 
industry and will guarantee consumers an uninterrupted supply of milk. 
There has been some concern expressed about the cost to the consumers. 
When the Northeast Compact went into effect, the prices for milk within 
the compact region were 5 cents lower than retail prices in the rest of 
the Nation.
  This bill would authorize member States to enter into a voluntary 
agreement to create a minimum price for milk in the compact region that 
takes into account the regional differences in the costs of production. 
In addition to providing the stability, it will ensure, with an 
appropriate safety net, that milk can be produced and be available for 
very important programs like WIC--Women, Infants, and Children--and the 
availability generally.
  Pennsylvania passed legislation that will enable Pennsylvania to 
enter into this compact if it is authorized by the Congress. Some 40 
Senators have cosponsored similar legislation, and Governor Ridge 
signed legislation that would permit my State of Pennsylvania to enter 
into the compact.
  Mr. President, as I outlined earlier, when seeking a unanimous 
consent agreement, I do not intend to press this issue to a vote. I do 
not intend to do so because of the rule of the Senate that bars 
legislation on an appropriations bill--a recently revived rule. But I 
am putting it in the Record today and outlining its basic purpose, with 
the intent to bring it up in the conference with the House to try to 
get this enacted into law.
  I am pleased now to yield to the distinguished Senator from New York, 
Mr. Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Pennsylvania. I am proud to work with him on this amendment. As was 
stated, this would reauthorize the Northeast Dairy Compact and extend 
it to New York and Pennsylvania, as well as New Jersey, Maryland, 
Delaware, and Ohio. It also implements the 1-A pricing structure.
  I have visited dairy farms throughout New York State, and I have 
become an enthusiastic supporter of the compact, which will preserve 
the economy and a rural way of life in my State and throughout the 
country. Over the last 10 years, New York State has lost a third of its 
dairy farms, dropping from 13,000 to 8,600. These are not just 8,600 
farms; they are the backbone of a rural economy. We in New York State 
have the third largest rural population of any State, and the dairy 
compact is vital.
  I have talked to constituents in New York City, and they would, in 
some cases, pay a little bit more for milk. But we need to bring both 
parts of the State together. As I have asked my upstate constituents to 
sometimes consider the problems we have downstate and be mindful of 
those, I ask the same of my downstate constituents about upstate.
  The cost is not great. The New England compact price of milk has not 
risen by more than 4 cents a year; that is, $3.50 a family. WIC is 
exempt. There is a move I support to exempt senior citizen programs.
  So it is not going to cost anyone very much to help preserve a 
portion of our State and a way of life. I am disappointed, of course, 
that we were unable to garner the 60 votes for the New England compact. 
I understand why the Senator from Pennsylvania--and I agree with him--
will not pursue this to a vote at this point, but we do this in hopes 
that in conference we can be added to the compact.
  Both of my good friends from Wisconsin led a strong, valiant fight on 
the other side. The only thing I would ask them to understand is how 
desperately our State needs this compact. I am hopeful that we can find 
some common ground that will benefit both areas.
  But in the meantime, New York needs entry into the compact. We need 
1-A, and I hope that my colleagues will look at this amendment and 
might be able to support it in conference.
  I yield whatever remaining time I have. I thank the Senator from 
Pennsylvania for yielding time to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I had hoped that the last vote had ended the 
debate on dairy compacts. But if my colleagues wish to eulogize these 
cartels, I am happy to join them.
  First, I want to explain why I care so much about this issue. 
Wisconsin is the dairy state. We have 22,000 farms, and almost all of 
them family-owned businesses. We have thousands more residents who make 
their living buying

[[Page S10164]]

and selling dairy products, farm equipment, barns, feed, even the early 
morning coffee served to the farmers who come to town straight from 
their milking barns each morning. Dairy compacts do not only strike at 
an industry in my state. They strike at the heart and soul of 
Wisconsin, at our way of life.
  The Northeast dairy compact legislatively raises the price of class I 
milk above the prevailing federal milk marketing order price for 
farmers in the States lucky enough to be in the compact region. By a 
complicated formula, all dairy farmers in the region--regardless of 
what class milk they produce or for what use--receive some extra 
subsidy from the region's milk processors based on their overall milk 
production. Of course, this is a classic anti-market incentive for 
these farmers to produce more milk than the region needs or demands.
  Besides having a very real cost to the Treasury, the overproduction 
of all sorts of milk in the compact region causes prices to fall in 
non-compact states for milk used to produce cheese, butter, milk powder 
and other products likely to be exported out of State. If the Northeast 
dairy compact becomes permanent, the oversupply problem will grow 
exponentially as Northeast farmers make the capital investments 
warranted by their permanent guarantee of an artificially high price 
for all of their milk. If compacts spread to other regions of the 
country, non-compact regions--the fewer and fewer farmers operating in 
a free market--will be squeezed even more by even more overproduction. 
The cost to the Treasury would be unjustifiable. The cost to efficient 
family farms in the Midwest would be unbearable.
  This is more than bad economic policy. The regional favoritsm it 
embodies is downright un-American. What other industry sees prices set 
based soley on what region of the country the producer produces? What 
other industry faces trade barriers erected within the United States?
  You may support dairy compacts today based on the hope your State 
might join a dairy compact soon or based on indifference to a dairy 
industry problem that doesn't have much to do with your State. But 
remember your support tomorrow when your neighboring state or region 
throws up a wall to keep you from selling fruit or vegetables or grain 
or beef or cars or computers in their State. That is no way to run a 
country. That is no policy for States that are allegedly united into 
one country. Mr. President, I hope we can put this issue to rest for 
the year and move forward with this important agricultural 
appropriations bill. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me associate myself with all of the 
comments of the senior Senator from Wisconsin with regard to the merits 
of this amendment.
  Again, I agree that this has to be one of the most bizarre pieces of 
the American economy that the Congress ever sought to set up.
  We are extremely pleased and happy with the vote on cloture. There 
was a full court press to try to get cloture on this very hard fought 
issue.
  Frankly, the proponents of the compact didn't even come close. That 
is the message that is sent.
  So when the Senator from Pennsylvania indicates that he is going to 
withdraw this amendment, which certainly is within his rights, and then 
fight for it in conference, let me simply point out at this point that 
I could offer a point of order, which I assume would be agreed to by 
the Presiding Officer, which would make it clear and indisputable that 
this simply does not belong on an appropriations bill under rule XVI. 
That is clear.
  So if it isn't appropriate in the Senate to do it, and it is against 
our rules, I would suggest it doesn't belong in conference either.
  The message from the Senate is clear. All the efforts were made on 
both sides to try to win that cloture vote. The message is very simple. 
This body is not representing to the conference or anyone else any 
other conclusion other than that the compact should come to an end, as 
the Secretary of Agriculture has proposed.
  I will not offer that point of order in deference to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. But I want to be very clear in the Record that that is 
the posture from the Senate as this bill ultimately goes to conference.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the parliamentary situation. 
But I want to strongly support the amendment of both Senator Specter 
and Senator Schumer.
  The distinguished Senator from New York has been a tremendous 
advocate for his dairy farmers, and this amendment is critical to 
keeping them in business. Upstate New York, just as Vermont, needs a 
compact to keep their dairy industry alive.
  The distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, has 
taken the lead on this issue for years for his dairy farmers in 
Pennsylvania. He recognizes that participating in our regional compact 
will increase farm income at a time when dairy farmers around the 
Nation are in dire straits.
  I will continue to fight for them--for a Southern compact and for a 
Northeast compact. There will be other opportunities this year. I stand 
united with them. Congress should not stand in the way of the wishes of 
25 Governors, 25 State senates, and 25 State assemblies, or house of 
representatives--especially when all they want is to provide a safety 
net for their dairy farmers without raiding the Federal Treasury.
  We talk about billions of dollars in farm programs. We are asking 
everybody to embrace these compacts because they do not cost the 
taxpayers anything.
  Napoleon said that ``sometimes the most trifling thing decides the 
fate of battle.'' In this case, the new rule changes of rule XVI 
coupled with bringing up the Senate Agriculture appropriations bill 
makes it difficult to extend the compact to the additional 19 States 
that already have approved compacts. Eventually it will be done. I will 
do everything possible to get it done.
  The National Grange pointed out that ``regional dairy compacts offer 
the best opportunity to preserve family dairy farms.''
  The Grange goes on to support the Southern Dairy compact since a 
Southern Compact would ``provide dairy farmers in that region with a 
stable price structure for the milk they produce while assuring the 
region a viable supply of locally produced milk.''
  I support both the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, and the 
Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, and appreciate all of the 
tremendous work they have done for the dairy farmers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I take sharp exception to the argument of 
the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, where the assertion is made 
that we fell far short of cloture. We had 53 Senators who voted in 
favor of cloture. We are moving up the line toward the requisite 60 
number.
  I might point out that on the campaign finance reform bill after some 
substantial years of effort there are 52 votes. I am one of the 52. I 
believe the campaign finance bill is going to get to 60 just as I think 
the chances are excellent that we may well get to 60 on this cloture 
vote.
  But the important point is that 53 Senators signified their desire to 
support strong dairy prices. That is much more significant in terms of 
being two votes over the majority. It is hard to get 51 Senators in 
this body to agree to anything. It is harder yet to get 52, and harder 
still to get 53.
  There is a widespread recognition in this body, including the 40 
Senators who have cosponsored this legislation. I believe there is a 
lot of support signified by 53 votes for cloture.
  We will have an opportunity to move ahead with this bill when it gets 
to conference.
  We will let the conference work its will and it may return to the 
floor. There are very good reasons for this bill. I understand there 
are regional differences, and what may benefit the farmers of 
Pennsylvania may detract to some extent from the farmers in other 
States.
  In our Government, in our democracy, we work these things out as best 
we can. I hope we can find some common ground. If we can't, let the 
Congress work its will.

[[Page S10165]]

                     Amendment No. 1512, Withdrawn

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I formally withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    specter dairy compact amendment

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise along with my colleagues to 
support this important amendment. On April 27, I introduced S.J. Res. 
22, along with 39 of my colleagues. Support for S.J. Res. 22, which 
reauthorizes the Northeast Dairy Compact and ratifies the creation of 
the Southern Dairy Compact, is impressive.
  As we know, Secretary Glickman's final pricing rule, which is 
scheduled to be implemented on October 1, 1999, will cost dairy farmers 
millions of dollars in lost income. In addition, successful pilot 
program of the Northeast Dairy Compact will expire on October 1, 1999, 
unless congressional action is taken.
  This amendment would: Extend the Northeast Dairy Compact until 2002 
and ratify a Southern Dairy Compact as a pilot program until 2002; 
Mandate Option 1-A for the pricing formula for Class 1 milk; and 
Require the Secretary of Agriculture to use formal rule making to 
determine the pricing formula for Class III milk.
  This amendment must be addressed before the October 1, 1999, 
deadline. We have an opportunity to give the states the right to help 
protect their farmers with no cost to the federal government and 
correct the Secretary of Agriculture's flawed pricing rules.
  This amendment is about fairness to both farmers and consumers. It 
has the broad support of governors, state departments of agriculture, 
the American Farm Bureau, and dairy cooperatives and coalitions from 
throughout the country. Even the Land-O-Lakes Cooperative in the Upper 
Midwest supports this important amendment.
  However, I am aware that some of my colleagues oppose our efforts to 
bring fairness to our states and farmers. Also, unfortunately, Congress 
has been bombarded with misinformation from an army of lobbyists 
representing the national milk processors, led by the International 
Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the Milk Industry Foundation. These 
two groups, backed by the likes of Philip Morse, have funded several 
front groups to lobby against this amendment.
  I would like to set the record straight. It is crucial that Congress 
debate the issues presented on the merits, rather than based on 
misinformation. When properly armed with the facts, I believe you will 
conclude that the Northeast Dairy Compact was a successful experiment 
that works and that other states should be given the opportunity to 
prove whether a dairy compact would work for them.
  This amendment reauthorizes the very successful Northeast Dairy 
Compact pilot program and allows the Southern Dairy Compact to operate 
as a pilot program until 2002, when Congress would have an opportunity 
to revisit and carefully consider the Northeast and Southern Compacts 
in the 2002 farm bill.
  Currently the bill to reauthorize the Northeast and ratify the 
Southern compact has 40 cosponsors. Twenty-five states have passed 
dairy compacts and now even more than half the states in the county are 
interested in having the right to form dairy compacts. During the past 
year Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, 
Georgia, Missouri and Kansas, have all passed legislation to form a 
southern dairy compact. Texas is also considering joining the Southern 
Compact.
  The Oregon legislature is in the process of developing a Pacific 
Northwest Dairy Compact as well. New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, 
Pennsylvania, and New York have passed state legislation enabling them 
to join the Northeast Dairy Compact.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact, which was authorized by the 1996 farm 
bill as a three-year pilot program, has been extremely successful. The 
Compact has been studied, audited, and sued--but has always come 
through with a clean bill of health. Because of the success of the 
Compact it has served as a model for the entire country.
  One look at the votes cast by each state legislature, and you can see 
that there is little controversy over what is in best interest for the 
consumers and farmers in each respected state. For example, in Alabama 
and Arkansas, both legislative chambers passed compact legislation 
unanimously. It passed unanimously in the North Carolina Senate and by 
a vote of 106-1 in the North Carolina House. In the Oklahoma State 
Senate, it passed by a vote of 44-1 and unanimously in the Oklahoma 
House. It passed unanimously in the Virginia State Senate and by a vote 
of 90-6 in the Virginia House. In Kansas, the bill passed in the Senate 
by a vote of 39-1 and an impressive 122-1 in the Kansas House.
  A 1998 report by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), requested 
by Members from the Upper Midwest, on the economic effects of the Dairy 
Compact illustrates the Compact's success. The OMB reported that during 
the first six months of the Compact, consumer prices for milk within 
the Compact region were five cents lower than retail store prices in 
the rest of the nation.
  OMB concluded that the Compact added no federal costs to nutrition 
programs during this time, and that the Compact did not adversely 
affect farmers outside the Compact region. This is an important fact to 
remember as some of my colleagues may debate that the Compact harms the 
farmers in the compact region.
  Congressional opponents of the Compact also requested an audit of the 
Dairy Compact Commission by the USDA's Office of Inspector General and 
federal auditors gave the Compact Commission a clean bill of health. 
The auditors stated unequivocally that the Commission has properly 
administered funds and provided $46 million to dairy farmers.
  The courts also agree that the Compact is legally sound. Last 
January, a Federal appeals court rejected a challenge to the Dairy 
Compact by the Milk Industry Foundation. The Court found that the 
Compact was constitutional and the U.S. Agriculture Secretary's 
approval of the Compact was justified.
  Recently seventeen Governors from throughout the Northeast and 
Southeast sent a letter to the Majority Leader of the Senate and House, 
urging Congress to consider and support the Dairy Compact legislation. 
The Governors of the Compact regions speak not only for their farmers 
and consumers but for the rights of the States. The message to Congress 
from Governors nationwide has been clear. ``Increase the flexibility of 
states and support legislation that promotes state and regional policy 
initiatives.''
  I would now like to address the actual and potential impact of dairy 
compacts on milk production and the cost to taxpayers. In short, dairy 
compacts have and should have little impact on production and operates 
without cost to taxpayers and the federal government, not one penny. 
Opposition claims to the contrary, even accounting for the admitted 
uncertainty of dairy economics, are overblown and distorted.
  First, these compacts contain specific provisions designed to ensure 
the prevention of surplus production attributable to operation of the 
compacts. The compacts are entirely self-funded, without any recourse 
to the federal (or state) treasury and preclude any cost to taxpayers. 
Additionally, the states have agreed to the condition of consent 
contained in S.J. Res. 22 which requires the compact commissions to 
reimburse USDA for any surplus purchases made, should the internal 
protection devices fail. While the latter provision does not directly 
prevent the potential adverse impact of surplus production on the 
national marketplace, it does act as a further restraint on the 
commission's function. It is only logical to see that the last thing 
the commissions would want is to end up as funding USDA purchases of 
surplus powdered milk production for the national milk market!
  With this analysis in mind, I would like to briefly respond to the 
claims about milk production and taxpayers costs made by opponents of 
dairy compact legislation. The International Dairy Foods Association, 
the trade organization for the processors' lobby which is leading the 
opposition to S.J. Res. 22, claims that the Northeast Compact has 
resulted in an estimated 60 percent increase in milk powder production 
while national powder production increased only by 2 percent, and that 
the USDA has expended $11 million in surplus production purchases

[[Page S10166]]

attributable to the regional production increase. In various statements 
against dairy compacts, opponents have cited the percentage increase in 
milk powder production and purchase costs with approval.
  Anyone who has worked in the area of dairy pricing and statistics 
knows of the hazards of attempting to quantify analysis of this most 
complex sector of our economy. The above analysis proves the point. It 
is certainly true that milk powder production in the northeast 
increased during the first six months of operation of the Northeast 
Compact at a rate above the national average. Yet the reasons are not 
as simple--only because of operation of the Northeast Compact--as 
opponents of dairy compacts would have us believe. First, one of the 
largest cheese processing plants in the region shut down during this 
time, and the raw milk supply had to be converted from cheese to powder 
production. On the other side of the equation, national production 
during this period was quite depressed, despite the apparent two 
percent increase, because of a dramatic downturn in California and 
southwest production. Hence the otherwise seeming disparities in rates 
of production.
  Furthermore, the claim that USDA spend $11 million in surplus 
purchases attributable to the Northeast Compact's operation is 
blatantly misleading. In fact, $1.7 million in such reimbursement was 
provided--nowhere near the $11 million amount claimed by the 
opposition. In addition, whether the $1.7 million represents purchases 
which more reflect the increase in powder production attributable to 
the shut down of the cheese plant, and other factors, remains an open 
question of economic analysis, despite the reimbursement provided also 
by the Compact Commission.
  Opponents further cite with approval the claim of IDFA that operation 
of the Northeast Compact will cost taxpayers an estimated $400 million 
annually. This claim is made without basis or analysis and must not be 
relied upon at all. Simply put, CBO gave the Northeast Compact a zero 
source, which is a long, long, way from $400 million.
  I feel I should take some time to explain just how the Compact 
operates. The Northeast Dairy Compact Commission has the authority to 
regulate Class 1 (or fluid) milk prices. The commission, which consists 
of consumer, processor and farmer representatives appointed by each 
state's governor, determines both the price necessary to yield a 
reasonable return to producers and distributors as well as the 
purchasing power of the public through a formal rule making procedure. 
Any regulation is subject to a two-thirds vote by a state delegation as 
well as a producer referendum.
  All milk consumed in compact-affected areas is uniformly regulated. 
This provision ensures an equal benefit to New York or California 
farmers who supply milk to the compact states. The Compact Commission's 
price regulation works in conjunction with the federal government's 
pricing program, which establishes minimum prices paid by processors 
and received by dairy farmers for raw milk produced on farms.
  The Compact regulation raises these minimum prices as they relate to 
the market for fluid, or bottled milk. Part of the difference between 
the Compact's minimum price and the federal minimum price is set aside 
to compensate any cost that may be associated to the WIC programs and 
school lunch programs.
  Processors purchasing milk to produce other dairy products such as 
cheese or ice cream are not subject to the Compact's pricing 
regulations, although all farmers producing milk in the region, for any 
purpose, share equally in the regulation's benefits.
  Here is how it works. The Commission established $16.94 per 
hundredweight as the Compact over-order price for Class 1 milk. All 
milk processors having sales of fluid milk in New England are required 
to pay a monthly over-order obligation. This obligation is the 
difference between $16.94 and the price established monthly by federal 
regulation for the same milk.

  For instance, if the federal price for Class 1 milk was $13.94 for a 
particular month, the processors' over-order obligation for that month 
would be $16.94 minus $13.94--or $3.00. Processors multiply their total 
fluid milk sales by this amount and that is what they pay into the 
Compact Commission.
  Three percent of the pooled price regulation proceeds are then set 
aside to hold harmless the impact on New England WIC programs. At least 
4 cents but no more than 5 cents is deducted from the pooled proceeds 
each month and placed in a reserve fund established in the event of 
late payments by handlers.
  Approximately half of the unobligated balance of this fund is added 
back into the pool for redistribution in the following month in order 
to prevent the reserve fund from growing too large.
  Farmers receive the balance of the proceeds in accordance with the 
Class 1 utilization rate--the percentage of milk produced that actually 
goes towards drinking milk, not cheese or other manufactured products. 
Therefore, the producer price is derived by dividing the balance of the 
pool proceeds by the total number of pounds of all producer milk in the 
region.
  The Compact Commission makes disbursements to farmer cooperatives and 
milk handlers, who then make the individual payments to farmers based 
on their production.
  When the Compact regulation first took effect in July of 1997, the 
Compact over-order obligation was $3.00. During that month, 245,001,960 
pounds of milk, or 46.14% of the total milk in the region was sold as 
Class 1 milk. This resulted in a pool paid into the Commission of 
$7,350,058.80. After the WIC and reserve fund adjustments were made, 
the balance of the pool proceeds was $6,903,009.44. When this number 
was divided by the total number of pounds of all producer milk, in this 
case 531,000,726 pounds, the resulting producer price was $1.30.
  For many farmers in Vermont and New England, the Compact payments 
have meant the difference between keeping the farm and calling the 
auctioneer.
  Federal dairy policy is difficult to explain at best. As a Member of 
the House of Representatives, I served as the ranking member of the 
Dairy and Livestock Subcommittee. During my years in the House, I 
worked very closely with the programs that impacted dairy farmers and 
consumers. Of all the programs and efforts by the federal government to 
help our nation's dairy farmers, the most effective and promising 
solution have seen thus far is the creation and operation of the 
Northeast Dairy Compact.
  I would like to address the actual and potential impact of dairy 
compacts on consumer prices. In short, opposition claims about the 
actual and possible impact of dairy compacts on consumers, including 
low income consumers, are unfounded and grossly distorted.
  While farm milk prices have fluctuated wildly, remaining constant 
overall during the last ten years, consumers prices have risen sharply. 
The explanation for this is apparently that variations in store prices 
do not mirror the wild fluctuations in farm prices.
  In other words, when farm prices go up, the store prices go up, but 
when the farm prices recede, the store prices do not come back down as 
quickly or at the same rate. Hence, and quite logically, if you take 
away the fluctuations in farm prices, you take away the catalyst for 
unwarranted increases in store prices.
  Let's take a look at what the retail price has done in the Compact 
region compared to other areas that do not have Compacts in place. This 
demonstrates several extremely important points that dispute the claims 
that the compact hits consumers with higher retail prices compared to 
other regions. The average price per gallon of milk in Boston remained 
steady at $2.89 for February, March and April of 1999 in the Compact 
areas. Meanwhile retail prices across the country widely fluctuated and 
were most often higher than in the Compact area of New England.
  Again, I would like to make it very clear that the Compact only 
regulates fluid milk used for drinking, called Class I milk. Although 
not shown on this chart, milk prices in suburban areas of New England 
can often be found for $2.00 or less per gallon. Generally, the shelf 
price of milk has increased proportionally to increases in producer 
prices, yet, has not decreased

[[Page S10167]]

at the same rate when farm prices have dropped. The result has been an 
upward price ratcheting in the retail milk price--a rise of about 30 
percent between 1985 and 1993 while the farm price actually fell.
  Even with the Northeast Dairy Compact, New England retail milk prices 
are among the lowest in the country!
  Contrary to the claims of the opposition, regional compact regulation 
remain open to the interstate commerce of all producer milk and 
processor milk products, from whatever source. Compacts establish 
neither ``cartels'', ``tariffs'' nor ``barriers to trade'' and are not 
economic ``protectionism.''
  According to the opponents characterizations, dairy compacts somehow 
establish a ``wall'' around the regions subject to compact regulation, 
and thereby prohibit competition from milk produced and processed from 
outside the regions.
  These are entirely misleading characterizations. It is really quite 
simple and straightforward: All fluid, or beverage milk sold in a 
compact region is subject to uniform regulation, regardless of its 
source within or outside the compact region. This means that all 
farmers, including farmers from the Upper Midwest, providing milk for 
beverage sale in the region, receive the same pay prices without 
discrimination.
  Despite what some of my colleagues have said, the Northeast Dairy 
Compact is working as it was intended to. Instead of trying to destroy 
an initiative that works to help dairy farmers with cost to the federal 
government, I urge my colleagues from the Upper Midwest to respect the 
states' interest and initiative to help protect their farmers and 
encourage that region of the country to explore the possibility of 
forming your own interstate dairy compact.

  When the June 1999 Compact payments were paid, the Compact will have 
returned an average of 51 cents per hundredweight of milk to farmers 
over the past two years of operation. The average Vermont family farm 
realized an additional $13,000 net income during the life of the 
Compact. For seven of those months no payments were made because market 
prices were above the Compact floor.
  In April of this year, farmers felt the effect of a record $6.00 per 
hundredweight drop in the Basic Formula Price. In New England, blend 
prices dropped an unprecedented $3.93 per hundredweight from the 
previous month, but the Compact payment of $1.43 made up nearly half of 
the loss for Northeast farmers.
  We would like every region of the country to have the same 
opportunity to provide stability for their farmers and consumers that 
the Northeast Dairy Compact provides for our region.
  Earlier today, when we were debating the cloture vote on the dairy 
amendment, I responded to my colleague from Minnesota statement that 
the dairy compact somehow lowered his farmer's price of milk. I would 
again, refer to the USDA mailbox price. The mailbox price is the net 
price that dairy farmers receive for the milk that is marketed under 
the Federal milk marketing program.
  The average prices shows on this chart include all payments received 
for milk sold and deducts all costs associated with marketing milk. As 
you can see, in 1998 New England received $14.89 per hundredweight, ten 
cents below the national average.
  Most importantly, despite claims that the Northeast Dairy Compact 
means smaller checks for Midwest farmers, they received $15.27 per 
hundredweight, twenty-eight cents above the national average, and 
thirty-eight more cents per hundredweight than New England producers.
  The amendment also mandates that the Secretary use Option 1-A as the 
pricing formula for fluid milk. As I discussed earlier today, the 
Secretary's rule, known as 1B, is sue to be implemented on October 1, 
unless congressional action is taken.
  Sixty-one Senators and more than 240 House members signed letters to 
Secretary Glickman last year supporting the pricing option known as 
Option A-1, for the pricing of fluid milk. The majority of the country 
and dairy industry support Option 1-A.
  Most all areas of the country are better off under Option 1-A, 
including the Upper Midwest. Option 1-A is based on solid economic 
analysis, benefiting both farmers and consumers. It takes into account; 
transportation costs for moving fluid milk; regional supply and demand 
needs; costs of producing and marketing milk; and the need to attract 
milk to regions that occasionally face production deficits.
  Finally, the amendment requires the Secretary of Agriculture to hold 
formal hearings to determine how the Class II, and Class IV price will 
be calculated. There is concern that the Secretary's final rule will 
drop the price paid for cheese by as much as $.40 per hundredweight. 
The amendment would give both producers and processors the opportunity 
to have input on the formula through the formal rule making process.
  This amendment is about helping farmers and protecting consumers. 
Farmers deserve our support and recognition. It is sometimes easy to 
forget just how fortunate we are in this country to have the world's 
cheapest and safest food supply.
  I listened with great interest to the sugar debate earlier today. I 
support this Federal no-cost that provides stability to farmers and 
consumers in sugar growing states. I don't have sugar growers in 
Vermont. I have dairy farmers. But that does not mean I should not 
support a commodity program that helps protect farmers in other states 
with no cost to the federal government.
  I noticed that during the debate several of my colleagues that argued 
so pationately about protecting the sugar program, did not support my 
efforts to protect the dairy program. Agriculture, nationwide needs our 
collective help. Let's not divide agriculture, but join together to 
protect our nation's most important resources.
  I am certain that my colleagues will agree with me that dairy farmers 
deserve a fair price for their products. What does it say about our 
values when some of the hardest working people, our farmers, are 
underpaid and unappreciated? In the last couple of days we have debated 
providing billions of dollars in assistance to farmers who face the 
current disasters. This amendment would help prevent a disaster for 
America's dairy farmers by giving the states and the dairy farmers the 
tools to face the challenges of improving and stabilizing farm prices.
  In Vermont, dairy farmers help define the character of the state. I 
am proud to work to protect them and to protect the traditions and 
special qualities of the state.
  I realize that this amendment is not in order at this time, however, 
I urge my colleagues to give great consideration to the importance of 
this amendment and the need to address these important issues as soon 
as possible. Supporting this amendment respect the interstate 
cooperation among states, protects the interests of consumers, and 
supports America's dairy farmers.
  I ask unanimous consent that two ``Dear Colleague'' letters be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         United States Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 1999.

  Setting the Record Straight: Dairy Compacts and Interstate Commerce

       Dear Colleague: We would like to set the record straight 
     regarding the relationship between dairy compacts and 
     interstate commerce. Contrary to the claims of the 
     opposition, regional milk markets subject to dairy compact 
     regulation remain open to the interstate commerce of all 
     producer milk and processor milk products, from whatever 
     source. Compacts establish neither ``cartels,'' ``tariffs'' 
     nor ``barriers to trade'' and are not ``economic 
     protectionism.''
       Opponents of dairy compacts, most particularly the 
     International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) have variously 
     claimed that dairy compacts operate to the benefit of dairy 
     farmers and processors within the compact regions and to the 
     detriment of those outside the compact regions. According to 
     the opponent's characterizations, dairy compacts somehow 
     establish a ``wall'' around the regions subject to compact 
     regulation, and thereby prohibit competition from milk 
     produced and processed from outside the regions.
       These are entirely misleading characterizations. Yet 
     despite all these misleading descriptions, the regulatory 
     theory of compacts is really quite simple and 
     straightforward: All fluid, or beverage milk sold in a 
     compact region is subject to uniform regulation, regardless 
     of its source within or outside the compact region. This 
     means that all farmers, including farmers from the Upper 
     Midwest, providing milk for beverage sale in the region, 
     receive the same pay prices under

[[Page S10168]]

     the regulation without discrimination. Similarly, all 
     processors with sales in the region must pay the same price 
     for raw milk used for those sales, regardless of the location 
     of the processing facility or the location of the farm 
     sources of their raw milk supplies.
       Hence, there is no ``economic protectionism'' or the 
     erection of barriers to trade. except for the uniform 
     regulation, the market remains open to all, and the benefits 
     of the regulations are provided without discrimination to all 
     participating in the market, including those who participate 
     in the market from beyond the territorial boundaries of the 
     region.
       We hope you will conclude as have 40 of our colleagues that 
     dairy compacts provide fair and equitable milk market 
     regulation, that promotes the interests of the regions which 
     have proposed the compacts without discrimination against 
     farmers or processors from other regions.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Jim Jeffords.
     Arlen Specter.
     Ted Kennedy.
     Charles Schumer.
                                  ____



                                         United States Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 1999.

 Setting the Record Straight: The Impact of Dairy Compacts on Consumer 
                                 Prices

       Dear Colleague. Over the past number of months, the milk 
     processors lobby has bombarded Congress with disinformation 
     about the impact of dairy compacts on consumer prices. 
     Consistent with the time-honored tradition of industry 
     lobbyists working to defeat legislation contrary to their 
     vested interest, this storm of paper is only intended to 
     confuse the issues involved so as to convince you to oppose 
     the dairy compact legislation, regardless of the actual 
     facts.
       Twenty-five states have formally presented these compacts 
     for review and approval. Congress must respond by debating 
     the issues presented on the merits. This is especially true 
     with regard to the critical question of the impact of dairy 
     compacts on consumers. On this issue, the opponent's claims 
     are particularly distorted and unfounded.
       Can we truly believe that twenty-five governors and the 
     host of state legislative committees and deliberative bodies 
     which have approved these compacts would have approved them 
     if they were likely to have the horrific impact on consumers 
     proclaimed by the opposition?
       The opponents claim that the Northeast Compact has caused 
     milk prices to rise ``15 to 20'' cents per gallon. They also 
     claim that in its first year, the Northeast Compact cost New 
     England consumers $65 million in higher milk prices, and that 
     with the creation of a southern compact, consumers would pay 
     $600 million a year in higher milk prices. These claims are 
     nothing but the grossest of scare tactics.
       The opponents base their analysis on the OMB study which 
     reviewed the economic impacts of the Northeast Compact during 
     its first six months of operation. In fact, the OMB study 
     concluded that the potential impact of the Northeast Compact 
     on prices might be as low as approximately five cents a 
     gallon. In any event, OMB carefully prefaced its assessment 
     by stating that no reliable conclusions could be drawn based 
     upon a limited data set of six months.
       Perhaps more to the point, the design of the dairy compacts 
     and the actual operation of the Northeast Compact Commission 
     should assure Congress that the interests of low income 
     consumers are adequately protected. Each state delegation to 
     the commissions created by dairy compacts must include a 
     consumer representative. This assures that consumers have a 
     voice in pricing decisions, and means that they will 
     certainly have more of a voice than they now have in today's 
     highly concentrated marketplace.
       Moreover, the Northeast Compact Commission has acted to 
     provide for reimbursement of the state WIC programs of even 
     potential adverse impacts, regardless of actual impact, and 
     for reimbursement to the School Lunch programs for any 
     documented adverse impact. In design and actual practice, 
     then, dairy compacts work to protect rather than harm 
     consumers, particularly low income consumers.
       We hope you will side with the states' actual judgement 
     that these compacts are in the public interest, and choose to 
     support this vital legislation.
           Sincerely,
         Jesse Helms, Max Cleland, Daniel Moynihan, Mary L. 
           Landrieu, Patrick Leahy, Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe, 
           Charles Schumer, Arlen Specter.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 1484 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                Amendment No. 1513 To Amendment No. 1499

               (Purpose: To make a perfecting amendment)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1513 to amendment No. 1499.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment relating to economic 
and disaster assistance. This is the amendment that the Senate voted 
against tabling when a motion to table the amendment was made by the 
distinguished Democratic leader, Mr. Daschle.
  A vote has already been taken on a motion to table this amendment, 
but it was then, under leadership agreement on how to proceed to this 
bill, withdrawn.
  This action that has just been taken puts this amendment back before 
the Senate. There was an amendment offered by the Democratic leader and 
the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, which was also the subject of a 
motion to table. That motion to table was agreed to.
  Before the Senate now is the issue of economic and disaster 
assistance for farmers in the form of the so-called Cochran amendment.
  To refresh the memory of Senators, this is an amendment that seeks to 
give the Secretary of Agriculture authority and funds with which to 
deal with the economic crisis that exists in production agriculture 
today. This is funding for the fiscal year that begins next October 1, 
so it is not an endeavor to deal with all of the existing problems in 
agriculture in the current fiscal year, but it is an effort to deal 
with economic problems during the harvesting and marketing of the 1999 
crop throughout the country.
  There is already in place a $6 billion disaster program that was 
approved last year that has been administered by the Department. Some 
of those checks for weather-related disasters went out to farmers as 
recently as June. We are hopeful if any additional funds are needed for 
this crop-year, the President will submit a budget request asking for 
additional funds.
  There has been some discussion during the debate on the floor that 
there is nothing in this amendment that provides immediate assistance 
for drought victims and the like. The point is, in a recent 
supplemental that we had on funding the military action in Kosovo, that 
subject was raised and an amendment was offered, which was rejected, 
that would provide additional disaster assistance funds in this crop-
year and in the next crop-year as well. What we did was adopt the 
sense-of-the-Senate language that would ask the President to submit a 
supplemental request if additional funds were needed over and above 
that amount that had already been provided by the Congress. No request 
has been made.
  A letter was written to the President in June, signed by 22 Senators, 
reiterating the fact that we approved language requesting a 
supplemental request if one was needed and that nothing had been heard. 
We did get an acknowledgment to the letter, but we have had no 
subsequent request.
  The chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the Senator from Indiana, 
Mr. Lugar, has been having hearings in the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, yesterday and again today, getting information, getting 
expert advice and testimony on the condition of agriculture in America 
today to determine what level of assistance is appropriate, what level 
is needed, and what kind and character should this assistance take. We 
have had a long debate. Senators on both sides have expressed their 
views on this subject, and we are at a point now where we have to 
either adopt an amendment or not adopt an amendment providing disaster 
assistance.
  It seems to me it would be appropriate now, after hearing all the 
evidence, after reviewing all the arguments, to proceed with the 
adoption of this amendment and go to conference with the House and try 
to resolve whatever differences we may have on this issue with House 
conferees and then come back with a conference report for the 
consideration of the Senate. If we do not have a provision for

[[Page S10169]]

disaster or economic assistance in our bill, this will not be an item 
that can be considered in conference. So I think it is very important 
for the Senate to approve this amendment, giving us a conference 
vehicle for further consideration of this issue with the House. If we 
do not approve this amendment or some other amendment that could be 
offered, then we will not have a vehicle.
  We have already expressed our views as a body on the Daschle-Harkin 
proposal. It was rejected. This amendment was not rejected. The motion 
to table was not agreed to. So it is now back before the Senate for its 
consideration.
  I am going to review briefly what this legislation contains and urge 
Senators to approve the amendment. We can have a record vote on that if 
the Senate desires or we can adopt it on a voice vote. It suits me to 
adopt it on a voice vote, but I am putting Senators on notice that is 
the issue before the Senate now. If anyone wants to request a record 
vote, they are free, of course, to come to the Senate floor and do 
that.
  The bulk of the funds provided in this amendment--which now has a 
cost estimated by the Congressional Budget Office of almost $7 
billion--the bulk of the assistance is in the form of increased 
payments, so-called AMTA payments. That is the agricultural market 
transition payments. These are payments that are made to commodity 
producers under existing farm law, provided to help farmers make the 
transition from a Government-controlled and mandated agricultural 
production system to a more open and free market system where farmers 
can make their own decisions about what they plant on their crop 
acreage. In the past, the Government had tight controls over not only 
what crops could be subsidized by the Government, but how much acreage 
could be planted with those crops. If you violated the rules, you lost 
your right to Federal assistance.

  Under the new program, Federal assistance is provided without regard 
to what crop you plant or how much of the acreage you use. There is no 
mandatory set-aside of acreage, telling farmers you cannot plant but so 
much of your acreage this year, as was the case under preexisting 
agricultural legislation. The amount of money that would be paid 
directly to farmers as authorized in this legislation would represent 
100 percent of the total of the 1999 producers AMTA payment. So in 
effect, by the passage of this amendment, we would double the amount of 
money that would go to farmers who are entitled to agriculture market 
transition assistance payments. That comes to a total of $5.54 billion. 
There is no redtape. There is no discretion in the Department of 
Agriculture. There is no special procedure for establishing 
eligibility. If you are eligible under current law for a transition 
payment, you are eligible for this additional payment. The checks go 
out.
  It was shown in the experience this year in administering the current 
disaster assistance program that the AMTA payment system was the most 
efficient way of providing assistance to farmers who were entitled to 
add additional benefits under an economic assistance program. So that 
is why in this amendment we have elected to use that vehicle to 
disseminate funds for disaster and economic assistance to farmers 
because of this year's economic stress in agriculture. But not all 
farmers are eligible for AMTA payments. Because they are not, most of 
the rest of the funds in the bill are used for disaster assistance for 
those farmers that they may need.
  The Secretary of Agriculture is, for example, given discretion to 
establish a program to provide assistance to livestock and dairy 
producers. There is a livestock assistance program in place now which 
was utilized to deliver disaster assistance provided last year. So, 
because of that experience, it seems logical that the Department of 
Agriculture will be able to provide regulatory guidance and eligibility 
standards for those who suffered by reason of drought or other 
conditions that have adversely affected them if they are in the 
livestock business. This applies to beef cattle production; it applies 
to hog production; and it applies to dairy.
  So it is a program that is included in this legislation. Other 
specialty crops are included as well--fruits and vegetables. Other 
crops and other commodities that are grown by landowners who are 
involved in production agriculture are intended to be included in this 
program, and the Secretary of Agriculture is given the authority to use 
funds appropriated in this amendment to provide assistance to those 
farmers as well.
  We do not try to pick and choose among farmers, whether you are 
eligible or not eligible for benefits. The intent is we want all 
farmers to benefit from this program under this amendment.
  There is also, at the conclusion of our bill, a provision that states 
the sense of the Congress with respect to a more aggressive policy with 
agricultural trade issues. There have been situations that have 
developed around the world where our producers and exporters have been 
shut out of markets or have been discriminated against because of 
tariffs or other rules and regulations adopted by other countries or 
groups of countries that have made it impossible for us to have access 
to markets that we have traditionally enjoyed or which we ought to by 
right have an opportunity to enjoy.
  We are urging the administration to be more aggressive in 
strengthening trade negotiating authority for American agriculture, and 
we express Congress' objectives for future trade negotiations. We ask 
the President to evaluate and make recommendations on the effectiveness 
of our existing export and food aid programs.
  I think we have heard enough about what the facts are. Senators who 
have been to their own States have had an opportunity to view the 
situation, to talk with their farmers, and to understand the stress 
that is confronting American agriculture today.
  Here are some of the Department of Agriculture's own facts and 
estimates that had been given to our subcommittee when we had our 
hearings earlier this year: 1999 net cash farm income is expected to 
decline $3.6 billion below last year's level. Incidentally, in 1998, 
net farm income for wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton, and rice was 17 
percent below the previous 5-year average. For this crop-year, 1999, 
the projections indicate that income for the same crops will be 27 
percent below the previous 5-year average.
  Those are the projections that persuade me that disaster and economic 
assistance is not only important for us to consider but is necessary 
for us to deliver if we have the expectation of maintaining health and 
vitality in American agriculture.
  I think the facts are clear and justify the amendment we are offering 
today to provide disaster assistance and economic assistance to 
agricultural producers for the 1999 crop-year. The bulk of the 
assistance is going to be made available in the most efficient way 
possible: through the disbursement of the market transition payments 
providing a 100-percent bonus, in effect, to all who are eligible for 
those payments.
  Those who are soybean farmers or who grow other oilseeds will be 
entitled to benefits under a special program. They do not receive these 
transition payments, but they will receive benefits under this 
amendment. The same is true of livestock farmers, whether they are beef 
cattle, pork producers, or dairymen.
  We think we have created a balanced program, one that is fair to all 
farmers, one that will help put money in the pockets of farmers, not 
just give them a promise of loans or technical assistance or other 
advice from the Government. Our amendment does not just add money to 
Government agencies; it does not just increase the size of Government 
agencies; it sends the money directly to the producers.
  We have also agreed to add to this bill, at the request of other 
Senators, additional funds for crop insurance benefits. That was not 
included in the original amendment that was offered as a part of the 
Cochran amendment, but it will be added to this amendment in the form 
of a modification. We have heard the persuasive arguments in support of 
that suggestion, and we have agreed to accommodate those Senators who 
are interested in that additional benefit.
  My hope is Senators will review the amendment as we are modifying the 
amendment and will support it, and we can then move on to the final 
conclusion of this legislation.

[[Page S10170]]

  Mr. President, if there is no Senator seeking recognition, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was prepared at this time to offer an 
amendment, but I will not be offering an amendment because Senator 
Cochran, Senator Kohl, and myself have worked out an agreement on an 
amendment which will ultimately be part of the bill, and I will leave 
it to the chairman of the subcommittee to decide the best course to 
bring it into the bill. I am happy we have been able to work this out 
because I think it is a critically important issue and to which I want 
to take a few minutes to alert the membership.
  I happened to read a few months ago an article in Forbes magazine 
which was an eye opener. It really disturbed me, and I asked my staff 
to take a look at it a little more closely. The article is entitled 
``Blood Money.'' It documented that many medical devices that were 
approved and manufactured for a single use had been cleaned and reused 
on patients without any demonstration to the Food and Drug 
Administration that the devices are, in fact, safe and fully functional 
after this reprocessing.
  When I tell you these devices, it may give you some pause to consider 
the types of things that have been manufactured and labeled for a 
single use and are being reprocessed and used over and over again. Here 
are some of the most commonly recycled disposables: electrophysiology 
catheters for heart catheterizations; sequential compression devices; 
biopsy forceps; pulse--this is where my liberal arts education will 
fail me--oximeter sensors; laparoscopic instruments. Think of all the 
laparoscopic procedures going on now. One of the things we find is that 
many of the instruments that are being used have been labeled single 
use and are being so-called cleaned and reprocessed and used again.
  Continuing with some of the most commonly recycled disposables--
drills, bits, blades, catheters, and many other things.
  At least a third of the hospitals ignore the manufacturer's warnings 
and recycle these so-called disposable products for their patients 
without telling their patients.
  As you can see, we are not talking about bedpans here. We are talking 
about highly invasive and high-risk devices, devices that come in 
contact with the patient's blood or other bodily fluids. This reuse is 
happening without the knowledge of patients and without a requirement 
that the devices be shown to still be safe and effective after 
reprocessing.
  Here in the United States we have a Food and Drug Administration 
which oversees the safety of drugs, medical devices, biologics, foods, 
and cosmetics. Let me say that I am one of the biggest fans in 
Washington of the Food and Drug Administration.
  Dr. Jane Henney, who is now the head of that agency, is an 
extraordinarily talented person. Though she and I have had some debates 
on various issues, I am grateful that she has left the private practice 
of medicine to give these years of public service to the Food and Drug 
Administration because this FDA literally inspects and approves 
devices, instruments, prescription drugs--all sorts of things--that we 
take for granted in our everyday life.
  FDA approval is considered the gold standard all around the world. 
Yet that gold standard is only being applied to devices when they first 
come on the market. The FDA takes a look at these various devices as 
they are being sold to determine whether or not they are safe and 
effective, as they should. With that approval, they are sold to 
hospitals around America.
  But when it comes to the issue of reprocessing this disposable 
device, which is used a second, third, or fourth time, I am afraid the 
FDA has not been as effective as they should be. The Los Angeles Times 
ran an article 2 days ago reporting a bacterial outbreak in a Colorado 
hospital due to contaminated reused cardiac catheters. One of the 
patients involved died because of that outbreak.
  This chart makes reference to the Federal MEDWATCH program which is 
an effort to get a report from any hospital if it shows that a device 
has resulted in some problem. One of the adverse event reports that was 
reported to FDA's MEDWATCH shows that the tip of a catheter that had 
been reused six times broke and lodged in a 32-year-old man's right 
atrium--if you recall from biology, that is inside the heart--where it 
is still lodged today.
  The Los Angeles Times article also talks about another incident where 
a 4-inch-long tip traveled from a patient's heart to his stomach, 
leading to additional surgery in which the doctors opened the man's 
stomach in an attempt to remove it.
  I find this shocking. You or I could be admitted to a hospital 
tomorrow, and without our knowledge we could be exposed to a device of 
completely unknown standard.
  I have here some charts that depict some reused devices that were 
retrieved from hospitals in exchange for new devices. They show that 
many of the devices had either remaining blood or tissue on them or 
were damaged, so they could not have met the standards FDA had for 
original manufacturers.
  This is an example of a cutting device. It shows, unfortunately, that 
it was still contaminated when it was removed from the hospital.
  There are other photographs as well, each one raising a question as 
to whether or not these devices, when used, were sufficiently cleaned 
or up to the job that they were called to do. We have several other 
photographs. I think they all demonstrate that.
  The amendment which I have offered, and which has been accepted by 
both the majority and minority, is supported by various consumer 
groups--Public Citizen, the Consumer Federation of America, and the 
Consumers Union--and patient groups such as AIDS Action, the 
Alzheimer's Association, the National Organization for Rare Diseases, 
the National Women's Health Network, and by health professionals, such 
as the American Nurses Association, that say we should reserve a very 
small amount of FDA's medical device money--in this case $1 million --
out of the $154 million allocated for medical and radiological devices 
to provide oversight for these reused medical devices.
  One has to wonder why we spend any money on device safety if the 
device only has to be safe when it is used initially. In the case of 
the catheter that is now lodged in a patient's heart, it was reused six 
times. This was supposed to have been used once.
  When you go in for heart surgery or these diagnostic treatments, it 
never crosses your mind to ask the doctor: Incidentally, will all the 
devices you are going to use in the course of my treatmment be used for 
the first time only? Has someone else used this catheter before? Has it 
been reprocessed? Is it being reused?
  That never dawns on the patient, but in fact we find a third of the 
hospitals are reusing these devices. That is why I think this amendment 
is so necessary.

  I think we can do a lot better. In fact, I believe we can go a lot 
further than my amendment goes. I will be introducing a bill shortly 
that will completely overhaul this system to provide patients with 
assurance that all medical devices used on them are of a high standard 
and that we can accurately track injuries and infections due to 
reprocessed devices.
  My amendment attempts to take a small step to encourage the FDA to 
provide necessary oversight of reprocessed devices. America uses the 
FDA to make sure that products, including medical devices, are safe. It 
does not make sense to have safety equipment for devices when they are 
brand new but to turn a blind eye thereafter. All medical devices 
should be required to be safe.
  I might add, in closing, that at a recent hearing before the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, I asked Dr. Henney about the efforts 
being made by the Food and Drug Administration to deal with this 
problem. She referred me to Dr. Jacobson. Dr. Jacobson is currently the 
acting director of the Center for Devices. He acknowledged my question 
about reusing medical devices was a difficult one. He also acknowledged 
that the FDA is in the process of establishing standards and procedures 
to

[[Page S10171]]

make sure that these reused devices are safe. I am heartened that, when 
brought to his attention, the FDA was responsive. Frankly, I think we 
need a lot more. That is the purpose of this amendment.
  I thank the Chair for the time. I also extend my thanks to Senator 
Cochran of Mississippi and Senator Kohl of Wisconsin for agreeing to 
this amendment which will be made part of the bill, so that $1 million 
in the Food and Drug Administration is going to be directed toward the 
efforts to clean up the reuse of these medical devices.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. In an effort to reduce costs under managed care, more 
than a third of all hospitals across the country are now reusing 
medical devices that are labeled by the original manufacturer as 
``disposable'' or ``for single-use only.'' More than a million devices 
a year are being reprocessed and then used on patients without their 
knowledge, in violation of the original manufacturer's recommendation 
or warning, and without a determination by the FDA that these devices 
are safe and effective.
  To protect patient safety, FDA requires that before a medical device 
manufacturer can begin selling a single-use device as reusable by 
additional patients, the manufacturer must file the appropriate 
premarket notification to prove the safety and efficacy of the reused 
device.
  But this requirement only applies to original equipment 
manufacturers, and not to hospitals, other providers, or third party 
reprocessors. When hospitals, or third-party reprocessors, prepare a 
``single-use only'' device for use again in another patient, they do 
not supply the FDA with any information on the safety and efficacy of 
the device and they do not notify the FDA of their intent to remarket 
the used device.
  The FDA does require third-party reprocessors to register with the 
Agency and to conform to the ``Good Manufacturing Practices'' required 
of device manufacturers. The larger reprocessors are registered with 
the FDA and may be inspected for compliance. But there are numerous 
smaller reprocessors that do not register with FDA, and hospitals that 
reprocess in-house do not register either.
  Even when registration takes place, is not a form of approval. 
Compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices does not assure that the 
reprocessing results in a safe and effective device. The reprocessing 
industry is, for the most part, unregulated.
  Some of the disposable devices that are reprocessed and reused are 
highly invasive and are contaminated with blood and tissue during use. 
A few examples include:
  Balloon angioplasty catheters for dilating coronary arteries;
  Electrophysiology catheters for cardiac testing;
  Biopsy forceps and biopsy needles for removing tissues and cells;
  Laparoscopic instruments for surgical procedures.
  Inadequate cleaning and sterilization of these devices prior to reuse 
can lead to cross-contamination of patients and hospital staff.
  Single-use devices are often made from heat sensitive plastics, and 
have intricate, inaccessible parts which can be difficult, if not 
impossible, to clean. They often contain long narrow tubing, acute 
angles, crevices, coils, joints, and porous surfaces where contaminants 
can collect. The potential is high for contamination by blood, 
respiratory secretions, gastric secretions, and fecal matter.

  Cleaning and resterilizing can also threaten the operation of a used 
single-use device. Physical, mechanical or electrical properties can be 
altered when the device is subject to harsh chemicals, high 
temperatures, pressure, gases, and physical removal of debris. Proper 
use of the device in the initial patient may also alter the performance 
of the device.
  Reprocessors say that they test these devices. But any testing is 
done without the benefit of the data and other proprietary information 
in the original manufacturer's Premarket Notification to the FDA.
  The FDA has conducted studies on balloon angioplasty catheters. These 
devices are threaded from an artery in the leg into the heart, and then 
inflated to open the coronary arteries. The studies concluded that many 
of the narrow spaces in these catheters were contaminated with blood, 
and that the balloons no longer inflated properly.
  Studies by FDA on reprocessed electrophysiology catheters have found 
debris accumulated at the edges of the electrodes. These devices are 
also threaded into the heart, and measure electrical activity to locate 
abnormal heart tissue and burn it away.
  FDA concluded that the determination as to which devices can be 
safely reused must be made on a model-by-model basis, and should not be 
made for an entire class or type of device.
  Other independent studies on biopsy forceps used to collect samples 
from the colon and digestive tract showed that over 80% were 
contaminated with blood, tissue, or fecal matter. The devices in this 
study were taken from hospital shelves where they were waiting for 
reuse on future patients.
  Injuries and product failures have also been associated with reused 
disposable devices. In January of this year, metal from an 
electrophysiology catheter electrode fell off and lodged in the heart 
of a 32-year-old woman in Kansas. The device had been reprocessed six 
times.
  In another case, a reprocessed catheter partially separated, and the 
tip was retained only by a small piece of wire. In this case, 
fortunately, the patient was not injured, but the potential for serious 
injury was great.
  The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 gave FDA the authority to 
exercise pre-market control over medical devices for the first time. 
The Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 required hospitals and other 
facilities that use medical devices to report adverse events to FDA. A 
box on the MedWatch adverse event form asks if the device was being 
used for the first time or was reused.
  Additional information is needed on how many times a device has been 
reused and the name of the reprocessor, so that the Agency can identify 
signs or trends of problems with the reuse of a particular class or 
model of device, or with a particular reprocessor or process.
  The amendment we offer today will help ensure the safety and 
effectiveness of reprocessed medical devices.
  I commend the FDA for its continuing efforts to improve the premarket 
review program. This effort has resulted in reduced review times of 
Premarket Notifications, so that in 1997 and 1998, FDA had no backlog 
of these marketing applications.
  FDA should now move forward and require medical device reprocessors 
to demonstrate that reprocessed devices are safe and effective for use.
  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1513, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I send a modification of my amendment 
to the desk and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1513, as modified.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 1, line 3, strike all that follows 
     ``Sec.'' to the end of the amendment and insert the 
     following:
       ____. Emergency and Market Loss Assistance.--(a) Market 
     Loss Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to 
     in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall use not more than 
     $5,544,453,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to provide assistance to owners and producers on a farm that 
     are eligible for payments for fiscal year 1999 under a 
     production flexibility contract for the farm under the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.).
       (2) Amount.--The amount of assistance made available to 
     owners and producers on a farm under this subsection shall be 
     proportionate to the amount of the contract payment received 
     by the owners and producers for fiscal year 1999 under a 
     production flexibility contract for the farm under the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act.

[[Page S10172]]

       (3) Time for payment.--The assistance made available under 
     this subsection for an eligible owner or producer shall be 
     provided not later than 45 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Specialty Crops.--
       (1) Assistance to certain producers.--The Secretary shall 
     use not more than $50,000,000 of funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to provide assistance to producers of 
     fruits and vegetables in a manner determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Payments to certain producers.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall use such amounts as 
     are necessary to provide payments to producers of quota 
     peanuts or additional peanuts to partially compensate the 
     producers for continuing low commodity prices, and increasing 
     costs of production, for the 1999 crop year.
       (B) Amount.--The amount of a payment made to producers on a 
     farm of quota peanuts or additional peanuts under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be equal to the product obtained by 
     multiplying--
       (i) the quantity of quota peanuts or additional peanuts 
     produced or considered produced by the producers under 
     section 155 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7271); by
       (ii) an amount equal to 5 percent of the loan rate 
     established for quota peanuts or additional peanuts, 
     respectively, under section 155 of that Act.
       (3) Condition on payment of salaries and expenses.--None of 
     the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel of the Department of Agriculture to 
     carry out or enforce section 156(f) of the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272(f)) through fiscal year 
     2001, if the Federal budget is determined by the Office of 
     Management and Budget to be in surplus for fiscal year 2000.
       (c) Limitation on Marketing Loan Gains and Loan Deficiency 
     Payments.--Notwithstanding section 1001(2) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(1)), the total amount of 
     the payments specified in section 1001(3) of that Act that a 
     person shall be entitled to receive under the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) for 1 or more 
     contract commodities and oilseeds during the 1999 crop year 
     may not exceed $150,000.
       (d) Upland Cotton Price Competitiveness.--
       (1) In general.--Section 136(a) of the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7236(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or cash payments'' and 
     inserting ``or cash payments, at the option of the 
     recipient,'';
       (B) by striking ``3 cents per pound'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``1.25 cents per pound'';
       (C) in the first sentence of paragraph (3)(A), by striking 
     ``owned by the Commodity Credit Corporation in such manner, 
     and at such price levels, as the Secretary determines will 
     best effectuate the purposes of cotton user marketing 
     certificates'' and inserting ``owned by the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation or pledged to the Commodity Credit Corporation as 
     collateral for a loan in such manner, and at such price 
     levels, as the Secretary determines will best effectuate the 
     purposes of cotton user marketing certificates, including 
     enhancing the competitiveness and marketability of United 
     States cotton''; and
       (D) by striking paragraph (4).
       (2) Ensuring the availability of upland cotton.--Section 
     136(b) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 
     7236(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Establishment.--
       ``(A) In general.--The President shall carry out an import 
     quota program during the period ending July 31, 2003, as 
     provided in this subsection.
       ``(B) Program requirements.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C), whenever the Secretary determines and 
     announces that for any consecutive 4-week period, the Friday 
     through Thursday average price quotation for the lowest-
     priced United States growth, as quoted for Middling (M) 1\3/
     32\-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe, adjusted 
     for the value of any certificate issued under subsection (a), 
     exceeds the Northern Europe price by more than 1.25 cents per 
     pound, there shall immediately be in effect a special import 
     quota.
       ``(C) Tight domestic supply.--During any month for which 
     the Secretary estimates the season-ending United States 
     upland cotton stocks-to-use ratio, as determined under 
     subparagraph (D), to be below 16 percent, the Secretary, in 
     making the determination under subparagraph (B), shall not 
     adjust the Friday through Thursday average price quotation 
     for the lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for 
     Middling (M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern 
     Europe, for the value of any certificates issued under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(D) Season-ending united states stocks-to-use ratio.--For 
     the purposes of making estimates under subparagraph (C), the 
     Secretary shall, on a monthly basis, estimate and report the 
     season-ending United States upland cotton stocks-to-use 
     ratio, excluding projected raw cotton imports but including 
     the quantity of raw cotton that has been imported into the 
     United States during the marketing year.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Limitation.--The quantity of cotton entered into the 
     United States during any marketing year under the special 
     import quota established under this subsection may not exceed 
     the equivalent of 5 week's consumption of upland cotton by 
     domestic mills at the seasonally adjusted average rate of the 
     3 months immediately preceding the first special import quota 
     established in any marketing year.''.
       (e) Oilseed Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall use not less than $475,000,000 of 
     funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make payments to 
     producers of the 1999 crop of oilseeds that are eligible to 
     obtain a marketing assistance loan under section 131 of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7231).
       (2) Computation.--A payment to producers on a farm under 
     this subsection shall be computed by multiplying--
       (A) a payment rate determined by the Secretary; by
       (B) the quantity of oilseeds that the producers on the farm 
     are eligible to place under loan under section 131 of that 
     Act.
       (3) Limitation.--Payments made under this subsection shall 
     be considered to be contract payments for the purposes of 
     section 1001(1) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1308(1)).
       (f) Assistance to Livestock and Dairy Producers.--The 
     Secretary shall use $325,000,000 of funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to provide assistance to livestock and 
     dairy producers in a manner determined by the Secretary.
       (g) Tobacco.--The Secretary shall use $328,000,000 of funds 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make distributions to 
     tobacco growers in accordance with the formulas established 
     under the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust.
       (h) Sense of Congress Regarding Fast-Track Authority and 
     Future World Trade Organization Negotiations.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that--
       (1) the President should make a formal request for 
     appropriate fast-track authority for future United States 
     trade negotiations;
       (2) regarding future World Trade Organization 
     negotiations--
       (A) rules for trade in agricultural commodities should be 
     strengthened and trade-distorting import and export practices 
     should be eliminated or substantially reduced;
       (B) the rules of the World Trade Organization should be 
     strengthened regarding the practices or policies of a foreign 
     government that unreasonably--
       (i) restrict market access for products of new 
     technologies, including products of biotechnology; or
       (ii) delay or preclude implementation of a report of a 
     dispute panel of the World Trade Organization; and
       (C) negotiations within the World Trade Organization should 
     be structured so as to provide the maximum leverage possible 
     to ensure the successful conclusion of negotiations on 
     agricultural products;
       (3) the President should--
       (A) conduct a comprehensive evaluation of all existing 
     export and food aid programs, including--
       (i) the export credit guarantee program established under 
     section 202 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 
     5622);
       (ii) the market access program established under section 
     203 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 5623);
       (iii) the export enhancement program established under 
     section 301 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 5651);
       (iv) the foreign market development cooperator program 
     established under section 702 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 5722); 
     and
       (v) programs established under the Agricultural Trade 
     Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691 et 
     seq.); and
       (B) transmit to Congress--
       (i) the results of the evaluation under subparagraph (A); 
     and
       (ii) recommendations on maximizing the effectiveness of the 
     programs described in subparagraph (A); and
       (4) the Secretary should carry out a purchase and donation 
     or concessional sales initiative in each of fiscal years 1999 
     and 2000 to promote the export of additional quantities of 
     soybeans, beef, pork, poultry, and products of such 
     commodities (including soybean meal, soybean oil, textured 
     vegetable protein, and soy protein concentrates and isolates) 
     using programs established under--
       (A) the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 
     714 et seq.);
       (B) section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 
     1431);
       (C) titles I and II of the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (D) the Food for Progress Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o).
       (i) Crop Insurance.--The Secretary shall use $400,000,000 
     of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to assist 
     agricultural producers in purchasing additional coverage for 
     the 2000 crop year under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       (j) Emergency Requirement.--The entire amount necessary to 
     carry out this section and the amendments made by this 
     section shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for the entire amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the

[[Page S10173]]

     President to the Congress: Provided, That the entire amount 
     is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this is the modification that I 
mentioned in my remarks, when I sent the Cochran amendment to the desk, 
that we were making to add $400 million for the Crop Insurance Program 
to the Cochran amendment. There are other technical changes, but that 
is the substantive change that is made by this modification, for the 
information of Senators.
  We are also hopeful, after talking with the distinguished Democratic 
leader, that it is possible we will be able to move to a vote on the 
Cochran amendment--the details of that are being discussed now with 
leaders on both sides and interested Senators --and then consider any 
other amendments that may be offered on this subject--we know of two 
suggested major amendments that may still be presented to the Senate 
for its consideration--to have votes on those or on motions to table 
those amendments, and then move on to consideration of other amendments 
which have been suggested by Senators.
  We have a list of amendments the managers have agreed to accept. 
There are a few that we know of that Senators have indicated an 
interest in offering which we are not able to accept, but we hope that 
if there are Senators who have amendments they intend to offer, they 
will let us know about this. We have asked each Cloakroom to try to 
find out what we can expect in the way of additional amendments because 
we would like to conclude action on this bill this afternoon or early 
this evening. We think that is certainly possible under the arrangement 
that has just been discussed with the managers by the Democratic 
leader.
  We appreciate the cooperation of all Senators.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my hope is that we are able to find a 
way this afternoon to adequately deal with this question of disaster 
relief. I know Senator Cochran has just reoffered and now modified the 
proposal he made previously. We had a tabling vote on that proposal and 
the tabling vote did not prevail. So we know at least somewhat where 
the votes are on the Cochran proposal.
  He has modified it, as I understand, to include $400 million with 
respect to crop insurance. My hope is that we can move beyond this 
proposal, which I think is short on what is necessary, to a couple of 
additional proposals that we may be able to agree to with respect to 
procedure at least.
  This proposal that is now before the Senate does not provide 
assistance for disaster relief. We now see, in every television and 
radio newscast that we turn to or refer to on the front pages of the 
papers, the worst drought in this century in some parts of our country. 
We know disaster relief is going to be necessary because of this 
drought. We ought to begin to get a start on that in any emergency 
package we pass dealing with family farmers.
  There are a number of other things that are left out of the proposal 
that has just been offered. My hope is that we can, in the next couple 
of hours, improve this package to the point where most of us believe it 
does what we believe it should do for family farmers.
  I want to mention, again, we are not on the floor dealing with an 
agricultural disaster or agricultural crisis issue because of something 
farmers have done. It is not their fault the Asian economies have 
collapsed. It is not the farmers' fault in my State that they have 
suffered the worst crop disease of the century. It is not their fault 
we have 3 million acres that couldn't be planted this spring because of 
wet conditions. Incidentally, that would not be dealt with in the 
Cochran proposal, flooded lands and so on. This is not the fault of 
family farmers.
  We have faced a very serious problem at this point. There is a 
responsibility for the Congress to help. This is the appropriate place 
to do that. This is the Agriculture appropriations bill. We have been 
discussing this now for a number of months. The collapse in the grain 
and commodities and livestock markets have been spectacular and have 
been noticed by everyone who cares about the farm economy and family 
farmers. This is not a surprise to anyone that we are dealing with this 
question now.
  While there may be disagreements on the floor of the Senate about 
exactly how to do it, I think in the end, when we finish this 
afternoon, we should have been able to pass a piece of legislation 
dealing with the farm crisis that provides opportunity and hope to 
family farmers. If we just kick it around a bit and just tune it up a 
little bit so that it looks better or sounds better or appears better 
but doesn't provide the kind of help necessary for family farmers, this 
has all been wasted effort. If we are not able to provide a reasonable 
safety net and/or during tough times some emergency help that gives 
family farmers a chance to get from here to there, that gives them a 
chance to feel that there is some hope for the ability to continue 
farming, then we haven't accomplished anything at all.
  The test, then, this afternoon is not whether we pass the proposal 
before us. That proposal is insufficient. It doesn't meet the needs. 
The test is whether we can pass one of a couple other proposals that we 
will, I hope, shortly make in order by consent that will be debated 
under short time considerations and then will be voted upon.
  Those of us from farm country understand every day the dichotomy 
about this economy of ours. We hear about all of the wonderful things 
in the American economy. Yet in farm country, we see a near total 
collapse of rural communities, rural counties, and the economies of 
family farming. We understand this Congress cannot say it doesn't 
matter. It does matter in this country.

  I am not going to revisit all the history of the current farm bill, 
but the philosophy of the current farm bill is that family farmers in 
this country shall be transitioned out of the farm program. Farm 
programs shall cease to exist at some point and the transition payments 
shall allow farmers to get from here to no farm program.
  The folly of that is to believe that family-sized farms out there by 
themselves, trying to float in this sea of uncertainty, with all of the 
potential adverse effects of weather and grain markets and all of the 
other catastrophes that can befall a family farmer, that they can do 
this by themselves. When grain markets collapse and grain prices fall 
to half, that doesn't matter because family farmers can manage that.
  That is folly. They can't manage that. Family farmers will not make 
it. They won't make it across this price valley unless Congress extends 
a helping hand. The helping hand ought to be an investment in this 
country, an investment in a disaster package that says family farmers 
matter to this country in many different ways, and we want to try to 
give them the capability and the hope that they can survive beyond this 
price catastrophe.
  I say again, as I close, the current amendment which is before the 
Senate is deficient in many ways. It falls far short of doing what is 
necessary in the area of flooded lands, for example, and many other 
areas. It simply doesn't offer the kind of support we need in rural 
America to respond to the current disaster and to respond to the 
current crisis with respect to the collapse of farming commodity 
prices.
  Most deficient is the fact that the underlying amendment doesn't 
address the disaster issue at all that is now enveloping large parts of 
our country and devastating family farm producers.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, after consultation with the Democratic 
leader and other Senators, my understanding of the procedure now that 
is agreed upon is that the Cochran amendment can now be adopted by 
voice vote.
  Then there will be two other amendments on the subject of disaster 
assistance that will be offered and voted on. The times for those votes 
has not yet been agreed upon. But we can take the first step by 
adopting the Cochran amendment on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Mississippi.
  The amendment (No. 1513), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S10174]]

  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Cynthia 
Garman-Squier, Dan Alpert, and John Jennings, fellows working in 
Senator Bingaman's office, be accorded the privilege of the floor 
today, August 4, and during the pendency of S. 1233, the Agriculture 
appropriations bill and any votes thereupon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my State 
director, Don Hutchinson, be granted the privilege of the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise for the purpose of introducing 
a piece of legislation as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Ms. Landrieu pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1485 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 minutes as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 1487 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am waiting for Senator Harkin. He should be here in a 
moment. We intend to offer an amendment per the previous agreement.


                Amendment No. 1514 To Amendment No. 1499

     (Purpose: To provide emergency and income loss assistance to 
                        agricultural producers)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk, an 
amendment in the second degree, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senators Harkin, Daschle, 
Kerrey, Johnson, Conrad, Baucus, Durbin, Wellstone, Lincoln and 
Sarbanes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Harkin, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Conrad, 
     Mr. Baucus, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Lincoln and Mr. 
     Sarbanes, proposes an amendment numbered 1514 to amendment 
     No. 1499.

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is we have a time agreement of 15 
minutes on each side.
  Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator will yield, I am happy to agree that this 
amendment would have 30 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am advised that I need to do this. I ask unanimous 
consent that the time for debate prior to a motion to table the pending 
amendment be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided in the usual 
form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in an attempt to try to find a solution to 
the issue of providing relief during this farm crisis, I am offering an 
amendment, in the second degree, on behalf of myself and Senator Harkin 
and other Members here on the Senate floor.
  As Members of the Senate will recall, the proposal we offered 
yesterday was a proposal that called for $10.7 billion in crisis 
relief. That $10.7 billion has been modified in this second-degree 
amendment, and is $9.837 billion. We have reduced it nearly $1 billion 
by making adjustments in a range of accounts.
  The accounts include emergency short-term land diversion, disaster 
reserve--a number of different programs that we have adjusted, that we 
have thought it appropriate to adjust in order to try to find a 
compromise that would cost less but still provide significant support 
and help to family farmers.
  My colleague, Senator Harkin, and I have worked, along with Senator 
Conrad and Senator Daschle, Senator Johnson of South Dakota, and 
others, to see if there is some way we can provide for legislation that 
will offer assistance at a level that is greater than that which now 
rests with the underlying amendment.
  I had indicated previously that the amendment offered by Senator 
Cochran does not deal with disaster issues. There isn't money for 
disaster issues in that piece of legislation. There isn't money for 
flooded lands. There are a number of deficiencies in that amendment, 
and it simply does not reach the level that is necessary to address 
this farm crisis.
  So in an attempt to see if we can find some middle ground, in an 
attempt to offer an amendment that is almost $1 billion less than we 
had offered previously, by making adjustments in about seven or eight 
categories, we are trying to see if we can get a favorable vote on this 
amendment.
  This amendment, if it should fail, as I understand it, will be 
followed by one additional amendment.
  But let me at this moment call on my colleague from Iowa who has 
joined me in offering this amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield as much time as the Senator from Iowa consumes.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, I compliment and thank my 
colleague from North Dakota for crafting this new proposal and for all 
of his hard work on behalf of farmers and ranchers all over this 
country. Senator Dorgan has, indeed, been a leader in this Senate in 
focusing attention on the fact that so many of our farmers and ranchers 
are in dire straits, and that we need a substantial package of relief 
and help to get them through this winter and into next year.
  What Senator Dorgan has now sent to the desk is, hopefully, a 
reaching out to our colleagues and friends on the Republican side to 
join us in this effort. The proposal we had yesterday that I had 
offered was $10.7 billion. This is now $1 billion less. So we have come 
down $1 billion. We have taken some money out of places which, quite 
frankly, this Senator thinks is going to be hard to explain to some 
farmers. But in order to try to reach an agreement with our colleagues 
on the other side, for at least a meaningful package, Senator Dorgan 
and I and others have crafted this new package that is $1 billion less 
than what we offered yesterday.
  This may, indeed, be the Senate's last chance to vote on a meaningful 
package of support for our farmers and ranchers.
  Again, the amounts that are in this package are pretty close to the 
minimum of what we are going to need. I cannot, for the life of me, 
understand why we have the proposal again before us that, as I 
understand it, is about $400 million more than what it was yesterday.

[[Page S10175]]

  I don't know, the Senator from Mississippi might correct me on that, 
but I think it is about $400 million more. I think that includes crop 
insurance.
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is right.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
  That is a step in the right direction to put that $400 million for 
the Crop Insurance Program. That was in our initial proposal. I am 
delighted to see it in this one.
  But I must say the entire package is still not enough. Will it help? 
Sure, it will help. Heck, $100 would help. I have farmers out in my 
area who would take $100. One thousand dollars would help. Yes; this 
will help.
  If I might analogize it a little bit, it is the kind of help that if 
a person is out there drowning in deep water, and you throw him one of 
those little life preservers, the drowning person grabs ahold of the 
life preserver, only to find out there is a slow leak in it. It is 
going to keep that person alive for a while, give him a few more 
moments of life on Earth. Then the air is going to go out.
  That is sort of the way I see the Republican amendment before us now. 
It will help. It will get some farmers through. It is going to leave a 
lot behind. I think it is going to hold out some false hopes. The last 
thing our farmers and ranchers need now is false hope. They need real 
hope that we are going to significantly address the problem.
  Again, I point out that the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Mississippi includes payments that go out to farmers all as agriculture 
marketing transition adjustment payments, so-called AMTA payments. 
These payments are based upon old-fashioned, outdated ag policies. What 
I mean by that is that the AMTA payments are based upon something known 
as base acres and proven yields. Base acres has gone out the window; we 
don't have that any longer; and yet they reach back, years back, to 
take base acres and proven yields in order to make the payments.
  I want to forewarn my colleagues: You are going to see a lot of 
stories in the paper this fall and this winter about people getting 
these payments who aren't even farming, aren't even raising a crop. But 
they are going to get them because several years ago, 10 years ago, 
they had some base acres and they had an established proven yield. They 
may not even have that any longer, but they are going to get a payment. 
They are going to get an AMTA payment.
  Yet a young producer who may not even have been in business 10 years 
ago, who started up in this decade, does not have base acres, does not 
have proven yields, but they are out there struggling to get by, they 
are not going to get the same AMTA payment. They will get a modest LDP 
this fall that is already in the bill, but this amendment offers no 
further relief under the loan deficiency payments.
  To be sure, I understand that Senator Cochran's amendment has a $500 
million payment to soybeans and oilseeds. Again, that is helpful. But 
under our LDP program the payments to soybean producers would be in the 
neighborhood of about $1 billion, not $500 million. They deserve some 
help also. I shouldn't just say soybeans. I mean all oilseeds, whether 
it is safflower or canola oilseeds, would also get more under the LDP 
payment than they would under the AMTA payment.
  That is why I believe the Cochran amendment is still insufficient and 
why I believe the amendment sent forward by the Senator from North 
Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, again may be our last best hope to get meaningful 
help to all the farmers--all of them, not just a few.
  I thank the Senator for yielding the time.
  Mr. DORGAN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will reserve the remainder of my time in the event the 
manager wishes to speak at this point.
  Mr. President, if Senator Cochran does not have a speaker, let me 
then finish by saying that while I think the proposal that was offered 
today is improved by Senator Cochran--adding the $400 million for crop 
insurance improves it--as we indicated yesterday, it is not sufficient. 
It does not provide help for disaster.
  It provides payments directly to farmers using AMTA. AMTA might sound 
like a foreign language to some people, but AMTA is a mechanism by 
which payments are made to people based on a 1991-1995 crop history, 
and we will have payments going to people who aren't producing 
anything. All of a sudden, they will open their mailbox and get a 
check. We will have payments made to people who aren't in trouble at 
all because AMTA is disconnected from any relationship to production.
  We have proposed that the payments go with respect to a loan 
deficiency payment that relates to production, relates to people who 
are not able to receive the adequate price they need for their 
commodity. It tries to say let us use scarce public money here, Federal 
tax dollars, where they might be invested and do the most good.
  It doesn't make much sense to throw a 5-foot rope to somebody 
drowning in 30 feet of water. One can say thanks for the rope, but it 
didn't save anybody. What we need to do at the end of today is to have 
said: Well, we have done something to try to address the farm crisis, 
collapsed commodity prices, collapsed livestock prices, devastating 
crop disease in some parts of the country, devastating drought in 
others, and flooding in yet other parts of the country. We need at the 
end of the day to say we have put together a package of help that says 
to those family farmers trying to do business under those 
circumstances: You have a chance here to survive. You can make it 
across these price valleys.
  Putting together an inadequate package and then just going home is 
not solving problems. It is just prolonging the day, probably by a 
month or 2 or 6 months, by which farmers might have a chance to make a 
decision later that they are going to have to be out of business.
  That is not what we want to do for farmers. Family farmers are 
important to this country. I come here with a real passion for family 
farming. It is because I grew up in a rural area of this country and I 
know what it takes to raise livestock. I know what kinds of efforts and 
passions people put into trying to operate a family farm. I see now the 
tears in the eyes of family farmers who stands up at meetings with me 
and say: I am losing the farm. This is a farm my grand-dad operated and 
my dad operated, and I am losing it. I am not a bad farmer, I am a good 
farmer, but I can't make it with Depression-era prices for wheat and 
corn. I just can't make a living that way.
  Members of the Senate couldn't make a living that way. People on 
minimum wage couldn't make a living that way. Nobody can make a living 
when their prices collapse. Is there anybody you know of who has half 
the income they used to have a couple years ago and are doing well? I 
don't think so. That is what this is about.
  Are we going to invest in family farming? Are we going to extend a 
helping hand to say, you matter, we want to help you, or are we going 
to pass a bill that is inadequate and say, we passed it, so credit us 
for passing a bill?
  I hope my colleagues will take a close look at this compromise, 
$9.837 billion, nearly $1 billion less than that which we offered 
yesterday. My colleagues, Senators Harkin and Conrad and others, 
sincerely hope we will be able to accept this as a compromise and then 
understand that we have done something significant and real, something 
helpful to America's family farmers and for America's family farmers.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I don't know of any Senators on this side of the aisle who desire to 
debate this issue any further. We have had a full debate of all of the 
issues surrounding this amendment--the issues of disaster and income 
assistance.
  I observe that the proposal that is now before the Senate, offered by 
the Senators from North Dakota and Iowa and others who may be 
cosponsors, is very similar to the amendment that has already been 
voted on, on a motion to table the Daschle-Harkin amendment. On that 
vote, the motion to table was agreed to.

[[Page S10176]]

  There are some reductions in the individual items of assistance that 
are included in the bill, but the bill is basically the same bill 
substantively and in terms of the procedures used to deliver the 
disaster assistance. We were told also that the earlier bill had been 
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost over $11 billion. 
It had been advertised as having a cost of $10.793 billion. This has 
been revised downward from that previous estimate to $9.83 billion.
  The individual items we observe that have been changed: There is $100 
million less for dairy. There is a reduction in the livestock 
assistance program from $200 million to $150 million. There was a so-
called flooded land program at $250 million in the earlier proposal 
which is now $150 million. There is a cancellation of the so-called 
emergency short-term land diversion program and also of the producers 
erroneously denied eligibility for the 1998 relief program. There are 
two programs in the emergency conservation area that have been reduced 
in cost, and one has been canceled.
  Those are the highlights of the changes that have been made in this 
legislation from the way it appeared when the Senate voted to table the 
amendment earlier in the consideration of this bill. So it is virtually 
the same amendment. There have been some modifications.
  I urge Senators to vote to table the amendment when that motion is 
made. It is the intention of this manager to yield back all time that 
remains on this side, and I will be prepared to do that whenever the 
Senator from North Dakota says they are ready to vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 11 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, of those items that my colleague, Senator 
Cochran, described as having been reduced, in most cases, they were 
reduced from a level of funding that we thought was necessary. But I 
say that, in almost every case, these items have no entry on the 
underlying amendment. There isn't any money available in the Cochran 
proposal that the Senate has considered.
  So it is true, we have had to reduce some accounts. But whatever is 
left is certainly more than exists in the farm crisis package that has 
been offered today by my colleague.
  I hope that our colleagues will look at this in the spirit in which 
it is offered and believe that a compromise is important and necessary 
and believe it is far better during a farm crisis to try to extend the 
helping hand to people who are producing and provide help, because 
prices have collapsed for that which they have produced, than it is to 
concoct another approach that says: Let's just send checks out there 
and hope some of them get in the right mailboxes. That is what AMTA is 
and what it does. That is why it is not effective.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield back all time remaining on this 
side on the amendment.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1514.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 255 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Crapo
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand it, under the agreement 
there was an opportunity for another disaster assistance amendment to 
be offered. It is my understanding that an agreement has been reached 
to limit the time for debate on that amendment to 30 minutes equally 
divided prior to a motion to table.
  I make that suggestion to see if it is satisfactory with the 
distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is the understanding.


                Amendment No. 1517 To Amendment No. 1499

               (Purpose: To make a perfecting amendment)

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1517 to amendment No. 1499.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is an attempt to have a pure 
compromise between the two sides on the question of disaster relief for 
agriculture. The Democratic plan previously proposed was at $10.8 
billion. The Republican plan that we started with was $6.9 billion. 
This is for $8.8 billion. First, it compromises on the money.
  Second, on the payment methodology, it adopts what the Republicans 
have insisted on, the use of enhanced AMTA payments for income support. 
This is a sincere attempt to compromise on the question of disaster 
relief.
  Beyond that, there are significant differences. This is a disaster 
bill that actually has disaster aid. Our amendment has $500 million set 
aside for 1999 crop income losses. There is nothing in the underlying 
amendment. Let me repeat that for people who are listening, and for our 
colleagues. Our amendment has $500 million for 1999 crop income losses 
from droughts and floods. The underlying amendment has zero. We are 
talking about a disaster bill that, on the Republican side, does not 
have disaster provisions. It has provisions to offset the dramatic loss 
from the plummeting crop prices, but it does not have provisions to 
address drought or flooded lands.
  In addition, the underlying amendment has no money for the unmet 1998 
disaster assistance promise that was made. Last year, the government 
came up short. We gave farmers compensation based on a formula. They 
got 85 percent of what Congress had promised. My amendment improves on 
that. It closes the gap between what was promised and what was 
delivered. The underlying amendment has no money for dairy. Our 
proposal has $200 million for dairy. The underlying amendment has no 
money for price reporting. We have a modest amount of money for that. 
The underlying amendment has no money for agricultural mediation. We 
have a small amount of money for that.
  In addition, the underlying amendment has no money for section 32 
commodity purchases to address the drought and the livestock price 
collapse that we have seen for hogs. Our amendment does.

[[Page S10177]]

  The underlying amendment, the Cochran amendment, is at $7.5 billion. 
Our amendment is at $8.8 billion. It represents a pure compromise on 
the dollars. It represents an acceptance of the Republican payment 
mechanism--all AMTA payments. As I have indicated, the other 
differences are as follows: The underlying amendment has about $200 
million for specialty crops; we have $300 million. The underlying 
amendment has $325 million for livestock assistance and section 32; we 
have $550 million. The underlying amendment has nothing for 1999 crop 
income losses; we have $500 million. The underlying amendment has 
nothing for dairy; we have $200 million. The underlying amendment has 
nothing for the unmet 1998 disaster promise; we have $162 million. The 
underlying amendment has money for tobacco farmers; so do we.
  We also have some miscellaneous provisions and deal with raising 
payment limits. We have the same approach as in the Republican 
proposal.
  This is an attempt to have a straightforward compromise between the 
two positions. I hope very much our colleagues will accept it. I 
reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I know of no Senators on this side who are requesting 
recognition to debate this amendment. I observe that there has been a 
lot of discussion and consideration in the Senate on all of the issues 
that are included in this proposed amendment. Nothing really has been 
changed except the vehicle for delivery of assistance--that has been 
changed--and a reduction in total cost.
  We still observe this is not a CBO estimate of the cost. The earliest 
cost of the Harkin amendment was over $10 billion, but then CBO sends 
us an estimate and it is over $11 billion. So one thing for Senators to 
keep in mind is that the cost of this proposed amendment is still 
considerably higher than the Cochran amendment that has previously been 
agreed to by the Senate on a voice vote this afternoon.
  I hope Senators will continue to support the managers' effort to 
table this amendment and proceed to then consider the remaining 
amendments we have available to be disposed of in connection with this 
legislation. We think the underlying amendment fully addresses the need 
for action to deal with the problem of lost income and disaster 
assistance. It may not be perfect. There is no provision in the House 
bill on this subject. So we have an opportunity in conference to work 
out differences. If there are developments between now and the time 
when we do go to conference with the House, we will have an opportunity 
to address those issues.
  I am hopeful Senators will understand this is our first action on 
this subject by the Congress. We have had no support from the 
administration in terms of trying to identify an appropriate level of 
disaster assistance for current problems. We already have a disaster 
program that is still being administered by the Department of 
Agriculture which was approved in the last Congress. That is a $6 
billion program. We are willing to continue to work with the 
administration and with Senators in this Chamber to design the best 
possible economic assistance program.
  We think this is a very strong effort and is a sign that we are 
serious about dealing with the problems in agriculture. It is a strong 
commitment. It is a $7 billion effort that has already been agreed to 
this afternoon. So we will continue to talk to Senators on both sides 
of the aisle to try to reach a point where we have a consensus and we 
have an understanding that will be acceptable not only to Congress but 
get the signature of the White House as well. We realize that is a fact 
of legislative life. But this is an important issue.
  We appreciate the way Senators have responded to the challenge, 
discussing the options and voting for the measures that have been 
before us. But it is my intention, once the Senator has used his time 
or yielded it back, to yield the time that remains on this side and 
move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank both Senator Conrad 
from North Dakota and Senator Grassley from Iowa. This is the first 
bipartisan effort we have had.
  I also want to key on what the Senator from Mississippi just said. I 
appreciate very much what the Senator from Mississippi did earlier with 
the voice vote, basically saying let's try to get some agreement on 
what our baseline is going to be.
  I am wondering. I say to the Senator from Mississippi, it seems some 
things put together in the package by Senators Grassley and Conrad 
might be agreeable to the Senator from Mississippi. Perhaps all of them 
are not. I wonder if the Senator will be willing to consider adding by 
voice vote some of the things? Look, for example, at the 1999 
agricultural disaster losses. That almost on the face cries out for 
funding, it seems to me.
  I wonder if the Senator from Mississippi will respond to that. I know 
earlier we had a voice vote that set down a foundation of what we were 
going to do. Since this is the first truly bipartisan effort we have 
had, which is exactly what we are going to need in order to get the 
President's signature and the House to come along, we have a ways to go 
before we can get something signed and assistance out to farmers who 
are in need.
  As I said, I appreciate very much the Senator from Mississippi--there 
is no question he understands there is a real need there, and it is not 
a question of whether or not he wants to help. He has a problem with 
some of the details of it and the timing of it. I wonder if there is 
anything on this list that the Senator from Mississippi by voice vote 
will be able to add in at this stage of the game?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, no, there is 
not.
  Mr. KERREY. Let me ask specifically on the ag disaster income loss, 
it seems to me--this is for 1999 that had been promised previously--
this is just a matter of keeping a promise that was made previously. 
The Senator still would not--he can shake his head no if the answer is 
no. I am seeking some way to build on what Senator Grassley and Senator 
Conrad have done, which is trying to split the difference here and come 
up with a proposal.
  Their proposal, for example, the most controversial one right off the 
bat, was they have all the money going out in an AMTA payment. As the 
Senator from Mississippi knows, the earlier effort reached by partisan 
agreement was one of the most difficult issues. Democrats wanted the 
money to go out in LDPs, and Republicans wanted it to go out in AMTA. 
We yielded in the bipartisan proposal of which I am fully supportive. 
It seems to me it would be reasonable at least to consider putting this 
1999 assistance that has been promised on the appropriations bill. Does 
the Senator not agree with that?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am happy to 
discuss this. I do not think we are going to make any progress in 
reaching an agreement in the way the Senator from Nebraska has 
undertaken to try to explore the options. This is, is it the third day? 
It seems as if it has been 3 days. Maybe it has just been 2. Time 
passes so fast when you are having fun trying to work something out.
  We have undertaken in good faith to try to arrive at a package of 
assistance that will address the needs, as we understand them, in 
agriculture. If the Senator has listened to the debate, as I am sure he 
has, there have been some Senators who do not think there should be any 
funds made available at this time for this purpose because the harvests 
have not been completed and we do not know what the losses are in some 
areas of the country.
  This year, some farmers are predicted to make more money than they 
did last year. In my State, aquaculture is considered to be having a 
very good year. There was a big feature story just this week in our 
State's press about that. But there are some farmers who are having a 
terrible time. Many of them are in the newspapers and photographs where 
drought has hit crops in this region of the country.
  We are all aware of those problems. To suggest to me that I should 
now look at this last amendment that has a

[[Page S10178]]

long list of things in it and I should select things that I could be 
willing to accept puts me in a position that is really untenable. I 
think the Senator understands that. So I think his questions are not 
only facetious but not well intended to really achieve the result of a 
compromise.
  I cannot speak for all Senators on this side of the aisle when trying 
to respond to a question such as that. I can say that there is a lot of 
diversity in the Senate. We have come together to agree on an approach. 
It is a generous approach, and I think we are willing to go to 
conference with that. I am willing to take that to conference and 
defend it and improve it if we can, if the House has some better ideas.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Nebraska has 
expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield back all the time remaining on 
this side on the amendment. I move to table the amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator withhold until Senator Grassley has a 
chance to speak? I am not out of time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I will be happy to withhold if the Senator wants to 
talk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe the Senator from North Dakota has 4 
minutes, 56 seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. I give 4 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about the hope that we 
could get a bipartisan agreement. I spoke also about the fact that I 
consider ag programs and Social Security and Medicare as social 
contracts that we have with segments of our population and the 
Government, and the extent to which, for the most part, those social 
contracts have been bipartisan when there have been changes made.
  I welcomed the opportunity yesterday to have Democratic leaders and 
people interested in agricultural issues wanting to meet with 
Republicans to reach that bipartisan accord. An accord such as this is 
one where each side gives some. I think Republicans have given, the 
extent to which this is more than some magic $7.5 billion, but, there 
again, as the Senator from North Dakota explained, it is about halfway 
between the extremes of what both parties were offering.
  What I know is very strongly felt by a lot of people on the other 
side of the aisle is that there should be a division of the cash 
infusion into agriculture between AMTA payments and LDPs. We on this 
side of the aisle believe more strongly about that than almost any 
other issue--that that is the wrong way to go, for two reasons: One, 
LDP is a convoluted way to get money to farmers; and the second one is 
that when we have an emergency such as this, we ought to be able to get 
the money to the community as fast as we can. This can be done within 
10 days after the President signs the bill.
  On the other side of the aisle, at least I can say for the Senator 
from North Dakota, they have given a lot in order to reach this 
compromise. It is very deeply felt by Republicans that all of this 
money should go out through AMTA. This is give and take on both sides, 
and I hope that it does get a massive amount of support so we can say 
we did something with a social contract that is bipartisan, which is a 
tradition of this body.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
5 minutes so that two other Senators may speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague from Mississippi for the 
accommodation.
  I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from 
Mississippi for letting us have this additional time.
  Again, I rise to support the amendment offered by the Senator from 
North Dakota and my colleague from Iowa. Sure, there are some things in 
this with which I do not agree. I do not think it all ought to go out 
in AMTA payments.
  Obviously, the body has spoken. The Republicans have the votes on 
that. So it is done.
  There is a better way of putting it out through the LDP system, but 
that is a moot point right now. What we are down to is really how much 
we are going to put out there and whether or not we are going to 
dribble it out or do something meaningful.
  We keep coming down from the amendment we offered the other day for 
about 10.7; then we came down to 9.8, and I guess this now is about 
8.5.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, 8.8.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is 8.8.
  So, again, I hope that Senators will see fit to at least endorse and 
vote for this package. The amendment offered by Senator Cochran has no 
money for section 32 purchases, which I think is going to be very 
important for our pork and cattlemen, to buy up some of this excess 
stuff we have and put it into food banks, school lunch programs, and 
things such as that.
  I also must say there is no money in the Cochran amendment for price 
reporting. Quite frankly, I still think we have an obligation to do 
something about the unmet needs from the 1998 floods we had that so 
devastated North Dakota and some other parts of this country. Quite 
frankly, in this amendment, this compromise proposal that Senator 
Conrad and Senator Grassley have offered, there is money for that.
  So I think it does represent a true compromise. It represents a sort 
of meeting between where we started yesterday and where the manager of 
the bill started. Again, I think there are some provisions in there I 
wish we could have changed, but we had our votes and we were not on the 
winning side of that.
  So I think we can at least now have an agreement to get the amount of 
money out there, even though it is through the AMTA payments, that is 
needed and to provide some of the money for some of the areas that the 
Cochran amendment has omitted.
  I thank the managers, and I thank Senator Conrad for yielding me this 
time. I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator for yielding me 
this time.
  I am one of the newer Members of the Senate. I have not taken to the 
floor of the Senate often to speak yet. But I have been on the floor of 
the Senate five times already to speak on this issue of the 
agricultural crisis. I think it is immensely important to this Nation 
and certainly vital to the rural areas of our country.
  I compliment my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad. I think 
the spirit in which this bipartisan effort has been crafted is 
essential in being able to produce good policy for this country.
  I also agree with the words of my colleague from Mississippi that 
without a doubt this is a diverse body, and especially when it comes to 
agriculture, oftentimes we certainly see our diversity in terms of 
regions more than parties. I compliment his leadership in many of these 
areas.
  But I do think the debate and the differences we have seen are 
certainly reflective of the necessity now to review agricultural policy 
in this country. I truly encourage my colleagues to take a look at this 
bipartisan approach that has been presented by Senator Conrad.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is not all that I hoped for for 
farmers in Minnesota, but I thank Senator Conrad and Senator Grassley 
for this compromise effort.
  I think we are doing more for dairy. I think we are doing more for 
livestock producers. I think we are doing much more for disaster 
relief, which is terribly important to farmers in my State and farmers 
all across the Nation.
  I hope that we get a very strong vote. I think at this point in time 
in the week this is the very best we can do. I am pleased to support 
this effort.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I just urge my colleagues to give our 
amendment close consideration. This is the

[[Page S10179]]

only amendment that is bipartisan. We have compromised on the dollar 
amounts almost down the middle. We have provided the Republican payment 
mechanism.
  We have $500 million to address drought and flooded lands. There is 
nothing in the underlying amendment for that. We have $200 million to 
address the crisis in dairy. There is nothing in the underlying 
amendment for that.
  This is $8.8 billion, in a bipartisan proposal, to deal with the 
disaster. I hope my colleagues can support it on a bipartisan basis.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor and yield back our time.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, all time has been consumed or yielded 
back.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1517. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 256 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Grams
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Crapo
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, at the time the Ashcroft amendment was 
agreed to, it was offered in a form that related to the Harkin-Daschle 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. The Senator 
from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have been asked to seek unanimous 
consent that it be in order to reoffer the Ashcroft amendment regarding 
sanctions, that the amendment be considered agreed to, and the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  I announce that I have been asked to seek that consent. I know a copy 
of the agreement has been furnished to staff on both sides, and it has 
been hotlined. I don't have a response as to whether it has been agreed 
to. So I am raising the question as to whether or not that consent can 
be granted.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will object if that unanimous consent 
request is placed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COCHRAN. In that event, as I understand the parliamentary 
situation, the Senator from Missouri could offer his amendment on 
sanctions for the consideration of the Senate and, at this time, it 
would be parliamentarily permissible for him to do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is my intention to send an amendment 
to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.


                Amendment No. 1516 to Amendment No. 1499

(Purpose: To provide stability in the United States agriculture sector 
  and to promote adequate availability of food and medicine abroad by 
     requiring congressional approval before the imposition of any 
 unilateral agricultural or medical sanction against a foreign country 
                           or foreign entity)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is my intention to send an amendment 
to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered 
as read, the amendment be considered agreed to, and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I object to the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft), for himself, and 
     Mr. Hagel, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
     Brownback, Mr. Grams, Mr. Warner, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
     Fitzgerald, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. 
     Landrieu, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1516 to amendment No. 1499.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       (____) Requirement of Congressional Approval of Any 
     Unilateral Agricultural or Medical Sanction.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural 
     commodity'' has the meaning given the term in section 402 of 
     the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 
     (7 U.S.C. 1732).
       (B) Agricultural program.--The term ``agricultural 
     program'' means--
       (i) any program administered under the Agricultural Trade 
     Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691 et. 
     seq.);
       (ii) any program administered under section 416 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431);
       (iii) any commercial sale of agricultural commodities, 
     including a commercial sale of an agricultural commodity that 
     is prohibited under a unilateral agricultural sanction that 
     is in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (iv) any export financing (including credits or credit 
     guarantees) for agricultural commodities.
       (C) Joint resolution.--The term ``joint resolution'' 
     means--
       (i) in the case of paragraph (2)(A)(ii), only a joint 
     resolution introduced within 10 session days of Congress 
     after the date on which the report of the President under 
     paragraph (2)(A)(i) is received by Congress, the matter after 
     the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That Congress 
     approves the report of the President pursuant to section 
     ____(____)(2)(A)(i) of the __________ Act ____, transmitted 
     on ______________.'', with the blank completed with the 
     appropriate date; and
       (ii) in the case of paragraph (5)(B), only a joint 
     resolution introduced within 10 session days of Congress 
     after the date on which the report of the President under 
     paragraph (5)(A) is received by Congress, the matter after 
     the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That Congress 
     approves the report of the President pursuant to section 
     ____(____)(5)(A) of the __________ Act ____, transmitted on 
     ______________.'', with the blank completed with the 
     appropriate date.
       (D) Unilateral agricultural sanction.--The term 
     ``unilateral agricultural sanction'' means any prohibition, 
     restriction, or condition on carrying out an agricultural 
     program with respect to a foreign country or foreign entity 
     that is imposed by the United States for reasons of foreign 
     policy or national security, except in a case in which the 
     United States imposes the measure pursuant to a multilateral 
     regime and the other member countries of that regime have 
     agreed to impose substantially equivalent measures.
       (E) Unilateral medical sanction.--The term ``unilateral 
     medical sanction'' means any prohibition, restriction, or 
     condition on exports of, or the provision of assistance 
     consisting of, medicine or a medical device with respect to a 
     foreign country or foreign entity that is imposed by the 
     United States for reasons of foreign policy or national 
     security, except in a case in which the United States imposes 
     the measure pursuant to a multilateral regime and the other 
     member countries of that regime have agreed to impose 
     substantially equivalent measures.
       (2) Restriction.--
       (A) New sanctions.--Except as provided in paragraphs (3) 
     and (4) and notwithstanding

[[Page S10180]]

     any other provision of law, the President may not impose a 
     unilateral agricultural sanction or unilateral medical 
     sanction against a foreign country or foreign entity for any 
     fiscal year, unless--
       (i) not later than 60 days before the sanction is proposed 
     to be imposed, the President submits a report to Congress 
     that--

       (I) describes the activity proposed to be prohibited, 
     restricted, or conditioned; and
       (II) describes the actions by the foreign country or 
     foreign entity that justify the sanction; and

       (ii) Congress enacts a joint resolution stating the 
     approval of Congress for the report submitted under clause 
     (i).
       (B) Existing sanctions.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), with 
     respect to any unilateral agricultural sanction or unilateral 
     medical sanction that is in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act for any fiscal year, the President 
     shall immediately cease to implement such sanction.
       (ii) Exemptions.--Clause (i) shall not apply to a 
     unilateral agricultural sanction or unilateral medical 
     sanction imposed with respect to an agricultural program or 
     activity described in clause (ii) or (iv) of paragraph 
     (1)(B).
       (3) Exceptions.--The President may impose (or continue to 
     impose) a sanction described in paragraph (2) without regard 
     to the procedures required by that paragraph--
       (A) against a foreign country or foreign entity with 
     respect to which Congress has enacted a declaration of war 
     that is in effect on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act; or
       (B) to the extent that the sanction would prohibit, 
     restrict, or condition the provision or use of any 
     agricultural commodity, medicine, or medical device that is--
       (i) controlled on the United States Munitions List;
       (ii) an item for which export controls are administered by 
     the Department of Commerce for foreign policy or national 
     security reasons; or
       (iii) used to facilitate the development or production of a 
     chemical or biological weapon.
       (4) Countries supporting international terrorism.--This 
     subsection shall not affect the current prohibitions on 
     providing, to the government of any country supporting 
     international terrorism, United States government assistance, 
     including United States foreign assistance, United States 
     export assistance, or any United States credits or credit 
     guarantees.
       (5) Termination of sanctions.--Any unilateral agricultural 
     sanction or unilateral medical sanction that is imposed 
     pursuant to the procedures described in paragraph (2)(A) 
     shall terminate not later than 2 years after the date on 
     which the sanction became effective unless--
       (A) not later than 60 days before the date of termination 
     of the sanction, the President submits to Congress a report 
     containing the recommendation of the President for the 
     continuation of the sanction for an additional period of not 
     to exceed 2 years and the request of the President for 
     approval by Congress of the recommendation; and
       (B) Congress enacts a joint resolution stating the approval 
     of Congress for the report submitted under subparagraph (A).
       (6) Congressional priority procedures.--
       (A) Referral of report.--A report described in paragraph 
     (2)(A)(i) or (5)(A) shall be referred to the appropriate 
     committee or committees of the House of Representatives and 
     to the appropriate committee or committees of the Senate.
       (B) Referral of joint resolution.--
       (i) In general.--A joint resolution shall be referred to 
     the committees in each House of Congress with jurisdiction.
       (ii) Reporting date.--A joint resolution referred to in 
     clause (i) may not be reported before the eighth session day 
     of Congress after the introduction of the joint resolution.
       (C) Discharge of committee.--If the committee to which is 
     referred a joint resolution has not reported the joint 
     resolution (or an identical joint resolution) at the end of 
     30 session days of Congress after the date of introduction of 
     the joint resolution--
       (i) the committee shall be discharged from further 
     consideration of the joint resolution; and
       (ii) the joint resolution shall be placed on the 
     appropriate calendar of the House concerned.
       (D) Floor consideration.--
       (i) Motion to proceed.--

       (I) In general.--When the committee to which a joint 
     resolution is referred has reported, or when a committee is 
     discharged under subparagraph (C) from further consideration 
     of, a joint resolution--

       (aa) it shall be at any time thereafter in order (even 
     though a previous motion to the same effect has been 
     disagreed to) for any member of the House concerned to move 
     to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution; and
       (bb) all points of order against the joint resolution (and 
     against consideration of the joint resolution) are waived.

       (II) Privilege.--The motion to proceed to the consideration 
     of the joint resolution--

       (aa) shall be highly privileged in the House of 
     Representatives and privileged in the Senate; and
       (bb) not debatable.

       (III) Amendments and motions not in order.--The motion to 
     proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution shall 
     not be subject to--

       (aa) amendment;
       (bb) a motion to postpone; or
       (cc) a motion to proceed to the consideration of other 
     business.

       (IV) Motion to reconsider not in order.--A motion to 
     reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or 
     disagreed to shall not be in order.
       (V) Business until disposition.--If a motion to proceed to 
     the consideration of the joint resolution is agreed to, the 
     joint resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the 
     House concerned until disposed of.

       (ii) Limitations on debate.--

       (I) In general.--Debate on the joint resolution, and on all 
     debatable motions and appeals in connection with the joint 
     resolution, shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which 
     shall be divided equally between those favoring and those 
     opposing the joint resolution.
       (II) Further debate limitations.--A motion to limit debate 
     shall be in order and shall not be debatable.
       (III) Amendments and motions not in order.--An amendment 
     to, a motion to postpone, a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business, a motion to recommit the 
     joint resolution, or a motion to reconsider the vote by which 
     the joint resolution is agreed to or disagreed to shall not 
     be in order.

       (iii) Vote on final passage.--Immediately following the 
     conclusion of the debate on a joint resolution, and a single 
     quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in 
     accordance with the rules of the House concerned, the vote on 
     final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
       (iv) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--An appeal from a 
     decision of the Chair relating to the application of the 
     rules of the Senate or House of Representatives, as the case 
     may be, to the procedure relating to a joint resolution shall 
     be decided without debate.
       (E) Coordination with action by other house.--If, before 
     the passage by 1 House of a joint resolution of that House, 
     that House receives from the other House a joint resolution, 
     the following procedures shall apply:
       (i) No committee referral.--The joint resolution of the 
     other House shall not be referred to a committee.
       (ii) Floor procedure.--With respect to a joint resolution 
     of the House receiving the joint resolution--

       (I) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no 
     joint resolution had been received from the other House; but
       (II) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint 
     resolution of the other House.

       (iii) Disposition of joint resolutions of receiving 
     house.--On disposition of the joint resolution received from 
     the other House, it shall no longer be in order to consider 
     the joint resolution originated in the receiving House.
       (F) Procedures after action by both the house and senate.--
     If a House receives a joint resolution from the other House 
     after the receiving House has disposed of a joint resolution 
     originated in that House, the action of the receiving House 
     with regard to the disposition of the joint resolution 
     originated in that House shall be deemed to be the action of 
     the receiving House with regard to the joint resolution 
     originated in the other House.
       (G) Rulemaking power.--This paragraph is enacted by 
     Congress--
       (i) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such this 
     paragraph--

       (I) is deemed to be a part of the rules of each House, 
     respectively, but applicable only with respect to the 
     procedure to be followed in that House in the case of a joint 
     resolution; and
       (II) supersedes other rules only to the extent that this 
     paragraph is inconsistent with those rules; and

       (ii) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as the rules relate 
     to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same 
     manner and to the same extent as in the case of any other 
     rule of that House.
       (7) Effective date.--This subsection takes effect 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.


                           Amendment No. 1094

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the issue of 
farmland preservation. I have an amendment that was filed. It is 
amendment No. 1094. I will not call up that amendment, but I do want to 
speak on it for a couple of minutes.
  The reason I will not call the amendment up is the amendment is now 
subject to rule XVI. It is on farmland preservation, which was an 
authorized program under the farm bill in 1996, but because the program 
was so successful, all the money has been used in the authorization. So 
while I would very much like to see more money be appropriated for this 
program that shares very broad bipartisan support, the job

[[Page S10181]]

before us is to get this program authorized. Since legislating on 
appropriations bills is now not the order of the day, and I support 
that, we are going to have to work through the authorization process.
  But the Farmland Preservation Program, I think, has probably been 
shown to be one of the most successful pieces of legislation in 
preserving open space and critical farmland that we have seen in this 
country. In fact, last year, $7 billion of farmland protection money, 
preservation money, was approved via voter referendum throughout the 
country. That is an enormous commitment on the part of States and 
localities to preserve this vital agricultural land and at the same 
time preserve a way of life and preserve vital open space in places 
where the pressure for development is extremely high.
  The area of my State that is under the most development pressure is 
the southeastern corner of Pennsylvania. The counties there, from 
Lancaster County to Chester County, Bucks County, York County, and 
others, have done a great job in their own programs. In fact, all those 
programs I mentioned, county programs, were started long before the 
Federal Government ever even thought of participating in helping them 
acquire land. In fact, we have helped. The $35 million--that is all it 
was, $35 million--from the Federal level which was spent over the first 
3 years of the farm bill preserved over 127,000 acres of land that is 
under great pressure of development on 460 farms.

  In Pennsylvania alone, we have a 10-year backlog, a 10-year waiting 
list of farmers who voluntarily want to preserve their land and 
preserve, as a result, the family farm to be able to pass it on from 
generation to generation. States and localities, in partnership with 
the Federal Government--and as I said, in some cases without the 
Federal partnership--have bought these development rights so they can 
get some money to help keep this farm within the family. In fact, in a 
third of the cases--and we will be dealing with the tax bill tomorrow--
these development rights were sold by farmers so they could pay death 
taxes, they could pay inheritance taxes, estate taxes--call them what 
you want. They sold their development rights on the farm so they could 
keep the farm in the family because of what the Federal Government has 
done in taxing their estates upon death.
  That is a remarkable situation. Hopefully, if we can get the 
President to sign the tax bill we will pass tomorrow, we can go a long 
way toward avoiding that kind of use for these development rights. 
These development rights can then be used to modernize, to upgrade, and 
to make more competitive these agricultural lands that are under this 
intense development pressure.
  I am disappointed we are not going to be successful in agreeing to 
the $10 million that is in this amendment. It would go a long way to 
relieve that backlog, not only in Pennsylvania but in the 19 other 
States that have participated in the Federal program. Since the Federal 
program was enacted, many more States have passed laws--in fact, 52 
jurisdictions in States and localities have adopted some sort of 
farmland preservation program that would dovetail very nicely with the 
Federal effort.
  This is an important issue to the people, particularly in the eastern 
part of the State of Pennsylvania. It is an important issue, I know, to 
my colleagues all throughout the Mid-Atlantic and New England States, 
many of whom are cosponsors of this legislation; also in California, 
where Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein worked to pass the original 
farmland preservation amendment back in 1996.
  I am hopeful that the Agriculture Committee on which I serve will 
bring up this legislation and reauthorize it for the remaining part of 
the farm bill so we can include this in the Agriculture appropriations 
bill next time. I commend and thank Senator Lugar who, a couple of 
weeks ago, held a hearing in the Agriculture Committee about this 
subject. We had some very enlightened testimony. It shows how 
incredibly popular this program is across the country and how important 
it is to preserve a way of life in rural America, particularly those 
areas that are threatened by development pressure.
  I am hopeful, again, while we will not be able to accomplish it here 
today, that soon in this session of Congress we will pass a 
reauthorization of this program and be able to fund it in future 
appropriations bills.
  Mr. President, seeing no one else seeking the floor, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1516, As Modified

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I modify my amendment with the 
modification that is at the desk.
  The modification is as follows:

       Guidelines With Respect to State Sponsors of International 
     Terrorism.--(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of the 
     Act, the export of agricultural commodities or medicine or 
     medical devices to the government of a country that has been 
     determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly 
     provided support for acts of international terrorism under 
     section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2371) shall only be made----
       (1) pursuant to one year licenses issued by the United 
     States Government for contracts entered into during that one 
     year period and completed within a twelve-month period after 
     the signing of the contract; and
       (2) without benefit of federal financing, direct export 
     subsidies, federal credit guarantees or other federal 
     promotion assistance programs.
       (B) Quarterly reports to the appropriate congressional 
     committees shall be submitted by the applicable agency 
     charged with issuing licenses in subparagraph (A)(1).

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment, as modified, be considered agreed to and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table. I further ask unanimous consent that 
any rule XVI objections to the amendment be inappropriate and out of 
order and be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, is it so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1516), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri and others who were interested in the sanctions amendment that 
he had offered and which had been approved in a different form earlier 
in the consideration of the bill for working to put this legislation 
together in a form that could be adopted by the Senate tonight. I know 
the Senators from Florida and New Jersey were interested in this 
legislation, and the author of the amendment has shown strong 
leadership in bringing this issue to the Senate and in pushing it the 
way he did to get it approved. I compliment him and those who worked 
with him to try to resolve this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of remarks by 
way of appreciation to the other Senators as well, to Senator Hagel, to 
Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Mack of Florida, Senator Torricelli, 
and to all the Senators who worked together. It was important for us to 
make the fine-tuning adjustments that make this a better piece of 
legislation, and I commend them for their cooperation.
  I trust, even expect, that in implementing this process, the 
administration will endeavor to streamline to the maximum extent 
possible the process by which food and medicine can be exported 
pursuant to this provision. This is what our farmers and ranchers and 
those who produce our medicinal supplies expect from their Government 
and the people expect from America. For example, I urge the 
implementing agencies to use general licenses to the maximum extent 
possible, but obviously this provision provides some judgment and 
exercise by the administration in this regard.
  I thank my colleagues, and I thank the Senator from Mississippi for 
his patience in this respect. I am grateful to him and pleased to have 
had this opportunity to make this contribution to the measure. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think progress is being made by the

[[Page S10182]]

managers and our staff members with those Senators who have suggested 
amendments to the bill. We are compiling a list of amendments that will 
be agreed upon. There are a few that have not been resolved and that 
probably will require either disposition by voice vote or rollcall vote 
either up or down or on a motion to table.
  I am just suggesting we are getting to that point toward the end of 
the bill when we are ready to wrap this up. We hope we are not in too 
late tonight. If Senators will cooperate and offer the amendments they 
have, we will appreciate that very much.


                     Amendment No. 1499, As Amended

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, at this point in the proceeding, I know 
the pending business is the Cochran amendment and it is at the desk. I 
know of no other amendments that are going to be offered to that 
amendment. The bill will be open for amendment further upon the 
adoption of that amendment. It is an amendment that has already been 
voted on twice, once on a motion to table and then adopted on a voice 
vote. I am prepared to move forward to dispose of that disaster 
assistance issue.
  I am awaiting the advice of the Chair. Do we have to have third 
reading? If we do, I will request it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on 
amendment No. 1499, as amended. Does the Senator wish a rollcall vote?
  Mr. COCHRAN. The staff is advising me that the yeas and nays have 
been ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Is there further 
debate?
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, point of inquiry of the manager of the 
bill to understand where we are. We will be voting on the managers' 
base bill as has been put forward in amendments so far; is that where 
we are? I want to understand where we are.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is correct.
  Any parliamentary inquiries can be directed to the Chair.
  I tried to explain the vote. It is on the Cochran amendment. We have 
voted on it twice--on a motion to table; and it was adopted on a voice 
vote. It was an amendment to the Daschle-Harkin amendment.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I want to understand for sure what all this contains 
in it, whether or not I am looking at the proper bill, the Cochran 
amendment No. 1499 to S. 1233. I want to make sure I have the right 
section, section G, regarding the tobacco program in the base bill.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, I will be 
glad to suggest the absence of a quorum and go over the bill and try to 
answer any questions the Senator has.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the 
amendment before us today by the Senator from Mississippi. While I know 
my friends who support this amendment have the best of intentions in 
offering the agricultural relief package, I must say I am concerned 
with the direction of this debate.
  We find ourselves today, Mr. President, in an increasingly familiar 
place. Once again, there is a crisis in farm country and the Congress 
is called on to construct a comprehensive package of relief and 
support. The amendment before us would spend more than $7 billion on--
among other things--direct cash payments to farmers. This follows our 
efforts last year when we provided just short of $6 billion in 
emergency payments to America's farmers. Since 1988 emergency 
supplemental acts and farm disaster acts have amounted to approximately 
$17 billion in emergency supplemental funding for USDA programs.
  Now I understand that much of this money was spent helping farmers 
who had suffered crop losses through drought, seasonal storms and other 
natural disasters. In fact, a portion of last year's emergency 
appropriations went to farmers who were harmed by weather conditions 
related to the El Nino phenomenon and other acts of God.
  In other words, we were attempting to help farmers in previous years 
because times were bad. What concerns me about this effort today is 
that we are helping farmers because times are good. Increasingly in 
these relief bills we are seeing the bulk of support going in response 
to low commodity prices. In fact, much of the rhetoric we're hearing is 
going to the issue of declining farm income and the difficulty farmers 
in the heartland and elsewhere are having finding markets for their 
goods.
  Today we're not addressing a crisis borne of declining productivity. 
It is not that America's farmer's aren't extremely good at what they 
do. Rather exactly the opposite. We are here because--stimulated by 
science and technology--farm productivity has persistently grown more 
rapidly than other sectors of the economy. More importantly, 
agricultural productivity has outstripped demand. And it leaves us 
faced with the one of the most basic economic functions: in the face of 
overwhelming supply and insufficient demand, prices will fall.
  In nearly all sectors, this phenomenon is a quiet one. The ``unseen 
hand'' of the market in most cases allocates resources among the 
population and prevents market saturation. But in the farm sector, 
Congress is often asked to intervene in this process and all too often 
in the past, we have. For far too long, we have allowed politics rather 
than economics to allocate agricultural resources and determine 
business success or failure. As seen by the overwhelming failure this 
century of centrally planned economies across the globe, political 
allocation leads to economic stagnation and long-term failure.
  It is for these reasons I fear our continued subsidization of the 
farm sector thwarts the free market process and will ultimately harm 
well-run farms by enabling continued market saturation. I understand 
the production of food is essential to the past and future of our 
country. I also recognize the instability and risk farmers face on a 
year to year basis and appreciate the need for occasional assistance. 
The New York Times, for example, contains an article yesterday 
discussing the drought disaster facing farmers in Maryland and West 
Virginia and the need for assistance in those areas. I do not discount 
the need for federal disaster relief. In Florida, Agriculture is a 
major part of our economy, and certainly there have been circumstances 
when we've called on Congress to assist us after hurricanes or winter 
freezes. These natural events warrant Congressional consideration and 
our best efforts. However, it seems our debate here is increasingly 
about politics rather than economics or weather-related disasters.
  In 1996, the Congress passed a Farm Bill which provided farmers of 
our major export crops with direct payments to transition them off the 
old subsidy programs and onto the free market. These direct payments 
were supposed to diminish each year until 2002. Instead, we are here--
for the second year in a row--considering legislation to increase these 
payments. Once again, Congress is using emergency payments to undo the 
1996 Farm Bill and circumvent the free market. I hear my colleagues 
blaming the free market for price failures and I find this to be a 
somewhat misguided notion. In fact, the market is working all too well; 
the overcapacity in agriculture that was papered over by government 
price supports for generations is now in full view. And the results are 
evident in the low commodity prices we're seeing on the markets today.
  I support the ideals and practices of family farming. I do not, 
however, support continually subsidizing businesses that fail. This is 
wasteful and destructive. By paying farmers who are unable to make 
profits in farming, you only delay their ultimate failure, and deter 
them from seeking other alternatives for income and employment. In 
addition, these farms that would otherwise fail still can produce crops 
that dilute the market and drive prices down, thereby creating a 
vicious cycle that we are seeing realized in this year's crisis in farm 
country.
  This problem far outstrips any two-day debate on emergency cash 
payments for farmers. What we need, Mr.

[[Page S10183]]

President, is long-term structural solutions that solve the underlying 
problems of oversupply in the face of insufficient world demand. One 
major impediment to the movement of people out of the farming sector 
and into other areas of the economy is the punitive capital gains taxes 
owed by farmers who sell their land. I will be introducing legislation 
soon to repeal the capital gains tax on the sale of farmland. This will 
allow farmers to realize an additional dollar in five on the sale of 
their land. They can then use this money to help them in the transition 
to non-farm businesses or work. While I agree with my colleagues that 
we need solutions to the crisis in American agriculture, I submit we 
need solutions that solve the underlying economic problems rather than 
patchwork measures that do little more than treat the symptoms and 
defer the problem to another year and another Congress.
  Mr. President, my opposition to this amendment is not based on a 
disdain or lack of appreciation for American agriculture. On the 
contrary, I believe it is a vital part of our economy and food security 
is clearly in our national interest. But the farming way of life is not 
served by government handout and bailouts of alarming size and 
regularity. Rather--like most other businesses--it is only preserved 
through sound business practices, hard work and an understanding of 
market fundamentals. Agriculture does not operate outside of the laws 
of supply and demand, and I urge my colleagues to carefully consider 
the long-term impact of continual subsidization on this important 
sector of the American economy.
  I hope my colleagues will oppose this amendment and explore ways to 
help farmers who are facing natural disasters rather than price 
disasters. We cannot allow the short-term politics to deter us from the 
long-term effort to steer agriculture towards the free market. Nobody 
wants to see failure in America. Nobody wants to see families lose 
their farms. Nobody wants the agrarian way of life in America to fade 
from existence. For these very reasons, Congress has an obligation to 
stay the course and lay the free-market groundwork for a prosperous 
farm economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1499, as amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) and the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 257 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Feingold
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Mack
     Smith (NH)
     Torricelli
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Crapo
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
  The amendment (No. 1499), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Change Of Vote

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that my last recorded vote be changed to nay. I voted in error.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there are several Senators who have 
amendments we want to consider. I know Senator Boxer has an amendment. 
She is prepared to offer it. We are trying to resolve most of the 
amendments that have been brought to our attention, but there are a few 
that may require a vote. I think Senator Boxer's amendment may be one 
of them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1521

 (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the continued 
  use of the fuel additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and its 
                       impact on drinking water)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), for herself, Mr. 
     Fitzgerald, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
     Wellstone, and Mr. Crapo, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1521.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec.   . (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) The Clean Air Act requires that federal reformulated 
     gasoline contain oxygen as a means of achieving air quality 
     benefits.
       (2) While both renewable ethanol and MTBE may be used to 
     meet this Clean Air Act requirement, MTBE is in substantially 
     greater use than ethanol.
       (3) MTBE is classified as a possible human carcinogen, and 
     when leaked into water causes water to take on the taste and 
     smell of turpentine, rendering it undrinkable.
       (4) MTBE leaking from underground fuel storage tanks, 
     recreational watercraft and abandoned automobiles has led to 
     growing detections of MTBE in drinking water, and has 
     contaminated groundwater and drinking water throughout the 
     United States.
       (5) Approximately five to ten percent of drinking water 
     supplies in areas using reformulated gasoline now show 
     detectable levels of MTBE.
       (6) MTBE poses a more pervasive threat to drinking water 
     than the other harmful constituents of gasoline because MTBE 
     is more soluble, more mobile and slower to degrade than those 
     other constituents.
       (7) Renewable ethanol provides air quality and energy 
     security benefits without raising drinking water concerns.
       (8) A substantial increase in renewable ethanol production 
     would enhance the energy security of the United States by 
     reducing dependence upon foreign oil.
       (9) A substantial increase in renewable ethanol production 
     would help alleviate the financial crisis facing farmers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the United States should--
       (1) phase out MTBE in order to address the threats MTBE 
     poses to public health and the environment;
       (2) promote renewable ethanol to replace MTBE as a means of 
     enhancing energy security and supporting the farm economy;
       (3) provide assistance to state and local governments to 
     treat drinking water supplies contaminated with MTBE;
       (4) provide assistance to state and local governments to 
     protect lakes and reservoirs from MTBE contamination.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is very unusual that an amendment has 
such strong bipartisan support and unlikely allies across the aisle. 
This is one of those. I will tell you the reason.
  We have a situation in this country that has just been recognized by 
the Environmental Protection Agency where we have been using an 
oxygenate in gasoline, MTBE, methyl tertiary butyl ether, an additive 
which is in essence, without going into technicalities, poisoning the 
water across this country, and particularly in my home State where MTBE 
is in use. It is an oxygenate, and it has been used in the blending of 
gasoline. We thought it was safe, and we thought it cleaned up the air. 
It does help clean up the air, but it is in fact harming our water 
supply.
  While other oxygenates such as ethanol may be used to meet the 
requirement of the Clean Air Act which calls

[[Page S10184]]

for 2 percent of our gas to be reformulated, MTBE is the oxygenate of 
choice for most refiners, and today it fulfills 85 percent of the 
demand for oxygenate that the Clean Air Act requires. Ethanol fulfills 
only 8 percent of that demand.
  Why did I offer this to the Agriculture bill? I think that is a 
legitimate question. Some Senators have asked me. Because I will tell 
you that if we can use more ethanol, it is going to help our farm 
States in a big way. Senator Fitzgerald is going to go into that point 
far more than I will. He knows the subject. If we can help our farm 
States increase their income, that is going to reduce the cost of 
subsidies to taxpayers. So this is very much related to the Agriculture 
bill.
  Unlike other harmful constituents of gasoline, such as benzene, when 
MTBE leaks from underground fuel tanks, it moves through the water very 
fast and very far. After it is released into the environment, it 
resists degrading. Once in the water, MTBE, even at the very low level 
of 5 parts per billion, can cause that water to take on the taste and 
smell of turpentine, rendering it undrinkable.
  My colleague from Texas said, How do you know it is undrinkable? The 
answer is, there have been many hearings all across my State of 
California. People have testified that where MTBE leaks into the 
drinking water supply, the water smells. We had a chance to smell that 
water. You wouldn't even put it close to your lips.
  MTBE is a possible carcinogen in animals, and it is a probable 
carcinogen in humans. Why on Earth would we continue to add it to our 
gasoline, knowing it will leak into our drinking water supply? There is 
no Federal drinking water standard for MTBE to protect the public 
health, because the studies necessary to determine if there is a safe 
level of MTBE have not been performed. Let me tell you the news on 
this.
  Many of us have been calling for a phaseout of MTBE. Senator 
Feinstein has her own bill. I have a bill. We know there is a reason. 
There is a reason to ban it, because the EPA has just stated that it 
should be decreased dramatically. This is the first time they have ever 
stated that in their blue-ribbon panel.
  In Santa Monica, CA, the people of that city lost 71 percent of their 
local water supply because of MTBE contamination. Imagine being told 
you cannot drink the water because it is contaminated. They were forced 
to close nine high-volume drinking water wells. Before the 
contamination, those wells served 6.5 million gallons of water per day. 
Efforts to clean up continue today. The city estimates that it will 
cost $160 million to clean up the affected wells.

  I want to tell you that the EPA has spent hundreds of millions of 
dollars in an effort to clean up the contamination from MTBE. Just in 
the city of Santa Monica, they say it is going to cost $160 million to 
clean up those affected wells.
  Why are we continuing to use MTBE? We know enough now to move away 
from it. We have alternatives, and our resolution talks about that. We 
have litigation now concerning cleanup, and alternative water supply 
costs continue to rise.
  Santa Monica's contamination is just the tip of the iceberg. I think 
a lot of you have heard about Lake Tahoe. What a beautiful place that 
is. Yet in South Lake Tahoe, CA, we have lost 13 of 34 drinking water 
wells because of MTBE contamination.
  If somebody stands up on the floor of the Senate and says this is 
premature and that we have not looked at this enough, I say: Come to 
California. Take a look at Lake Tahoe. Talk to the people of Santa 
Monica. They have lost their water supply. Read the blue-ribbon panel 
report of the EPA that was very reticent to take it on initially. They 
finally did. That blue-ribbon panel says that MTBE is bad.
  In Santa Clara, CA--that is in the Silicon Valley--MTBE has been 
detected in the local drinking water supply reservoirs, and it is 
creating a real problem there. We have seen it in the ground water in 
that county in over 400 sites, and many of those sites are very near 
public water supply wells.
  I don't want to have to come back here every year and talk to you 
about the tragedy of MTBE destroying the water. We take this first step 
tonight. Several of our colleagues want to speak on this. I will 
quickly summarize. Hopefully, we will hear from other colleagues.
  We know that California isn't the only place where there is trouble. 
Governor Davis has signed an executive order prohibiting MTBE in 
California after December 31, 2002.
  Last year, Maine announced it would take steps to reduce MTBE's use 
after a study revealed between 1,000 and 4,300 private wells could 
contain unhealthful levels of MTBE. New Hampshire is considering taking 
similar action. In New Hampshire, MTBE has been detected in more than 
100 public wells.
  We cannot allow the States to take on this fight by themselves. After 
all, it is up to Congress because of the Clean Air Act and the 
requirement to make sure that a safe additive is used.
  In summary, I think we have a terrific chance tonight to send a very 
clear signal to the Environmental Protection Agency. It is simply a 
sense of the Senate, but I think it will have a lot of weight because 
we have never voted on the MTBE question before. This would be our 
first vote. We will have a vote most likely on a motion to table.
  The bottom line is MTBE is poison. It is poisoning water supplies. It 
is a known danger. We have options, including ethanol. We have other 
options. We can do two things at once: We can send a message to the 
EPA, phase out MTBE; and at the same time send a message to our farmers 
who need a message of hope that they have a product that can fill the 
void.
  I hope we will get a good vote on this. If there is a motion to 
table, I hope we will have a strong vote against that. I look forward 
to listening to my colleagues who have been extraordinary in helping to 
shape this resolution and helping get it to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I know it is kind of late tonight and 
everybody is eager to go home, and I know we are dealing with a farm 
bill, an agriculture appropriations bill. I also know that this 
amendment is cloaked in the garb of being a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution and sense-of-the-Senate resolutions tend to be viewed as 
relatively insignificant.
  I want to argue that this is not insignificant, that this amendment 
is not based on any scientific study. We should not be making a major 
energy policy decision in America tonight at 7:30 as we debate the 
agriculture appropriations bill. I want to argue that we should table 
this amendment. Let me explain why.
  First of all, we all have trouble pronouncing it. MTBE is an ether 
derivative that EPA has certified lowers the amount of pollution 
generated when an internal combustion engine burns gasoline. This ether 
derivative makes gasoline burn more thoroughly. As a result, it is the 
dominant oxygenate used in reformulated gasoline all over America. It 
has been a major contributor toward improving the environment in those 
areas of the country where there is both a high concentration of 
automobiles and people.
  We have had relatively limited scientific analysis of this problem, 
other than a clear finding that California's underground storage tanks 
are leaking gasoline into the ground. If there are holes in these 
tanks, it seems the obvious solution to the problem is to fix those 
underground tanks.
  When gasoline leaches into the ground, the gasoline and all of its 
components start to leach through the soil. What has been found, and 
what our dear colleague from California is referring to, is the 
discovery that this ether derivative, in areas surrounding leaking 
underground storage tanks, is starting to show up in ground water and 
in wells. Ultimately, if these leaks are not fixed, all the other 
components that make up gasoline will be found in ground water.
  Here are the problems:
  No. 1, compared to MTBE, ethanol is in very limited supply, and our 
Nation's capacity to produce more of it is substantially limited from 
year to year.
  No. 2, ethanol has several problems that MTBE does not. Let me state 
two. One, it tends to vaporize at a much lower pressure. We are going 
to create a problem because ethanol vaporizes

[[Page S10185]]

more rapidly than MTBE and could in itself create another environmental 
problem. Two, Distributors have a very difficult time getting it into 
various parts of the country. It is quite competitive where it is 
produced, but it is very difficult to transport. If this should be 
implemented, the result of these two problems would be a spike in 
gasoline prices.
  Ethanol is a wonderful derivative, and I am not arguing one against 
the other. I am trying to explain that if you remove the dominant 
derivative and attempt to ban it, you force the substitution of another 
derivative which has a fixed supply from year to year based on 
agricultural production levels. You are going to produce shortages that 
will be exacerbated by the fact that ethanol tends to degrade in a 
pipeline.
  I urge my colleagues to not get into a long debate on a subject that 
few Members are qualified to debate. Fortunately, the distinguished 
chairman of the Environment Committee is here, a man respected by 
people on both sides of the aisle, who opposes this amendment. I will 
let him explain why.
  To sum up, here is the problem. We have leaking underground tanks. We 
need to fix the leaks in the underground tanks. It is bad to go around 
pouring gasoline, no matter what additives are in it, into the ground. 
Rather than California fixing its leaking underground tanks, we are 
being called on by the Senator from California to take a major step in 
going on record by encouraging Administrator Browner to ban MTBE, which 
she has the power to do.
  This is not a trivial, throw away sense-of-the-Senate resolution. We 
are, by taking this position, in essence, encouraging the Administrator 
to take action that would produce gasoline shortages in over half the 
country, that would spike gasoline prices, that would create a new 
environmental problem because of vaporizing ethanol. Why are we doing 
it? Because we have leaking underground tanks. Let's fix the tanks.
  If the Senate were asking support for programs to do something about 
the leaking tanks, that would be one thing. But to ban a gasoline 
additive, which is the dominant additive in producing clean air in 
America because you have holes in tanks that are not being fixed in 
California is a policy which I think is totally irresponsible. This is 
not a decision that should be made by the Senate on a farm bill at 7:30 
tonight.
  I urge my colleagues, when the motion is made to table this 
amendment, to vote to table it. Not because Members are not concerned 
about leaking underground tanks and about MTBE in potential underground 
water or drinking water, because I think we ought to be concerned.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me finish and I am happy to yield.
  I think we ought to be concerned. But the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works is holding hearings; they are working with 
Administrator Browner; they are trying to come up with a comprehensive 
policy in committee.
  This is an area that is very complicated. I don't think there is 
anybody here, without reading it off a piece of paper, who can 
pronounce the ether derivative that is MTBE, much less understand its 
chemical makeup and its advantages in clean air and its disadvantages 
if you spill it in a creek.
  So I do not doubt the Senator from California is well intended, 
trying to do something that she thinks sends a good signal. But we are 
not talking about signals. We are talking about the energy policy of a 
nation that is dependent on energy. This is not a good policy to decide 
on the floor when the committee of jurisdiction is working on this 
problem right now on a bipartisan basis. So I urge my colleagues to not 
support this amendment, and in tabling it, simply refer it to the 
committee of jurisdiction. Let's get a comprehensive look at it; let 
the committee decide how to deal with this problem.
  Might I say, I am from one of the ten largest corn-growing States in 
the Union. I hope my colleagues from farm States are not going to jump 
onto bad science, bad environmental policy, and disastrous economic 
policy in the name of trying to ban the use of MTBE, which receives no 
Government subsidy, in favor of ethanol, which is already highly 
subsidized. I hope we will not get into this deal, ``I am going to 
support it because I have corn in my State.''
  I have corn in my State and I have oil in my State. I am glad the 
Lord put one there and we brought the other there to grow it. But the 
point is, this is a serious issue that deserves more attention than it 
is going to get tonight in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I hope my 
colleagues will vote to table this amendment and give the committee an 
opportunity to do something about it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate my friend's strong feelings on this point. I 
know he appreciates mine. I want him to know I did actually say the 
full name of MTBE.
  Mr. GRAMM. It is tough.
  Mrs. BOXER. It is very tough: Methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE.
  Mr. GRAMM. You looked down.
  Mrs. BOXER. I did look down. Methyl tertiary butyl ether, let the 
Record show I have mastered it.
  The point is what I have mastered--I want to ask my friend a 
question--is that this is a serious problem wherever the MTBE shows up, 
and I have discussed in my abbreviated statement the places it has. Has 
the Senator had the opportunity to read the blue-ribbon committee's 
report? I do not know that he has because it is very fresh off the 
press. I wanted to say to my friend, is he aware that in this the EPA 
blue-ribbon panel says the new tanks are simply not the solution? 
Because we have had new tanks put into place in California, and it is 
not working. This stuff is leaking. It is leaking badly.
  Also, I know my friend talked about environmentalists and I also want 
to know if he knows the list of environmental organizations that 
support what we are doing.
  I ask unanimous consent to have both the blue-ribbon panel findings 
and the names of the environmental organizations printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline--Executive Summary and 
                     Recommendations, July 27, 1999


                              Introduction

       The Federal Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) established 
     in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and implemented in 
     1995, has provided substantial reductions in the emissions of 
     a number of air pollutants from motor vehicles, most notably 
     volatile organic compounds (precursors of ozone), carbon 
     monoxide, and mobile-source air toxics (benzene, 1,3-
     butadiene, and others), in most cases resulting in emissions 
     reductions that exceed those required by law. To address its 
     unique air pollution challenges, California has adopted 
     similar but more stringent requirements for California RFG.
       The Clean Air Act requires that RFG contain 2% oxygen, by 
     weight. Over 85% of RFG contains the oxygenate methyl 
     tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and approximately 8% contains 
     ethanol--a domestic fuel-blending stock made from grain and 
     potentially from recycled biomass waste. There is 
     disagreement about the precise role of oxygenates in 
     attaining the RFG air quality benefits although there is 
     evidence from the existing program that increased use of 
     oxygenates results in reduced carbon monoxide emissions, and 
     it appears that additives contribute to reductions in 
     aromatics in fuels and related air benefits. It is possible 
     to formulate gasoline without oxygenates that can attain 
     similar air toxics reductions, but less certain that, given 
     current federal RFG requirements, all fuel blends created 
     without oxygenates could maintain the benefits provided today 
     by oxygenated RFG.
       At the same time,the use of MTBE in the program has 
     resulted in growing detections of MTBE in drinking water, 
     with between 5% and 10% of drinking water supplies in high 
     oxygenate use areas \1\ showing at least detectable amounts 
     of MTBE. The great majority of these detections to date have 
     been well below levels of public health concern, with 
     approximately one percent rising to levels above 20 ppb. 
     Detections at lower levels have, however, raised consumer 
     taste and odor concerns that have caused water suppliers to 
     stop using some water supplies and to incur costs of 
     treatment and remediation. The contaminated wells include 
     private wells that are less well protected than public 
     drinking water supplies and not monitored for chemical 
     contamination. There is also evidence of contamination of 
     surface waters, particularly during summer boating seasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The major source of groundwater contamination appears to be 
     releases from underground gasoline storage systems (UST). 
     These systems have been upgraded over the

[[Page S10186]]

     last decade, likely resulting in reduced risk of leaks. 
     However, approximately 20% of the storage systems have not 
     yet been upgraded, and there continue to be reports of 
     releases from some upgraded systems, due to inadequate 
     design, installation, maintenance, and/or operation. In 
     addition, many fuel storage systems (e.g. farms, small above-
     ground tanks) are not currently regulated by U.S. EPA. Beyond 
     groundwater contamination from UST sources, the other major 
     sources of water contamination appear to be small and large 
     gasoline spills to ground and surface waters, and 
     recreational water craft--particularly those with older 
     motors--releasing unburned fuel to surface waters.


                         The Blue Ribbon Panel

       In November, 1998, U.S. EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner 
     appointed a Blue Ribbon Panel to investigate the air quality 
     benefits and water quality concerns associated with 
     oxygenates in gasoline, and to provide independent advice and 
     recommendations on ways to maintain air quality while 
     protecting water quality. The Panel, which met six times from 
     January-June, 1999, heard presentations in Washington, the 
     Northeast, and California about the benefits and concerns 
     related to RFG and the oxygenates; gathered the best 
     available information on the program and its effects; 
     identified key data gaps; and evaluated a series of 
     alternative recommendations based on their effects on: air 
     quality; water quality; and stability of fuel supply and 
     cost.


       The Findings and Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel

     Findings
       Based on its review of the issues, the Panel made the 
     following overall findings:
       The distribution, use, and combustion of gasoline poses 
     risks to our environment and public health.
       RFG provides considerable air quality improvements and 
     benefits for millions of US citizens.
       The use of MTBE has raised the issue of the effects of both 
     MTBE alone and MTBE in gasoline. This panel was not 
     constituted to perform an independent comprehensive health 
     assessment and has chosen to rely on recent reports by 
     a number of state, national, and international health 
     agencies. What seems clear, however, is that MTBE, due to 
     its persistence and mobility in water, is more likely to 
     contaminate ground and surface water than the other 
     components of gasoline.
       MTBE has been found in a number of water supplies 
     nationwide, primarily causing consumer odor and taste 
     concerns that have led water suppliers to reduce use of those 
     supplies. Incidents of MTBE in drinking water supplies at 
     levels well above EPA and state guidelines and standards have 
     occurred, but are rare. The Panel believes that the 
     occurrence of MTBE in drinking water supplies can and should 
     be substantially reduced.
       MTBE is currently an integral component of the U.S. 
     gasoline supply both in terms of volume and octane. As such, 
     changes in its use, with the attendant capital construction 
     and infrastructure modifications, must be implemented with 
     sufficient time, certainty, and flexibility to maintain the 
     stability of both the complex U.S. fuel supply system and 
     gasoline prices.
       The following recommendations are intended to be 
     implemented as a single package of actions designed to 
     simultaneously maintain air quality benefits while enhancing 
     water quality protection and assuring a stable supply at 
     reasonable cost. The majority of these recommendations could 
     be implemented by federal and state environmental agencies 
     without further legislative action, and we would urge their 
     rapid implementation. We would, as well, urge all parties to 
     work with Congress to implement those of our recommendations 
     that require legislative action.
     Recommendations to enhance water protection
       Based on its review of the existing federal, state and 
     local programs to protect, treat, and remediate water 
     supplies, the Blue Ribbon Panel makes the following 
     recommendations to enhance, accelerate, and expand existing 
     programs to improve protection of drinking water supplies 
     from contamination.
       Prevention
       1. EPA, working with the states, should take the following 
     actions to enhance significantly the Federal and State 
     Underground Storage Tank programs.
       a. Accelerate enforcement of the replacement of existing 
     bank systems to conform with the federally-required December 
     22, 1998 deadline for upgrade, including, at a minimum, 
     moving to have all states prohibit fuel deliveries to non-
     upgraded tanks, and adding enforcement and compliance 
     resources to ensure prompt enforcement action, especially in 
     areas using RFG and Wintertime Oxyfuel.
       b. Evaluate the field performance of current system design 
     requirements and technology and, based on that evaluation, 
     improve system requirements to minimize leaks/releases, 
     particularly in vulnerable areas (see recommendations on 
     Wellhead Protection Program in 2, below).
       c. Strengthen release detection requirements to enhance 
     early detection, particularly in vulnerable areas, and to 
     ensure rapid repair and remediation.
       d. Require monitoring and reporting of MTBE and other 
     ethers in groundwater at all UST release sites.
       e. Encourage states to require that the proximity to 
     drinking water supplies, and the potential to impact those 
     supplies, be considered in land-use planning and permitting 
     decisions for siting of new UST facilities and petroleum 
     pipelines.
       f. Implement and/or expand programs to train and license 
     UST system installers and maintenance personnel.
       g. Work with Congress to examine and, if needed, expand the 
     universe of regulated tanks to include underground and 
     aboveground fuel storage systems that are not currently 
     regulated yet pose substantial risk to drinking water 
     supplies.
       2. EPA should work with its state and local water supply 
     partners to enhance implementation of the Federal and State 
     Safe Drinking Water Act programs to:
       a. Accelerate, particularly in those areas where RFG or 
     Oxygenated Fuel is used, the assessments of drinking water 
     source protection areas required in Section 1453 of the 1996 
     Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments.
       b. Coordinate the Source Water Assessment program in each 
     state with federal and state Underground Storage Tank 
     Programs using geographic information and other advanced data 
     systems to determine the location of drinking water sources 
     and to identify UST sites within source protection zones.
       c. Accelerate currently-planned implementation of testing 
     for and reporting of MTBE in public drinking water supplies 
     to occur before 2001.
       d. Increase ongoing federal, state, and local efforts in 
     Wellhead Protection Areas including: enhanced permitting, 
     design, and system installation requirements for USTs and 
     pipelines in these areas; strengthened efforts to ensure that 
     non-operating USTs are properly closed; enhanced UST release 
     prevention and detection; and improved inventory management 
     of fuels.
       3. EPA should work with states and localities to enhance 
     their efforts to protect lakes and reservoirs that serve as 
     drinking water supplies by restricting use of recreational 
     water craft, particularly those with older motors.
       4. EPA should work with other federal agencies, the states, 
     and private sector partners to implement expanded programs to 
     protect private well users, including, but not limited to:
       a. A nationwide assessment of the incidence of 
     contamination of private wells by components of gasoline as 
     well as by other common contaminants in shallow groundwater;
       b. Broad-based outreach and public education programs for 
     owners and users of private wells on preventing, detecting, 
     and treating contamination;
       c. Programs to encourage and facilitate regular water 
     quality testing of private wells.
       5. Implement, through public-private partnerships, expanded 
     public Education programs at the federal, state, and local 
     levels on the proper handling and disposal of gasoline.
       6. Develop and implement an integral field research program 
     into the groundwater behavior of gasoline and oxygenates, 
     including:
       a. Identifying and initiating research at a population of 
     UST release sites and nearby drinking waters suppliers 
     including sites with MTBE, sites with ethanol, and sites 
     using no oxygenate;
       b. Conducting broader, comparative studies of levels of 
     MTBE, ethanol, benzene, and other gasoline compounds in 
     drinking water supplies in areas using primarily MTBE, areas 
     using primarily ethanol, and areas using no or lower levels 
     of oxygenate.
       Treatment and remediation
       7. EPA should work with Congress to expand resources 
     available for the up-front funding of the treatment of 
     drinking water supplies contaminated with MTBE and other 
     gasoline components to ensure that affected supplies can be 
     rapidly treated and returned to service, or that an 
     alternative water supply can be provided. This could take a 
     number of forms, including but not limited to:
       a. Enhancing the existing Federal Leaking Underground 
     Storage Tank Trust Fund by fully appropriating the annual 
     available amount in the Fund, ensuring that treatment of 
     contaminated drinking water supplies can be funded, and 
     streamlining the procedures for obtaining funding.
       b. Establishing another form of funding mechanism which 
     ties the funding more directly to the source of 
     contamination.
       c. Encouraging states to consider targeting State Revolving 
     Funds (SRF) to help accelerate treatment and remediation in 
     high priority areas.
       8. Given the different behavior of MTBE in groundwater when 
     compared to other components of gasoline, states in RFG and 
     Oxyfuel areas should reexamine and enhance state and federal 
     ``triage'' procedures for prioritizing remediation efforts at 
     UST sites based on their proximity to drinking water 
     supplies.
       9. Accelerate laboratory and field research, and pilot 
     projects, for the development and implementation of cost-
     effective water supply treatment and remediation technology, 
     and harmonize these efforts with other public/private efforts 
     underway.
     Recommendations for blending fuel for clean air and water
       Based on its review of the current water protection 
     programs, and the likely progress that can be made in 
     tightening and strengthening those programs by implementing 
     Recommendations 1-9 above, the Panel agreed

[[Page S10187]]

     broadly, although not unanimously, that even enhanced 
     protection programs will not give adequate assurance that 
     water supplies will be protected, and that changes need to be 
     made to the RFG program to reduce the amount of MTBE being 
     used, while ensuring that the air quality benefits of RFG, 
     and fuel supply and price stability, are maintained.
       Given the complexity of the national fuel system, the 
     advantages and disadvantages of each of the fuel blending 
     options the Panel considered (see Appendix A), and the need 
     to maintain the air quality benefits of the current program, 
     the Panel recommends an integrated package of actions by both 
     Congress and EPA that should be implemented as quickly as 
     possible. The key elements of that package, described in more 
     detail below, are:
       Action agreed to broadly by the Panel to reduce the use of 
     MTBE substantially (with some members supporting its complete 
     phase out), and action by Congress to clarify federal and 
     state authority to regulate and/or eliminate the use of 
     gasoline additives that threaten drinking water supplies;
       Action by Congress to remove the current 2% oxygen 
     requirement to ensure that adequate fuel supplies can be 
     blended in a cost-effective manner while quickly reducing 
     usage of MTBE; and
       Action by EPA to ensure that there is no loss of current 
     air quality benefits.
       The oxygen requirement
       10. The current clean Air Act requirement to require 2% 
     oxygen, by weight, in RFG must be removed in order to provide 
     flexibility to blend adequate fuel supplies in a cost-
     effective manner while quickly reducing usage of MTBE and 
     maintaining air quality benefits.
       The panel recognizes that Congress, when adopting the 
     oxygen requirement, sought to advance several national policy 
     goals (energy security and diversity, agricultural policy, 
     etc) that are beyond the scope of our expertise and 
     deliberations.
       The panel further recognizes that if Congress acts on the 
     recommendation to remove the requirement, Congress will 
     likely seek other legislative mechanisms to fulfill these 
     other national policy interests.
       Maintaining air benefits
       11. Present toxic emission performance of RFG can be 
     attributed, to some degree, to a combination of three primary 
     factors: (1) mass emission performance requirements, (2) the 
     use of oxygenates, and (3) a necessary compliance margin with 
     a per gallon standard. In Cal RFG, caps on specific 
     components of fuel is an additional factor to which toxics 
     emission reductions can be attributed.
       Outside of California, lifting the oxygen requirement as 
     recommended above may lead to fuel reformulations that 
     achieve the minimum performance standards required under the 
     1990 Act, rather than the larger air quality benefits 
     currently observed. In addition, changes in the RFG program 
     could have adverse consequences for conventional gasoline as 
     well.
       Within California, lifting the oxygen requirement will 
     result in greater flexibility to maintain and enhance 
     emission reductions, particularly as California pursues new 
     formulation requirements for gasoline.
       In order to ensure that there is no loss of current air 
     quality benefits, EPA should seek appropriate mechanisms for 
     both the RFG Phase II and Conventional Gasoline programs to 
     define and maintain in RFG II the real world performance 
     observed in RFG Phase I while preventing deterioration of the 
     current air quality performance of conventional gasoline.\2\
       There are several possible mechanisms to accomplish this. 
     One obvious way is to enhance the mass-based performance 
     requirements currently used in the program. At the same time, 
     the panel recognizes that the different exhaust components 
     pose differential risks to public health due in large degree 
     to their variable potency. The panel urges EPA to explore and 
     implement mechanisms to achieve equivalent or improved public 
     health results that focus on reducing those compounds that 
     pose the greatest risk.
       Reducing the use of MTBE
       12. The Panel agreed broadly that, in order to minimize 
     current and future threats to drinking water, the use of MTBE 
     should be reduced substantially. Several members believed 
     that the use of MTBE should be phased out completely. The 
     Panel recommends that Congress act quickly to clarify federal 
     and state authority to regulate and/or eliminate the use of 
     gasoline additives that pose a threat to drinking water 
     supplies.\3\
       Initial efforts to reduce should begin immediately, with 
     substantial reductions to begin as soon as Recommendation 10 
     above--the removal of the 2% oxygen requirement--is 
     implemented.\4\ Accomplishing any such major change in the 
     gasoline supply without disruptions to fuel supply and price 
     will require adequate lead time--up to 4 years if the use of 
     MTBE is eliminated, sooner in the case of a substantial 
     reduction (e.g. returning to historical levels of MTBE 
     use).
       The Panel recommends, as well, that any reduction should be 
     designed so as to not result in an increase in MTBE use in 
     Conventional Gasoline areas.
       13. The other ethers (e.g. ETBE, TAME, and DIPE) have been 
     less widely used and less widely studied than MTBE. To the 
     extent that they have been studied, they appear to have 
     similar, but not identical, chemical and hydrogeologic 
     characteristics. The Panel recommends accelerated study of 
     the health effects and groundwater characteristics of these 
     compounds before they are allowed to be placed in widespread 
     use.
       In addition, EPA and others should accelerate ongoing 
     research effortsd into the inhalation and ingestion health 
     effects, air emission transformation byproducts, and 
     environmental behavior of all oxygenates and other components 
     likely to increase in the absence of MTBE. This should 
     include research on ethanol, alkylates, and aromatics, as 
     well as of gasoline compositions containing those components.
       14. To ensure that any reduction is adequate to protect 
     water supplies, the Panel recommends that EPA, in conjunction 
     with USGS, the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, 
     industry, and water suppliers, should move quickly to:
       a. Conduct short-term modeling analyses and other research 
     based on existing data to estimate current and likely future 
     threats of contamination;
       b. Establish routine systems to collect and publish, at 
     least annually, all available monitoring data on: use of 
     MTBE, other ethers, and Ethanol; levels of MTBE, Ethanol, and 
     petroleum hydrocarbons found in ground, surface and drinking 
     water; and trends in detections and levels of MTBE, Ethanol, 
     and petroleum hydrocarbons in ground and drinking water;
       c. Identify and begin to collect additional data necessary 
     to adequately assist the current and potential future state 
     of contamination.
       The Wintertime Oxyfuel Program
       The Wintertime Oxyfuel Program continues to provide a means 
     for some areas of the country to come into, or maintain, 
     compliance with the Carbon Monoxide standard. Only a few 
     metropolitan areas continue to use MTBE in this program. In 
     most areas today, ethanol can and is meeting these wintertime 
     needs for oxygen without raising volatility concerns given 
     the season.
       15. The Panel recommends that the Wintertime Oxyfuel 
     program be continued (a) for as long as it provides a useful 
     compliance and and/or maintenance tool for the affected 
     states and metropolitan areas, and (b) assuming that the 
     clarification of state and federal authority described above 
     is enacted to enable states, where necessary, to regulate 
     and/or eliminate the use of gasoline addictives that threaten 
     drinking water supplies.
     Recommendations for evaluating and learning from experience
       The introduction of reformulated gasoline has had 
     substantial air quality benefits, but has at the same time 
     raised significant issues about the questions that should be 
     asked before widespread introduction of a new, broadly-used 
     product. The unanticipated effects of RFG on groundwater 
     highlight the importance of exploring the potential for 
     adverse effects in all media (air, soil, and water), and on 
     human and ecosystem health, before widespread introduction of 
     any new, broadly-used, product.
       16. In order to prevent future such incidents, and to 
     evaluate of the effectiveness and the impacts of the RFG 
     program, EPA should:
       d. Conduct a full, multi-media assessment (of effects on 
     air, soil, and water) of any major new addictive to gasoline 
     prior to its introduction.
       e. Establish routine and stastistically valid methods for 
     assessing the actual composition of RFG and its air quality 
     benefits, including the development, to the maximum extent 
     possible, of field monitoring and emissions characterization 
     techniques to assess ``real world'' effects of different 
     blends on emissions.
       f. Establish a routine process, perhaps as a part of the 
     Annual Air Quality trends reporting process, for reporting on 
     the air quality results from the RFG program.
       g. Build on existing public health surveillance systems to 
     measure the broader impact (both beneficial and adverse) of 
     changes in gasoline formulations on public health and the 
     environment.


                               appendix a

       In reviewing the RFG program, the panel identified three 
     main options (MTBE and other ethers, ethanol, and a 
     combination of alkylates and aromatics) for blending to meet 
     air quality requirements. They identified strength and 
     weaknesses of each option:
       MTBE/other ethers--A cost-effective fuel blending component 
     that provides high octane, carbon monoxide and exhaust VOCs 
     emissions benefits, and appears to contribute to reduction of 
     the use of aromatics with related toxics and other air 
     quality benefits; has high solubility and low 
     biodegradability in groundwater, leading to increased 
     detections in drinking water, particularly in high MTBE use 
     areas. Other ethers, such as ETBE, appear to have similar, 
     but not identical, behavior in water, suggesting that more 
     needs to be learned before widespread use.
       Ethanol--An effective fuel-blending component, made from 
     domestic grain and potentially from recycled biomass, that 
     provides high octane, carbon monoxide emission benefits, and 
     appears to contribute to reduction of the use of aromatics 
     with related toxics and other air quality benefits; can be 
     blended to maintain low fuel volatility; could raise 
     possibility of increased ozone precursor emissions as a 
     result of commingling in gas tanks if ethanol is not present 
     in a majority of fuels; is produced currently primarily in 
     Midwest, requiring enhancement of infrastructure to meet 
     broader demand; because of high biodegradability, may

[[Page S10188]]

     retard biodegradation and increase movement of benzene and 
     other hydrocarbons around leaking tanks.
       Blends of Alkylates and Aromatics--Effective fuel blending 
     components made from crude oil; alkylates provide lower 
     octane than oxygenates; increased use of aromatics will 
     likely result in higher air toxics emissions than current 
     RFG; would require enhancement of infrastructure to meet 
     increased demand; have groundwater characteristics similar, 
     but not identical, to other components of gasoline (i.e., low 
     solubility and intermediate biodegradability).


                               appendix b

     Members of the Blue Ribbon Panel
       Dan Greenbaum, Health Effects Institute, Chair.
       Mark Buehler, Metropolitan Water District, So. California.
       Robert Campbell, CEO, Sun Oil.
       Patricia Ellis, Hydrogeologist, Delaware Department of 
     Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation.
       Linda Greer, Natural Resources Defense Council.
       Jason Grumet, NESCAUM.
       Anne Happel, Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab.
       Carol Henry, American Petroleum Institute.
       Michael Kenny, California Air Resources Board.
       Robert Sawyer, University of California, Berkeley.
       Todd Sneller, Nebraska Ethanol Board.
       Debbie Starnes, Lyondell Chemical.
       Ron White, American Lung Assoc.
     Federal representatives (non-voting)
       Robert Perciasepe, Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA.
       Roger Conway, US Dept. of Agriculture.
       Cynthia Dougherty, Drinking Water, U.S. EPA.
       William Farland, Risk Assessment, US EPA.
       Barry McNutt, US DOE.
       Margo Oge, Mobile Sources, US EPA.
       Samuel Ng, Underground Tanks, US EPA.
       Mary White, ATSDR.
       John Zogorski, USGS.

                     Summary of Dissenting Opinion

           (By Todd C. Sneller, Member EPA Blue Ribbon Panel)

       (The complete text of Mr. Sneller's dissenting opinion on 
     the Panel's recommendation to eliminate the federal oxygen 
     standard for reformulated gasoline has been submitted for 
     inclusion in the final report and recommendations of the Blue 
     Ribbon Panel.)
       In its report regarding the use of oxygenates in gasoline, 
     a majority of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline 
     recommends that action be taken to eliminate the current 
     oxygen standard for reformulated gasoline. Based on 
     legislative history, public policy objectives, and 
     information presented to the Panel, I do not concur with this 
     specific recommendation. The basis for my position follows:
       1. The Panel's report concludes that aromatics can be used 
     as a safe and effective replacement for oxygenates without 
     resulting in deterioration in VOC and toxic emissions. In 
     fact, a review of the legislative history behind the passage 
     of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 clearly shows that 
     Congress found the increased use of aromatics to be harmful 
     to human health and intended that their use in gasoline be 
     reduced as much as technically feasible.
       2. The Panel's report concludes that oxygenates fail to 
     provide overwhelming air quality benefits associated with 
     their required use in gasoline. The Panel recommendations, in 
     my opinion, do not accurately reflect the benefits provided 
     by the use of oxygenates in reformulated gasoline. Congress 
     correctly saw a minimum oxygenate requirement as a cost 
     effective means to both reduce levels of harmful aromatics 
     and help rid the air we breathe of harmful pollutants.
       3. The Panel's recommendation to urge removal of the oxygen 
     standard does not fully take into account other public policy 
     objectives specifically identified during Congressional 
     debate on the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. While projected 
     benefits related to public health were a focal point during 
     the debate in 1990, energy security, national security, the 
     environment and economic impact of the Amendments were 
     clearly part of the rationale for adopting such amendments. 
     It is my belief that the rationale behind adoption of the 
     Amendments in 1990 is equally valid, if not more so, today.
       Congress thoughtfully considered and debated the benefits 
     of reducing aromatics and requiring the use of oxygenates in 
     reformulated gasoline before adopting the oxygenate 
     provisions in 1990. Based on the weight of evidence presented 
     to the Panel, I remain convinced that maintenance of the 
     oxygenate standard is necessary to ensure cleaner air and a 
     healthier environment. I am also convinced that water quality 
     must be better protected through significant improvements to 
     gasoline storage tanks and containment facilities. Therefore, 
     because it is directly counter to the weight of the vast 
     majority of scientific and technical evidence and the clear 
     intent of Congress, I respectfully disagree with the Panel 
     recommendation that the oxygenate provisions of the federal 
     reformulated gasoline program be removed from current law.

        Lyondell Chemical Company--Summary of Dissenting Report

       While the Panel is to be commended on a number of good 
     recommendations to improve the current underground storage 
     tank regulations and reduce the improper use of gasoline, the 
     Panel's recommendations to limit the use of MTBE are not 
     justified.
       Firstly, the Panel was charged to review public health 
     effects posed by use of oxygenates, particularly with respect 
     to water contamination. The Panel did not identify any 
     increased public health risk associated with MTBE use in 
     gasoline.
       Secondly, no quantifiable evidence was provided to show the 
     environmental risk to drinking water from leaking underground 
     storage tanks (LUST) will not be reduced to manageable levels 
     once the 1998 LUST regulations are fully implemented and 
     enforced. The water contamination data relied upon by the 
     panel is largely misleading because it predates the 
     implementation of the LUST regulations.
       Thirdly, the recommendations fall short in preserving the 
     air quality benefits achieved with oxygenate use in the 
     existing RFG program. The air quality benefits achieved by 
     the RFG program will be degraded because they fall outside 
     the control of EPA's Complex Model used for RFG regulations 
     and because the alternatives do not match all of MTBE's 
     emission and gasoline quality improvements.
       Lastly, the recommendations will impose an unnecessary 
     additional cost of 1 to 3 billion dollars per year (3-7 c/
     gal. RFG) on consumers and society without quantifiable 
     offsetting social benefits or avoided costs with respect to 
     water quality in the future.
       Unfortunately, there appears to be an emotional rush to 
     judgment to limit the use of MTBE. For the forgoing reasons, 
     Lyondell dissents from the Panel report regarding the 
     following recommendations:
       The recommendation to reduce the use of MTBE substantially 
     is unwarranted given that no increased public health risk 
     associated with its use has been identified by the Panel.
       The recommendation to maintain air quality benefits of RFG 
     is narrowly limited to the use of EPA's RFG Complex Model 
     which does not reflect many of the vehicle emission benefits 
     realized with oxygenates as identified in the supporting 
     panel issue papers. Therefore, degradation of air quality 
     will occur and the ability to meet the Nation's Clean Air 
     Goals will suffer and under these recommendations.


                               footnotes

     \1\ Areas using RFG (2% by weight oxygen) and/or Oxyfuel 
     (2.7% by weight Oxygen)
     \2\ The Panel is aware of the current proposal for further 
     changes to the sulfur levels of gasoline and recognizes that 
     implementation of any change resulting from the Panel's 
     recommendations will, of necessity, need to be coordinated 
     with implementation of these other changes. However, a 
     majority of the panel considered the maintenance of current 
     RFG air quality benefits as separate from any additional 
     benefits that might accrue from the sulfur changes currently 
     under consideration.
     \3\ Under Sec. 211 of the 1990 Clean Air Act, Congress 
     provided EPA with authority to regulate fuel formulation to 
     improve air quality. In addition to EPA's national authority, 
     in Sec. 211(c)(4) Congress sought to balance the desire for 
     maximum uniformity in our nation's fuel supply with the 
     obligation to empower states to adopt measures necessary to 
     meet national air quality standards. Under Sec. 211(c)(4), 
     states may adopt regulations on the components of fuel, but 
     must demonstrate that (1) their proposed regulations are 
     needed to address a violation of the NAAQS and (2) it is not 
     possible to achieve the desired outcome without such changes.
     The panel recommends that federal law be amended to clarify 
     EPA and state authority to regulate and/or eliminate gasoline 
     additives that threaten water supplies. It is expected that 
     this would be done initially on a national level to maintain 
     uniformity in the fuel supply. For further action by the 
     states, the granting of such authority should be based upon a 
     similar two part test:
     (1) states must demonstrate that their water resources are at 
     risk from MTBE use, above and beyond the risk posed by other 
     gasoline components at levels of MTBE use present at the time 
     of the request.
     (2) states have taken necessary measures to restrict/
     eliminate the presence of gasoline in the water resource. To 
     maximize the uniformity with which any changes are 
     implemented and minimize impacts on cost and fuel supply, the 
     panel recommends that EPA establish criteria for state waiver 
     requests including but not limited to:
     a. Water quality metrics necessary to demonstrate the risk to 
     water resources and air quality metrics to ensure no loss of 
     benefits from the federal RFG program.
     b. Compliance with federal requirements to prevent leaking 
     and spilling of gasoline.
     c. Programs for remediation and response.
     d. A consistent schedule for state demonstrations, EPA 
     review, and any resulting regulation of the volume of 
     gasoline components in order to minimize disruption to the 
     fuel supply system.
     \4\ Although a rapid, substantial reduction will require 
     removal of the oxygen requirement, EPA should, in order to 
     enable initial reductions to occur as soon as possible, 
     review administrative flexibility under existing law to allow 
     refiners who desire to make reductions to begin doing so.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me first say I admit I have not read 
the study, as probably 98 other Members of the Senate tonight have not 
read it, which is the reason we ought to have the committee of 
jurisdiction look at it.
  Second, when we are talking about something leaking into ground water 
from tanks, my point is that this is a problem with tanks. We do not 
have this problem in Texas. We have gone to

[[Page S10189]]

great lengths to try to deal with underground tanks that leak. We have 
required the tanks to be dug up in every old filling station in the 
State.
  I think the Senator has raised a legitimate problem about leaking and 
underground water sources. But the point is we need to fix the tanks. I 
know of no study that suggests that fixing tanks does not solve the 
problem.
  In any case, I want to conclude so Senator Chafee and others can 
speak. But I want to remind my colleagues that the EPA has the power to 
act in this area. I urge my colleagues not to put the Senate on record, 
on a subject that we have relatively little knowledge about, on a farm 
bill, when we are talking about a policy that has profound 
environmental impact, including the potential for more air pollution 
because of the higher vapor pressure for ethanol as compared to MTBE; 
second, shortages of gasoline potentially in huge quantities of the 
country because of, one, eliminating the dominant oxygenate in fuels 
from consideration; and, second, the problem of transporting the 
alternative to MTBE; and, finally, the potential spike in gasoline 
prices that could occur.
  This is simply a policy we ought to be dealing with in a systematic 
way. I am delighted the chairman of the committee is dealing with it 
because it is a serious problem.
  I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise in strong 
support of my colleague from California on this legislation. Senator 
Gramm is one of my senior colleagues whom I respect as much as anybody 
in this body for his intelligence and hard work. On this issue, though, 
I respectfully disagree.
  The EPA called for a study last November. They appointed a blue-
ribbon committee that did come up and look into the scientific 
evidence. On that blue-ribbon committee there were representatives, 
importantly, of the oil industry, which would have an economic interest 
to see that MTBE not be done away with. This committee, this blue-
ribbon panel, had a representative from the American Petroleum 
Institute and also an oil company. They said of MTBE in our Nation's 
fuel supply, that while all gasoline can possibly leak through an 
underground storage tank into the ground water, they specifically 
pointed out that MTBE is more dangerous when leaking into the ground 
water than other gasoline components. That is on page 3 of the report.
  They recommend that MTBE be phased out gradually. Senator Gramm 
brings up a good point. We have to have an alternative. We may not have 
at the current moment the production capabilities to replace the MTBE 
all at once. But I do believe we have to act quickly because we are 
talking about our Nation's ground water, and ground water contamination 
is very serious. In California it has been estimated that a 
large percentage of their ground water has been contaminated. This is a 
possible carcinogen. We cannot dawdle on an issue such as this. We have 
to move quickly.

  Ethanol, as many of you know, can be used as an alternative to MTBE. 
We do have an alternative that is environmentally safe and sound. Yes, 
it does help our American farmers. Not only does it help corn growers 
in my State, which is a major corn-producing State, but ethanol can be 
derived from wheat, from rice straws, even from potatoes and, yes, 
potentially it could help farmers all across the country if they could 
produce the oxygenate for our reformulated fuel in this country.
  So I am in strong support of this legislation. I think it is good 
public policy for us to urge the EPA to act quickly. Our Nation's 
ground water supply is at stake. We do not want this situation to go on 
any longer. We cannot afford to wait. We must act quickly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is a very complicated subject. It is 
not only the pronunciation of MTBE that is complicated. The whole area 
of oxygenates as additives to gasoline adds to the complication that we 
face.
  There have been several references, and aptly so, to the blue-ribbon 
panel that EPA established to look into MTBE and decide to the best of 
its ability what ought to be done. This blue-ribbon panel has just 
reported, so we have hardly had a chance to see it. I think it was a 
report in the last 2 weeks. So we have hardly had a chance to see it.
  I would point this out: The report looked to a reduction in the use 
of MTBE, whereas, if you note from the sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
that the Senator from California has, she looks to a complete 
phaseout--phaseout meaning end the production of, use of, MTBE, in 
order, she says, to address the threats posed by it.
  As I said in my opening remarks, this is a complicated issue. We have 
had two hearings on it in the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
which has jurisdiction over this matter, and we have been waiting for 
the report which now has just come in. In September, I can promise 
everyone here that, indeed--the Senator from California is a member of 
our committee--we will have further hearings on it and decide what 
recommendations we will make to the full Congress.
  As has been pointed out, to just ban MTBE is not the way to go, 
recognizing that even though the corn growers are anxious to fill the 
gap, they would themselves recognize there is just plain not enough 
ethanol to take care of our Nation at this time.
  I greatly urge my colleague, the Senator from California, to withdraw 
her amendment. We are going to have a hearing on it. She is going to 
have an opportunity to have her views expressed come September, which 
is very close. Secondly, I urge my colleagues, absent the Senator from 
California withdrawing the amendment, to vote to table it and give us a 
chance within the committee to study not only the report itself but 
just to make up our minds in a bipartisan fashion what we think is the 
best route to go.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for one question?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I just want to make sure my chairman, who I absolutely 
revere, has read that we do not say ``ban.'' We say ``phase out.'' That 
is a big difference. We phase it out so you make sure you are doing it 
in a wise fashion. That is exactly what Gov. Gray Davis said. I want to 
make sure that is what we are calling for.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I did say ``phase out,'' that it was to end it. That is 
the way I read it. Perhaps others may read it differently. My point is, 
we have a real problem on our hands. We need a little time to examine 
this, to give attention to the report, to consider it, and make our 
recommendations.
  In our committee, we are fortunate to have the chairman of the 
subcommittee of jurisdiction, Senator Inhofe. I am sure he has some 
comments in connection with this whole problem.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not mind yielding first to the 
Senator from Illinois to make his remarks and we can go back and forth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his 
graciousness. There will be more to the debate if we take turns 
expressing our points of view.
  I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from 
California and my colleague, the Senator from Illinois. I am happy to 
join both of them as cosponsors of this amendment.
  First, when we talk about methyl tertiary butyl ether, which we are 
familiar with in the Midwest, we have to put it in perspective of what 
role it has played in terms of providing energy and whether or not it 
adds to problems with pollution, because that is the bottom line.
  We are talking about additives to gasoline that we hope will clean up 
the environment. That is why we have the program. That is why we are 
using ethanol with MTBE because the bottom line is we want to say to 
Americans: When you use your automobiles, the gasoline you use should 
contain additives that make America a cleaner place--cleaner air and 
cleaner water. That is why the amendment of the Senator from California 
is so important because we no longer can trust MTBE to meet that 
mission goal.
  The findings of the EPA blue-ribbon panel on oxygenates in gasoline 
was reported last week. The panel confirmed

[[Page S10190]]

my long-held belief that MTBE poses a risk to ground water and to the 
health and safety of the American public.
  I hope those who are following this debate will listen carefully to 
the pervasive nature of MTBE when it occurs in the natural environment. 
MTBE, a petroleum-derived chemical, does not biodegrade. In 5 years of 
widespread use, MTBE has become the second most commonly found chemical 
in ground water. It is second only to chloroform. One gallon of MTBE is 
enough to pollute 26 million gallons of water.

  So when the Senator from Texas stands and says the problem is in the 
storage tanks, I suggest to him, no, it goes far beyond that. The 
problem is in two-cycle engines, for example, as you find on many boats 
which use MTBE additives in their fuels, and as they spray out the back 
of those engines, because of their fuel inefficiency, what they are 
spraying into reservoirs and water supplies across America is MTBE 
which is not biodegradable. When they test these water supplies, it is 
not alone from leaking storage tanks but from the fact that this 
additive is particularly sinister when it comes to the clean water 
goals that we all share.
  It has been labeled by the U.S. EPA as a carcinogen. If this additive 
did not biodegrade and was benign, did not cause any health problems, 
we would not be here. The fact is, whether it is a leaking storage tank 
or a two-cycle engine spraying it into Lake Decatur or Lake Springfield 
in Illinois, which also serve as water supplies, it increases the risk 
of cancer. That is why it is a particularly sinister additive, and that 
is why the amendment of the Senator from California is so important.
  Let me give an example in my home State of the dangers of MTBE. Ten 
years ago, a gasoline spill occurred in Kankakee, IL. To this day, MTBE 
still contaminates that area's drinking water supply. It does not go 
away, and it causes cancer. It is carcinogenic.
  With MTBE's future clearly in doubt, now is the time for us to really 
make clear that corn-based ethanol, or many other crops which can be 
used as a base for ethanol, should step up to fill this void. Ethanol 
currently comprises about 15 percent of the reformulated gasoline 
program, including a successful effort in Chicago and Milwaukee. That 
is the top RFG, reformulated gasoline, market in the Nation, accounting 
for 400 million gallons of ethanol demand, or approximately one-third 
of the industry's production.
  Many of the arguments against the amendment of the Senator from 
California suggest since we do not have enough supply of ethanol at 
this moment to replace MTBE, we ought to stick with it. As the blue-
ribbon panel found, and I think common sense tells us, you would not 
stick with an additive that is this dangerous, one that is so 
pervasive, not biodegradable and carcinogenic. It is far better for us 
to set out a national program to expand ethanol production.
  Naturally, many people are listening and we expect to hear: Durbin, 
you are from Illinois where they produce most of the ethanol and 
primarily from one company.
  I will concede that fact. I am open to suggestions for legislation to 
increase ethanol nationwide from a variety of sources. I think it is 
good. It will create better competition and may develop better 
standards for manufacturers to bring down the cost. I will certainly 
support it whatever State wants to engage in ethanol production.
  It is also important to note that recent studies have found that 
ethanol and MTBE are essentially equivalent in terms of their effect on 
ozone; that is, in reducing air pollution, so we are not losing in this 
tradeoff moving from MTBE to ethanol. In fact, we are holding our 
ground with a much safer additive.
  Ethanol has lower carbon monoxide emissions and reduced reactivity, 
along with a lower incidence of environmental contamination when 
compared to MTBE.
  Instead of shelving the RFG oxygenate requirements--that additive 
that makes it safer for the requirement--it would be in our country's 
best interest to expand the use of a safe oxygenate such as ethanol. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and industry data demonstrate that 
adequate supplies of ethanol would exist to meet the oxygenate 
requirement in a cost-effective manner with a gradual phaseout of MTBE.
  I say to my friend--a man I also respect--from the State of Rhode 
Island that we are not talking about an instantaneous ban on MTBE. 
Instead, we are talking about a phaseout of the use of this additive as 
we increase the production of the safer additive, the oxygenate 
ethanol. In fact, ethanol blends with reformulated gas would be more 
cost effective than nonoxygenated gasoline.

  We need to look no further than rural America to understand the 
benefits an ethanol-based RFG program would have on our ag economy. The 
USDA is predicting a bumper corn crop of 9.7 billion bushels. Farm 
prices are in a free-fall, and we need to find alternative uses for our 
agricultural bounty.
  Illinois annually produces about 40 percent of the nearly 1.5 billion 
gallons of ethanol. Illinois corn accounts for about 17 percent of the 
crop use for ethanol. As you drive or fly over the Midwest and look 
down on those cornfields, one out of six of those cornfields is 
dedicated to go into processing and come out as ethanol, which we burn 
in our automobiles. This allows ethanol to gradually replace MTBE as a 
great benefit to our fragile rural economy.
  I am pleased to join Senator Boxer and Senator Fitzgerald on her 
amendment and urge my colleagues from both rural and urban States to 
support this important effort to encourage the phaseout of MTBE and the 
promotion of ethanol as an alternative.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I know Senator Inhofe is patiently waiting, and he is 
chair of the Clean Air Subcommittee, as my chairman, Senator Chafee, 
has stated, but it is important to know, and I want to know if my 
friend is aware, that the chairman of the Drinking Water Subcommittee, 
Senator Crapo, is an original coauthor of this.
  I want to make the point of my friend that we have a situation that 
this additive was to clean the air, and now we find out it is poisoning 
the water, and we cannot get it out of the drinking water. The more we 
let this thing go, without phasing it out, my friend is absolutely 
right, the more expensive it gets, the more of a problem it is, the 
more poison is spread. To sit here and wait around does not seem to 
make much sense.
  I also ask my friend if he is aware that we have large numbers of 
environmental organizations that support this, along with many in the 
farm community, including the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, and 
Communities for a Better Environment. I hope my friend asks that we 
place that in the Record. I wonder if he is aware that Senator Crapo 
brings a lot of authority, I think, to this particular debate.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California. I was not aware of 
all the details.
  I ask unanimous consent that the document evidencing the 
organizations supporting the Boxer amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Bluewater Network,

                                                   August 3, 1999.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: Bluewater Network and the following 
     signatories strongly support S. 1037 to climinate MTBE use 
     nationwide. Extensive investigation into the hazards of MTBE 
     demonstrates that continued use of this oxygenate will 
     further jeopardize U.S. water supplies and undercut the 
     public's right to clean drinking water, shoulder water and 
     regulatory agencies with unprecedented liabilities and cost 
     burdens, and seriously threaten public health.
       S. 1037 targets three key areas:
       (1) It provides EPA with the authority to immediately 
     prohibit MTBE in sensitive or at-risk communities. This will 
     save many areas millions of taxpayer dollars in clean up and 
     liability costs. California alone faces an estimated $1 to $2 
     billion in MTBE cost. This provision also allows EPA to react 
     swiftly to contamination sites, and effectively prioritize 
     public health.
       (2) It immediately restricts the use of MTBE to areas where 
     oxygenates are required by the Clean Air Act. This is a 
     common sense approach which will minimize the use and the 
     impacts of MTBE during the phase-out.
       Voluntary use of MTBE is common throughout the country. 
     Almost all of California's gasoline contains MTBE, while only 
     Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento are required to use 
     oxygenates. MTBE use in

[[Page S10191]]

     non-oxygenated zones may increase during a phase-out for 
     various economic reasons involving fuel supply and 
     distribution. For example, Chevron and Tosco recently 
     increased their use of MTBE in Northern California--where 
     oxygenates are not required--despite their agreement with 
     Governor Davis to cooperate with California's MTBE phase-out. 
     Providing immediate restrictions on MTBE in non-oxygenated 
     zones will prevent needless MTBE contamination, and ensure 
     that the use of the chemical does not spread further into 
     these areas.
       (3) It provides an investigation into the impacts of 
     ethanol, olefins, aromatics, and alkylates which will provide 
     critical information about the impacts of banning MTBE, the 
     general effectiveness of oxygenates, and the overall benefits 
     of the federal Reformulated Gasoline Program. We strongly 
     recommend Senator Boxer include the study of ``other ether-
     based additives'' in this section to adequately assess the 
     feasibility and risks of chemical additives with similar 
     properties as MTBE (e.g. TAME, ETBE). The elimination of 
     MTBE, and especially the use of non-oxygenated fuels proposed 
     by some refiners, necessitates fuel blending adjustments 
     which employ these chemicals. These studies will ensure that 
     the impacts of non-MTBE fuels are fully realized.
       We commend Senator Boxer's efforts to combat the MTBE 
     problem nationally. Neither improving underground storage 
     tanks, banning two-stroke engines, and/or lifting the Clean 
     Air Act's oxygen mandate will prevent continued use of the 
     additive, nor will such steps protect our most critical 
     resources and public health from ongoing MTBE contamination.
       S. 1037 provides critical protections against the inherent 
     risks of MTBE use, and phases out a chemical known to be a 
     significant threat to public health.
       We look forward to working with you on this issue. If we 
     can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact 
     us. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Brooke Coleman,
                                              Project Coordinator.
                                              Russell Long, Ph.D.,
                                               Executive Director.


                              Signatories

       Friends of the Earth, Brent Blackwelder.
       International Rivers Network, Patrick McCully.
       Audubon Society, Cassandra Lista.
       Sierra Club, National Marine Wildlife and Habitat 
     Committee, Vivian Newman.
       Communities for a Better Environment, Denny Larson.
       Animal Rights Foundation, Doe McCaffrey.
       Backcountry Skiers Alliance, Lynn Buhlig.
       Campaign to Safeguard America's Waters, Gershon Cohen.
       Concerned Citizens, Renee Chapotel.
       Earth Island Institute, John Knox.
       Earth Island Journal, Gar Smith.
       Earth Rescue, Ian Looney.
       GaiaLink, Marv Lyons.
       Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Brenda Schweitzer.
       Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Andi Weiss Bartczak.
       Institute of Social Studies, Isaack Otienno.
       If Not Now, Phil Mitchell.
       Lake Hamilton Safety Supporters, Stan Cothren.
       North Farm Cooperative, Sarah Wepman.
       Ocean Advocates, Fred Felleman.
       Architects, Designers, Planners for Social Responsibility, 
     Kay Yeuell.
       Pinniped-Fisheries Project, Laura Seligsohn.
       San Francisco BayKeeper, Mike Lozeau.
       Save Our Shores, Vicki Nichols.
       Coalition to Stop Vail Expansion, Emily Wolf.
       Site for Social Action, Doug Casner.
       Surfers Tired of Pollution, Donna Frye.
       World Stewardship Institute, Sarah Nossaman.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, when I heard that the Senator from 
California was going to bring up her amendment, I came down to the 
floor. Quite frankly, I came down carrying the credentials of the blue-
ribbon committee. I think there is one thing on which we can all agree: 
If you actually read the recommendations of the committee, they are not 
consistent with the amendment that is offered by the Senator from 
California.
  We have 13 people on the panel. They are from industry, they are from 
some of the environmentalist groups, chaired by Dan Greenbaum of the 
Health Effects Institute. I think it is important that we read what 
this blue-ribbon committee recommends.
  What they recommend is that they are not through yet. I will just 
read a couple of the recommendations here. They recommend that MTBE 
should be reduced but not banned. They said that oxygenate mandates 
should be eliminated. This amendment would increase mandates, not 
eliminate them. They said that benefits of ethanol need to be studied 
more. They did not say they have already been proven scientifically.
  If there is one thing that has bothered me about the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, it is that some of the things that come out are 
not based on sound science. In this case, we do have the beginning of 
sound science. We have a recommendation by a blue-ribbon committee, 
made up of 13 people who are very professional and should represent all 
aspects of this issue.
  Anyway, that is not what their recommendation is. They said that we 
should not ban MTBE, considering all alternatives and benefits. In 
addition to use as an oxygenate, MTBE is also used as an oxygenate 
enhancer. I think this has not been brought out. There is a reason for 
MTBE to be included.
  As far as the use of ethanol, as far as the report is concerned, the 
environmental benefits are in question. The blue-ribbon panel 
recommended that it further be studied before its use is increased. 
That is what the recommendations were of this committee. I think we 
have plenty of time to have the hearings, as we have discussed.
  There is another thing that has not been talked about. That is, if we 
were to adopt the Boxer amendment, some amount of money would have to 
come from the highway trust fund. Ethanol users receive a tax credit at 
the current time, and at the end of each year it comes out of the 
highway trust fund. Therefore, each of our States will have their 
highway funds reduced if this amendment should pass.
  It is not possible to switch to ethanol right away, as the Senator 
from California suggests. We do not have the national infrastructure to 
transport the ethanol. A lot of people are not aware that this cannot 
be added at the refinery; it has to be added at the rack where the 
fuels are mixed.
  On health effects, only 1 percent of the detections of MTBE in water 
has met the threshold for smell, which is below the threshold for human 
health effects. I really think if we want to use, as our basis, our 
decision on this amendment being the blue-ribbon panel recommendations, 
we ought to go ahead and not pass the amendment, allow Senator Chafee 
and me, as chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, to have 
hearings. We are going to have hearings on this, on the blue-ribbon 
committee, in September. We are prepared to do that.
  This is a drastic step. It is something we do not want to get into 
unless we are sure. If you read the report, it says: Do not do it now. 
Study it. The results are not in. We will have to make further 
recommendations.
  We are willing to have the committee hearing on this. I can just give 
you my word at this time we will have it probably sometime in 
September.
  I yield the floor or yield for questions.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I just respond to my friend from 
Oklahoma by saying that they can still go ahead and have the hearings 
and everything else after we adopt the sense-of-the-Senate resolution. 
Nothing prevents the committee from going ahead and meeting and having 
the blue-ribbon panel appear, and proceed with hearings. But we ought 
to express ourselves here as to the health issues that confront us.
  I also point out to my friend from Oklahoma that I was reading the 
blue-ribbon panel's page here on this, and I thought I might read the 
pertinent parts because it is not quite exactly as my friend from 
Oklahoma said.
  On page 6 it says: ``Recommendations for Blending Fuel for Clean Air 
and Water.''

       Based on its review of the current water protection 
     programs, and the likely progress that can be made in 
     tightening and strengthening those programs by implementing 
     Recommendations 1-9 above, the Panel agreed broadly, although 
     not unanimously, that even enhanced protection programs will 
     not give adequate assurance that water supplies will be 
     protected, and that changes need to be made to the RFG [the 
     reformulated gasoline] program to reduce the amount of MTBE 
     being used, while ensuring that the air quality benefits of 
     RFG, and fuel supply and price stability, are maintained.

  The next paragraph said:

       The key elements of that package, described in more detail 
     below, are:
       Action agreed to broadly by the Panel to reduce the use of 
     MTBE substantially (with some members supporting its complete

[[Page S10192]]

     phaseout), and action by Congress to clarify federal and 
     state authority to regulate and/or eliminate the use of 
     gasoline additives that threaten drinking water supplies. . .

  So I think it is quite clear where they are headed on that: To reduce 
MTBE use substantially. Some members even wanted its total elimination.
  Mr. President, what we are talking about here is a health issue. I 
find it astounding----
  Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will yield without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Of course.
  The Senator was reading from the report. I would like to read the 
next paragraph that he overlooked. It says they are recommending:

       Action by Congress to remove the current 2% oxygen 
     requirement--

  That is right before ethanol--

     to ensure that adequate fuel supplies can be blended in a 
     cost-effective manner while quickly reducing usage of MTBE. . 
     . .

  Exactly the opposite of what the Senator from California is trying to 
do with her amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I beg to differ. The blue-ribbon panel's conclusions 
support the Senator's resolution. What we are talking about is phasing 
out MTBE, and encouraging the use of ethanol--an oxygenate that reduces 
air pollution and at the same time does not contaminate water supplies 
or adversely affect health.
  That is what we are talking about. I was responding to the point of 
the Senator from Oklahoma about what the blue-ribbon panel was saying. 
They were clearly saying that we ought to substantially reduce or 
eliminate the use of MTBE. They want to make sure we have a fuel supply 
that is not a health hazard to our people. That is what they are 
saying. That is really the issue before us. It is a health issue, pure 
and simple.
  Again, I find it astounding that people can argue and say: We have a 
lot of MTBE out there; forget that it is a possible human carcinogen; 
forget that it is highly polluting; let's go ahead and keep using it 
because, quite frankly, we don't have anything to replace it with right 
now. That is the sort of argument that is being used.
  I thought the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, laid out quite 
succinctly how dangerous MTBE is. We have been told, first by the 
Senator from Texas, that it is just a matter of leaking tanks. Well, 
that is not just it at all. Senator Durbin pointed out motor boats, 
motor skis, everything else, lawn mowers, motorcycles, airplanes, 
everything else that is using MTBE all leak a little bit, and every 
time it leaks, MTBE gets into the surface water and ground water.
  One might say: Well, it is the gasoline leak that is the problem, and 
not what is in the gasoline. But when you have a gasoline leak, most of 
the components in gasoline, tend to break down. MTBE breaks down very 
little and very slowly, and it permeates rapidly. It is highly soluble 
in water, when it gets in water. If you put some oil in water, it 
doesn't mix. It can be separated out. But when MTBE gets in water, 
because of its chemical properties, it permeates the water quite 
rapidly, and that is what makes it so tough to get it out. It is not 
like oil or gasoline in water at all. It is highly soluble in the 
water.
  As Senator Durbin pointed out, the U.S. Geologic Survey has found 
that MTBE is the second most commonly found contaminant in ground 
water. But it has been in widespread use for only about 7 years. The 
second most prevalent contaminant in ground water in the United States, 
in a matter of only 7 years. EPA estimates that MTBE already can be 
detected in 5 to 10 percent of water supplies nationwide.
  MTBE has been found to be leaking into groundwater at over 10,000 
sites in California. A state report in Maine found that anywhere from 
1,000 to 4,300 private wells could contain unhealthful levels of MTBE. 
And in New Hampshire, MTBE has been found in 100 public wells and water 
supplies. Five parts per billion is enough to contaminate water and 
make it taste and smell like turpentine. As I said, it is highly toxic. 
It is a poison. It permeates rapidly.
  I think I would like to review a little bit some of the history of 
why we are here. In 1990, when we passed the Clean Air Act, trying to 
reduce the pollutants in automobile gasoline, we wanted to get rid of 
the witch's brew--we always called it the witch's brew--of toxins that 
were basically used as octane enhancers, such as benzene, xylene and 
toluene, highly toxic, highly poisonous substances used to enhance 
octane and performance.
  In order to get rid of those toxics, while maintaining gasoline 
performance, something was needed to replace them. The oxygenates make 
a cleaner burning gasoline while improving octane and gasoline 
performance. So we came up with the oxygen content standard in the 
Clean Air Act so that we could have cleaner gasoline, and reduce the 
toxics and carbon monoxide emissions. The oxygenate in the fuel does 
that. It reduces carbon monoxide. We all know what carbon monoxide is--
a pollutant that makes you sick or kills you. So we came up with the 
oxygenate standard for that. We got rid of pollution and carbon 
monoxide. Both MTBE and ethanol were octane enhancers so they could be 
used to make cleaner gasoline and replace the witch's brew of toxics 
like xylene and benzene and toluene.
  Because MTBE is a derivative of petroleum, it was much easier to get 
the MTBE and to use it and to have it marketed more rapidly around the 
country than ethanol. That is why MTBE became the largest part of the 
oxygenate supply for the reformulated gasoline program.
  I freely admit that MTBE does do some good in reducing air pollution. 
I would never argue that it doesn't; of course, it does. But we have 
found that the downside is even worse in terms of its pollution of 
water supplies. So we say, are we on the horns of a dilemma? We have 
MTBE. It reduces air pollution. It keeps the octane up. But it terribly 
pollutes our ground water. Is there nothing we can do?
  Well, yes, there is. We can move toward using more ethanol. Now, 
ethanol is a renewable fuel that provides the clean air benefits, but 
it will not pollute ground water. Ethanol is so safe one can drink it. 
It is about 190 proof. That is what it is, basically 190 proof, good 
old corn alcohol. That is all it is. You can drink it if you want. It 
is pretty strong, but it won't hurt you. So we can replace it MTBE with 
ethanol.
  Senator Gramm talked about the vapor pressure, the fact that when you 
mix ethanol with gasoline, a funny thing happens. It becomes more 
volatile. True. Therefore, they say because it is more volatile, it 
evaporates and it causes ozone. Well, I have looked at that, and quite 
frankly, I think the conclusions about evaporation are outdated and not 
valid.
  First of all, it is true that the Reid vapor pressure does go up, so 
it is more evaporative. But if you look at the design and building of 
automobiles since that time, you find that automobiles are not like 
they were 20 years ago. The gas tanks have a sealing flap on them. All 
gas tanks have an airtight lock on them now, all cars built probably 
within the last 10 to 15 years. Almost all new cars use fuel injection. 
They don't have carburetors like the old cars used to have. There isn't 
that much evaporation from automobiles, even when they sit in the hot 
summer sun. It may be true of older cars, but not of the new cars that 
have been built within the last 10 or 15 years.
  Secondly, at most of the gas pumps in the United States now, they 
have a recapturing mechanism to recapture the fumes from the pumps. So 
those that say that because we mix ethanol with gasoline and it 
evaporates and causes ozone, that is based upon studies that I believe 
are not valid and are outdated.
  We do know one thing about ethanol. It reduces carbon monoxide 
tailpipe emissions. And carbon monoxide contributes to ozone formation. 
The air quality benefits of reduced carbon monoxide emissions has to be 
taken into account when talking about the evaporation of gasoline 
containing ethanol. So we have a proposition. We can replace MTBE with 
ethanol. We can enhance the octane. We can clean up the gasoline, cut 
the toxics and reduce carbon monoxide, and there is absolutely no 
pollution water pollution. But Senator Gramm and others have said, and 
the Senator from Oklahoma, we can't do that. The reason we can't do 
that is because we don't have an alternative in place right now to 
replace MTBE.
  If I read the sense-of-the-Senate resolution of the Senator from 
California,

[[Page S10193]]

it doesn't say we have to do this immediately. It says: It is the sense 
of the Senate that the United States should, one, phase out MTBE in 
order to address the threats that MTBE poses to public health and the 
environment--phase it out. We didn't put a time limit on it, just phase 
it out.
  Well, let me, for the record, point out how we can, without 
disruptions in fuel supplies, replace MTBE with nonpolluting ethanol. 
We now produce about 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol annually. We use 
about 1.2 billion gallons of that in this country and we export the 
rest. We would need about an additional 2.1 to 2.2 billion gallons of 
ethanol production to replace MTBE. The current ethanol production 
capacity that we have in the United States right now is about 1.8 
billion gallons annually. So to replace MTBE, the U.S. would need to 
have the capacity to produce about 3.3 billion gallons of ethanol each 
year. That is the 1.2 billion that we use domestically, plus the 2.1 it 
would take to replace MTBE. So that would be about 3.3 billion gallons.
  In checking with the producers of ethanol, they have told me ethanol 
production could be ramped up anywhere in 2.5 to 3 years to meet those 
requirements. We already have 1.8 billion gallons of annual ethanol 
production capacity. We don't even have to double it in order to meet 
the requirements of replacing MTBE.
  I point out that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's analysis 
supports this conclusion that we could, within 2.5 years, and at the 
most 3 years, ramp up the production of ethanol to replace MTBE. I 
would have to admit there is probably no way we can phase out MTBE in 
probably less than 2.5 to 3 years. So as we phase out MTBE, we could 
ramp up the production of ethanol.
  Now, my friend from Oklahoma said we don't have the transportation 
facilities and things such as that. They would come along, plus, I 
daresay that ethanol would be produced in a lot of different places in 
the country. Now it is mostly produced in the Midwest, but it will 
probably be produced in a lot of other areas in the United States.
  So for the reasons of health, for the reasons of making sure we don't 
further contaminate our ground water and our water supplies in this 
country, to ensure that we are able to replace MTBE in an orderly 
fashion with a renewable fuel produced here in this country, I support 
the sense-of-the-Senate amendment offered by the Senator from 
California, Senator Fitzgerald, and others.
  Lastly, I want to make one more point. The Senator from Texas went on 
about subsidies for ethanol. I don't think he wants to get involved in 
that subject. Quite frankly, we have the data to show that the tax 
breaks to the oil industry vastly exceed the modest tax incentives for 
ethanol. That is just during the recent past, not to mention all the 
tax and other subsidies the oil industry has gotten over the last 100 
years or so from the U.S. Government. So I don't think the Senator from 
Texas wants to get involved in talking about subsidies, especially when 
we can point out the huge tax subsidies the oil industry has gotten 
over all these years.
  In conclusion, the issue before us is framed this evening primarily 
as an environmental and health issue, pure and simple. All of these 
arguments from the other side notwithstanding, what we are about is 
saying the Senate is going on record that we ought to phase out MTBE 
and to promote renewable ethanol to replace MTBE. Ethanol enhances 
energy security, it supports the farm economy, it improves air quality 
and the environment. There are many reasons to support ethanol, but 
when it comes down to the crux of the debate tonight we are talking 
about the extensive water contamination caused by MTBE and the fact 
that with ethanol we have a clean and safe alternative to take its 
place. That is what this debate is about.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is a health issue, yes, but it is 
more than just an issue of whether or not we are going to continue to 
poison the environment and the ground water and permit poison, on the 
one hand, or a product that you can drink, on the other hand, to take 
its place. This is also an economic issue, although we have almost 
exclusively debated the health issues tonight. We just as easily could 
be conjuring up the debates of previous years between big oil on the 
one hand and agriculture on the other hand--agriculture being the base 
product for the production of ethanol, and big oil because of its 
interest in MTBE.

  So it is an economic issue, not just an issue of poisoning the 
environment. It is also an issue of whether or not we ought to rely 
upon a renewable source of energy that comes from agriculture and corn, 
to make ethanol, or whether you ought to rely upon a nonrenewable fuel, 
MTBE. It is also an issue of whether or not this country ought to be 
energy-dependent upon foreign sources, because like our importing more 
than half of our petroleum, we also import half of our MTBE. The issue 
should be how we are going to be less dependent upon foreign sources of 
energy when we fully use our own family farmers to grow our own crops 
and use our own agricultural products to produce ethanol, a renewable 
fuel.
  It is an environmental issue in regards to whether or not you are 
going to produce MTBE from a nonrenewable source, a finite source, and 
poison; or whether you are going to have the more clean-burning, 
renewable source that doesn't poison from ethanol.
  Our balance of trade is also an issue due to the fact that one-third 
of our unfavorable balance of trade comes from the fact that we import 
so much of our energy. We should use more of our domestically produced 
energy, a renewable source of energy which is not imported and not 
controlled by oil companies. This would provide the nation with a more 
favorable balance of trade.
  Our national defense should not be devoted in part to defending 
foreign sources of energy. An admiral in the Navy once explained that 
about half of the Navy's budget is dependent upon protecting oil, the 
flow of oil from the Middle East to the United States. This should be 
considered a subsidy. This source of energy partially compromises our 
national defense. We should base our national defense more on energy 
independence through the use of renewable energy, domestically produced 
energy, of which ethanol is part of that equation, produced from a 
renewable source.
  Yes, this is an issue of poison versus a product that isn't poison. 
Ethanol is a product that you can drink, but it has a positive economic 
impact, solidifies our national defense, benefits our environment, and 
reduces our trade deficit.
  So let's look at it in a very broad vein because this is not a brand 
new debate. This is a debate that has been going on in this body over a 
period of time, dating back to 1980 when we first started the renewable 
resource of ethanol as a supplement to gasoline.
  Now, this isn't just a recent health issue because of California and 
what the Governor of California has done to phase out MTBE, the 
poisonous product in their State. The Governor has already made that 
decision. But I have given evidence on the floor in this body, in 
previous debates on this issue, where people using MTBE in Alaska got 
sick and the Governor had to ask for waivers. I think I also produced 
evidence in those previous debates regarding a similar situation in the 
State of New Jersey, just as an example.

  I think it has been well established that this does not just come 
from leaky gasoline tanks leaking into the underground water. It has 
been presented very clearly that this product also is emitted into the 
air and because of rainfall finds its way into our water supply.
  In my State of Iowa, the legislature has banned MTBE. My State banned 
its use in the last legislative session. The Governor of California has 
also moved to phase the poison out of its fuel. While we have been 
moving forward on this issue, the debate tonight might appear new to 
many of my colleagues. To those colleagues it might make sense to study 
this more, to let the committees make the proper decisions. But there 
are numerous state legislatures that have made the conclusion that MTBE 
should be banned. I hope we will favorably consider the Boxer amendment 
because I think it is very legitimate that we immediately move forward 
on this issue.

[[Page S10194]]

  Obviously, my State of Iowa, as the No. 1 corn-producing State in the 
Nation, will benefit if this poisonous product is phased out. I stand 
guilty of promoting ethanol. But it is not fair to say that just 
because you as the traveling public--and every one of you in this body 
owns an automobile--who pull up to the gasoline pump and pay a little 
bit less gas tax because a portion of your gasoline is ethanol which 
doesn't have the Federal gas tax in it, that this is a subsidy. The 
word ``subsidy'' implies that there is money paid out of the Federal 
Treasury to somebody to use that product. That is not true. Do we want 
to raise the tax on people motoring? Then do away with the ethanol tax 
exemption and you would have it.
  I think we have the arguments on our side. I think it is going to be 
easy to cloud the issue and claim this needs to be studied. Remember, 
there are legislative bodies elsewhere in this country that have come 
to the conclusion that this has had enough study and that something as 
poisonous as MTBE should not be in the water.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't address these remarks to any 
exporter of ethanol. But I am really astounded tonight. I think if you 
pull out your ledger, every time we have an ethanol vote, my friend or 
someone else is standing there to make sure that I vote for it and make 
sure that I vote the same way over and over.
  Frankly, I wouldn't be voting for ethanol if I had to put up with 
this kind of argument and justification for being for ethanol. Just put 
that in your hat. Because this is an absurd argument. Most of those who 
support ethanol on this side of the aisle are constantly arguing that 
the Environmental Protection Agency oversteps all the time--that they 
overregulate, that they do things that cost the American taxpayers too 
much. And yet they come here tonight.
  There is the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works. Is this man antienvironment? For most of the same people, they 
have been arguing that he is too much in favor of the environment. He 
comes to the floor of the Senate a reputed chairman, and you all make 
this an environmental issue?
  You want to make this issue one that says we will sell more corn. I 
don't believe that is the right way to handle environmental issues in 
the United States when a blue-ribbon commission issued a report, and 
the chairman of the committee says: I need time to study it. But it 
will just be a matter of a few weeks, and we will have a hearing.
  That is what we should do tonight. We should say to that committee: 
Do your hearings quickly and give us your recommendation.
  But to stand here on the floor of the Senate and make this a corn-
growers versus a non-corn-growers issue, and try to say it is the 
environment when you are counting heads, to every head you are 
counting, you are sending a memo: This is for corn.
  Is that why we want you to vote for it? Right. In fact, my friend, 
who I greatly respect, tried to cover that up in a 15-minute speech 
about it being something else. But it is an effort to say let us get 
rid of this thing that we are using to make our gasoline better, more 
oxygenated, and better for the clean air of our country when there is a 
study that is only 5 days old--6 days, whatever it is. You have the 
chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee 
saying: Wouldn't you give us time to look at it?
  Here we have an agriculture bill and somebody making an issue that 
now what you would do is make Pete Domenici tonight, who is not going 
to vote with you anti-corn growers, says listen, corn growers. You are 
more apt to make me an anti-corn grower with this kind of approach than 
if you leave it in the committee and let them do their work.
  I hope some others will join me in that respect because I am not 
against corn growers. I don't have very many in my State. But I think 
it is ridiculous to come to the floor and make this kind of argument in 
behalf of the environment and leaking underground tanks when you won't 
even give the most esteemed environmental chairman we have had around 
here since Ed Muskie a chance to conduct some hearings on it.
  Frankly, I hope we either table it or somebody offers a substitute so 
we can do what is right here tonight.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am finished. But I would be glad to answer a 
question.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand that Senator Inhofe is the chairman of the 
air quality subcommittee. I understand--and I don't know this--that he 
is the chairman of the water quality subcommittee, which we are talking 
about, and Senator Crapo is in favor of this.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator who?
  Mr. HARKIN. Senator Crapo.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Crapo is in favor? Of course. Maybe he is 
because he is a corn grower. But I do not know that he is.
  Mr. HARKIN. He is chairman of the water quality subcommittee. That is 
what I am told.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All I know is that I mentioned two chairmen. I 
mentioned the esteemed chairman of the full committee and the chairman 
of the subcommittee on clean air. I don't know the makeup of the public 
works committee. I served on it for 12 years. I think it is a wonderful 
committee.
  But to be honest with you, I am thrilled it is your job and not mine. 
I say to the chairman that I could have been chairman. I am glad he is 
chairman and that I am not.
  But what I said tonight I believe is true; that is, we ought to tell 
the committee to do their job and do it quickly. That ought to be the 
vote tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am sitting here looking at the 
chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee who has been 
trying to pass a responsible bill all week. All of a sudden, out of the 
blue, we have a sense of the Senate that doesn't belong on the 
Agriculture appropriations at all.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Then you see the chairman of the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works who says: Excuse me, but this is my 
jurisdiction, and I would like to address it. And he is, as Senator 
Domenici said, one of the most distinguished of our Members.
  I say to Members, do this: MTBE should be looked at. It is a way to 
clean the air. It is an additive to gasoline to meet the clean air 
requirements of EPA.
  We should not have a sense of the Senate that holds up the 
Agriculture appropriations bill. I hope Members will vote to table this 
sense of the Senate and give Chairman Chafee the opportunity to look at 
this issue to determine if there is something wrong with MTBE, which I 
think is very much a question.
  But to have something like this continue to hold up this bill, when 
our farmers certainly need the relief this appropriations bill is going 
to give us, I think is the wrong approach.
  I urge Members to table this sense of the Senate.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. I know people are getting restless and I know there will 
be a substitute offered, but if there is anyone in here who is 
predicating their decision on how to vote on this blue-ribbon 
committee, let me read from the report. It totally contradicts what the 
Senator from California is saying. They recommend:

       Action by Congress to remove the current 2 percent oxygen 
     requirement to ensure that the adequate fuel supplies can be 
     blended in a cost-effective manner, while quickly reducing 
     usage of MTBE.

  What she is trying to do is actually fill that 2 percent with 
ethanol.
  Another recommendation says:

       Accelerate air and water affects research on other fuel 
     components likely to take MTBE's place such as . . .

  It names ethanol, aromatics, and alkylates. It says don't do it until 
we do the research.
  That is the recommendation of this blue-ribbon committee.
  Last, it bothers me when people use scare tactics. This blue-ribbon 
committee said:

       The great majority of these detections to date have been 
     well below levels of public health concern with approximately 
     1 percent rising to levels above 20 parts per billion.


[[Page S10195]]


  I certainly concur with the recommendation of the Senator from Texas. 
Let Members have a chance to hold hearings on the results of the blue-
ribbon committee. Nothing would be lost.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  It is clear from the debate this is not an issue that should be taken 
up on this bill. Clearly there are questions. The scientific basis is 
not proven at all. I hope we will not do something that will mar the 
record and take the jurisdiction from where it should be, and that is 
the Environment and Public Works Committee.


                Amendment No. 1522 To Amendment No. 1521

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send a substitute to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] proposes an 
     amendment number 1522 to amendment No. 1521.
       Strike all after the first word, and insert the following: 
     ``  . It is the sense of the Senate that the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works should review the findings of 
     the EPA Blue Ribbon Panel on MTBE and other relevant 
     scientific studies, hold comprehensive hearings, and report 
     to the senate at the earliest possible date any legislation 
     necessary to address the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon 
     Panel.''

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is very cut-and-dried. What we say in 
this substitute is give us a chance. We have a committee. In September, 
as chairman of the committee--and the chairman of the subcommittee is 
here--we promise the Senator to hold, very early in September, as soon 
as we can get proper witnesses, a hearing on this subject. It is an 
important subject. I recognize that to California it is very important, 
and it is important to other States, likewise.
  I think that is the proper way to go. It is a complicated subject and 
it involves not just MTBE; it involves the oxygenates that come from 
corn. That is the way I recommend we proceed.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I hope we will not accept this. I will be 
very brief. We all know what this is. This is sending this bipartisan 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution right into the graveyard.
  My friend, my esteemed chairman, says it is complicated. Let me tell 
him it is not complicated to understand that MTBE is leaking. It is 
leaking badly. The State of California has phased it out. It is an 
opportunity for other options which will help our farmers. I think this 
is a unique moment.
  We have Senators agreeing, Members who don't vote together very 
often. We have a long list of environmental organizations that support 
this. We have a long list of people from the farm States and 
organizations that support this. We don't need to continue with 
hearings.
  As the Senator from Texas stated, the head of the Environmental 
Protection Agency can take action under her emergency powers to phase 
out MTBE. I believe if we support this sense of the Senate and vote 
down the second-degree amendment, she will understand that we really 
care about this issue, we care about getting rid of a possible 
carcinogen, and we care about helping our fathers at the same time.
  To me, it isn't that complicated, perhaps because I see what is 
happening to drinking water in California. Right now in California it 
is going to cost $1 to $2 billion to clean up the poison in our 
drinking water. And my friends are saying: Plenty of time to study.
  Members don't want this to happen to their State.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to table the Chafee amendment, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1522. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator 
from New York (Mr. Moynihan) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 258 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Allard
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Crapo
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Mack
     Moynihan
  The motion was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1521

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Boxer 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1521) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the only amendment that I am aware of 
that has not already been agreed to by the managers or a recommendation 
to the Senate for agreement is the amendment of the Senator from South 
Carolina. Senator Thurmond has an amendment. After his amendment is 
offered--and it will be accepted--we have a group of amendments that we 
can recommend be agreed to by the Senate. I know of no other 
controversial amendment that would require a recorded vote.
  Then it would be up to the Senate whether to accept passage of the 
bill on a voice vote or insist on a recorded vote. I have had no one 
ask me to request the yeas and nays on final passage. So if that is an 
understanding that is agreeable to the Senate, we will proceed to 
accept the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, then the 
agreed-upon list the managers will recommend, and then adopt the bill 
on final passage by voice vote.
  If there is any objection to that, speak up now.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 1523

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of foreign assistance funds to promote 
       the sale or export of alcoholic beverages, including wine)

  Mr. THURMOND. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1523.

  Mr. THURMOND. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S10196]]

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 51, line 13, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``, or alcoholic beverages, including wine''.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the mission of the Foreign Agricultural 
Service, in conjunction with the Commodity Credit Corporation, is to 
open, expand and maintain global market opportunities for agricultural 
commodities. One program in place to accomplish this mission is the 
Market Access Program. This program, funded at $90 million per year, is 
a cost-share program to help U.S. companies expand their sales in the 
international marketplace.
  I recognize that export promotion is a vital tool in our Nation's 
effort to expand trade. Since its inception in 1986, the Market Access 
Program has helped many companies, trade organizations, state and 
regional trade groups, and agriculture cooperatives to build new 
markets overseas.
  There is, however, one aspect of the market access program, which 
gives me great concern. In late June, Secretary Glickman announced the 
1999 allocations of the $90 million authorized, to 65 U.S. trade 
organizations for export promotion activities. Included in that 
allocation is over $3.6 million for the promotion of alcoholic 
beverages.
  Even if one accepts the notion that alcoholic beverages are 
``agricultural commodities,'' there is still difficulty in justifying 
the Federal Government's promotion of such products. I do not believe 
the United States Government should be funding the marketing of 
alcoholic beverages, within the United States or in export markets. 
Further support of this market promotion program cannot be justified by 
public policy reasons or on economic grounds.
  From a public policy viewpoint, the promotion of alcoholic beverages, 
including wine, by the Federal Government is unsupportable. The Federal 
Government spends millions of dollars each year researching and 
combating the ill effects of alcohol. The negative consequences of 
alcohol use and abuse are well documented--disease, cancer, traffic 
deaths and injuries, economic loss, and a variety of social costs. Last 
September, the National Institutes of Health published a study 
entitled, ``The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United 
States, 1992.'' The economic costs for alcohol abuse alone were 
reported at over $148 billion. Remember, these statistics were for 
1992. There's no doubt the costs are greater today. I ask unanimous 
consent that this table be printed in the Record following my 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. THURMOND. It was for these reasons and others that I was proud to 
be a part of a National public health campaign that resulted in alcohol 
container warning labels. It is irresponsible and poor public policy 
for the federal government to continue to subsidize the marketing of 
alcohol beverage products.
  In addition, it is poor economics to continue to support the alcohol 
beverage industry's export program. Quite frankly, Mr. President, the 
Market Access Program has been a huge success for the wine industry. In 
the 13 years of the Program, the wine industry has received about $90 
million in export program funds. The Wine Institute boasts that the 
California wine industry has been one of the largest recipients of USDA 
export promotion funding. This has resulted in record exports each 
year. During that time, export sales have risen from $35 million in 
1986 to $537 million in 1998. This is a 448 percent increase from 
export sales of a decade ago.
  I do not begrudge this success. The wine industry is a legitimate 
industry, producing and marketing a legal product. It is made up of 
many small businesses, with thousands of employees. I recognize it 
contributes billions of dollars to or economy in sales, wages, and 
taxes.
  However, the success of the industry, particularly with its record 
breaking exports, leads me to conclude that federal government export 
subsidies are improper, and no longer required. The industry's export 
program has matured to the point where it can stand on its own. 
Critical market development funds can surely be used to assist less 
successful agricultural commodity export programs.
  Mr. President, the time has come to discontinue the subsidy of wine 
exports. It is poor public policy and wasteful spending. I would note 
than the Federal Government has imposed a similar restriction on export 
promotion for tobacco.
  The amendment I am offering would expand the restriction of Federal 
funding to alcoholic beverages, including wine.

                             Exhibit No. 1

   ECONOMIC COSTS OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1992
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Total    Alcohol    Drugs
              Economic costs                   ($)       ($)       ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Care Expenditures:
  Alcohol and drug abuse services.........     9,973     5,573     4,400
  Medical consequences....................    18,778    13,247     5,531
                                           -----------------------------
      Total, Health Care Expenditures.....    28,751    18,820     9,931
Productivity Effects (Lost Earnings):
  Premature death.........................    45,902    31,327    14,575
  Impaired productivity...................    82,201    67,696    14,205
  Institutionalized populations...........     2,990     1,513     1,477
  Incarceration...........................    23,356     5,449    17,907
  Crime careers...........................    19,198  ........    19,198
  Victims of crime........................     3,071     1,012     2,059
                                           -----------------------------
      Total, Productivity Effects.........   176,418   106,997    69,421
Other Effects on Society:
  Crime...................................    24,282     6,312    17,970
  Social welfare administration...........     1,020       683       337
  Motor vehicle crashes...................    13,619    13,619  ........
  Fire destruction........................     1,590     1,590  ........
                                           -----------------------------
      Total, Other Effects on Society.....    40,511    22,204    18,307
                                           =============================
      Grand Total.........................   245,680   148,021    97,659
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Source: The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United
  States, 1992. H. Harwood, D. Fountain, and G. Livermore. Analysis by
  the Lewin Group., Rockville, MD: DHHS, NIH, NIDA, OSPC, NIAAA, OPA.
  NIH Publication No. 98-4327, Printed September 1998.

  Mr. THURMOND. I understand the chairman will accept this amendment. I 
thank him for his cooperation. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1523.
  The amendment (No. 1523) was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
upon the passage of S. 1233, the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, H.R. 1906, the House companion measure, be 
discharged from committee and that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; that all after the enacting clause of H.R. 1906 be 
stricken and the text of S. 1233, as passed, be inserted in lieu 
thereof; that H.R. 1906 then be read for a third time and deemed 
passed; that the Senate insist on its amendment and request a 
conference with the House and that the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees, and that upon the appointment of conferees, the passage of 
S. 1233 be vitiated and the bill S. 1233 be indefinitely postponed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Cochran and his 
staff, particularly Becky Davies, and Galen Fountain from my staff. 
Senator Cochran has been very cooperative, very supportive. I think he 
has done a great job in managing this bill. He has my appreciation and 
my thanks.
  I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S10197]]

               amendments nos. 1524 through 1561 en bloc

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are now ready to proceed to the 
consideration of the amendments. We are now in a position to recommend 
on behalf of the managers of the bill the amendments to the bill that 
should be agreed to by the Senate.
  I am going to read a list of the amendments, and the Senators who are 
the authors of the amendments, and the statements that accompany some 
of the amendments. I will ask unanimous consent the amendments be 
considered en bloc, approved en bloc, and that the statements relating 
to the amendments be printed in the Record.
  The list is as follows: an amendment of Senator Abraham on bovine 
tuberculosis research; Senator Abraham, Food and Drug Administration 
offices in Detroit, MI; Bingaman-Leahy-Domenici amendment on RCAP set-
aside for Native Americans; an amendment by Senator Bond on contracts 
for procurement of food aid commodities; Senator Burns, sense-of-the-
Senate resolution regarding eligibility of dry beans for contract 
acreage; Senator Byrd, an amendment relating to West Virginia State 
College; an amendment by Senators Cleland and Coverdell to rename the 
School Lunch Act; an amendment by Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl 
regarding Mississippi and Wisconsin pilot projects; an amendment by 
Senator Cochran regarding rural business loans; Senator Cochran's 
amendment regarding rural cooperative development grants for minority 
farmers; Senator Domenici's amendment on the National Drought 
Commission; Senator Durbin's amendment on Food and Drug Administration 
device earmark; Senator Durbin's amendment on the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution regarding the U.S. Food Security Action Plan; Senator 
Gorton's amendment relating to assistance to American farmers; an 
amendment by Senators Graham and Mack on funding for the fruit fly 
exclusion and detection in Florida; Senator Kerrey's amendment 
earmarking funds for grassroots projects; Senator Levin's amendment to 
provide funding for a special research grant in Michigan; Senator 
Lincoln's amendment to rename a USDA facility in Arkansas; Senator 
Mack's amendment to provide funding for climate change research; 
Senator McConnell's amendment regarding cross-county leasing; Senator 
Nickles' amendment to modify section 739 of the bill; an amendment by 
Senator Reid to provide funding for a special research grant in Nevada; 
Senator Roberts' amendment on cross-compliance with certain 
conservation requirements; Senator Sessions amendment to fund a special 
research food safety grant in Alabama; Senator Bob Smith's amendment to 
waive certain rural utilities service regulations for a city in New 
Hampshre; an amendment by Senator Gordon Smith on paid advertising for 
cranberries through the marketing committee; amendments by Senator 
Stevens to amend the Food Stamp Program, and WIC food packages; an 
amendment by Senators Inouye, Akaka, and Stevens to authorize education 
grant programs for Alaska and Hawaii native institutions; Senator 
Stevens' amendment on Smith Leaver Act formulation; Senator Stevens' 
amendment on Hatch Act formula; Senator Thomas' amendment on livestock 
marketing information systems; Senator Wellstone's amendment to the 
Economic Research Service study on food stamp participation; Senator 
Edwards' amendment to fund a research project to improve early 
detection of crop diseases; Senator Hutchison's amendment, a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution on Food and Drug Administration produce sampling; 
an amendment by Senators Bryan and Reid regarding Clark County, NV, 
Milk Marketing Order; Senator Baucus' amendment on the sense of the 
Senate relating to WTO actions; Senator Kohl's amendment to increase 
funding for existing research grants; and an amendment by Senators 
Harkin, Daschle, and Wellstone to increase funding for GIPSA.

  I ask unanimous consent those amendments be considered en bloc, be 
agreed to en bloc, and statements relating thereto be printed in the 
Record.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, there is an objection to the Roberts' cross-
compliance with certain conservation requirements.
  Mr. COCHRAN. We will withdraw the amendment by Senator Roberts on 
cross-compliance with certain conservation requirements.
  Mr. KOHL. Then we have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments have been considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1524 to 1561) were agreed to, en bloc, as 
follows:


                           amendment no. 1524

     (Purpose: To provide funding for bovine tuberculosis research)

       On page 13, line 13, strike ``$54,276,000'' and insert 
     ``$54,476,000''. On page 13, line 16, strike ``$119,300,000'' 
     and insert ``$119,100,000''.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment funds a special research 
grant for the study of Bovine Tuberculosis by the Agricultural 
Experiment Station at Michigan State University. This special research 
grant will fund the study of methods of transmission of Bovine TB and 
will also look toward developing vaccines and possibly a cure.
  In order to fund this grant, I propose to reduce funding for 
Competitive research grants within the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). Specifically, I intend to 
take this offset from Animal systems account.
  In the past year, Bovine TB has spread from the oversized deer 
population in the north to a number of herds in Michigan's northern 
lower peninsula. The spread of this disease threatens Michigan's TB-
free status and must be controlled as soon as possible. I urge my 
colleagues to support this effort.


                           amendment no. 1525

(Purpose: To provide the reduction of the Food and Drug Administration 
                   capabilities in Detroit, Michigan)

       On page 68, line 5, before the period insert the following: 
     ``, or the Food and Drug Administration Detroit, Michigan 
     District Office Laboratory; or to reduce the Detroit Michigan 
     Food and Drug Administration District Office below the 
     operating and full-time equivalent staffing level of July 31, 
     1999; or to change the Detroit District Office to a station, 
     residence post or similarly modified office; or to reassign 
     residence posts assigned to the Detroit District Office''.
                                  ____


                           amendment no. 1526

       On page 35, line 20, after the semicolon, insert the 
     following: ``not to exceed $12,000,000 shall be for water and 
     waste disposal systems to benefit Federally Recognized Native 
     American Tribes, including grants pursuant to section 306C of 
     such Act, provided that the Federally Recognized Native 
     American Tribe is not eligible for any other rural utilities 
     programs set aside under the Rural Community Advancement 
     Program;''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I want to thank the chairman and 
ranking member for their fine work on this agricultural appropriations 
bill. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Leahy and 
his staff for their work on this amendment. It will mean a great deal 
to Tribes all over America.
  Mr. President, I am sure all Senators recognize the important 
contributions that the Rural Utilities Service is making in every 
state. RUS has been especially effective in the rural portions of New 
Mexico. The RUS's grant and loan programs are making tremendous 
progress in improving the quality of life of our small towns and in 
Indian Country. The basic health of rural people in New Mexico, as well 
as their economic future, are being greatly improved by RUS's programs.
  I'd like to take a few minutes to explain what our amendment does. 
Under current rules RUS can provide no more than 75 percent of the cost 
of a project in the form of a grant. The remaining 25 percent can be in 
the form of a loan or from some other local source of funds. This 
program works well throughout most of rural America. Communities 
generally have access to taxing or bonding authority or to state funds 
that they can use for the required matching funds or to guarantee a 
loan.
  However, there are some cases where a community doesn't have the 
means to provide the required matching funds. Congress has recognized 
this problem and has created special rules to address these unique 
situations. One example are colonias, where Congress allows RUS to 
provide 100 percent of the cost of a project so that the local 
community isn't burdened by these immigrant settlements, and this bill 
provides up to $20 million for projects in

[[Page S10198]]

colonias. Mr. President, the funding authorization for colonias is a 
good program, and I thank the Chairman and ranking member for their 
continued support of it.
  Very simply, our amendment would create a parallel program for Indian 
Country. Currently, RUS is already providing loans and grants to tribes 
using its standard funding rules. However, some tribes can't take 
advantage of RUS's programs simply because they don't qualify for the 
loans required to cover 25 percent of a project's cost. Tribes 
generally lack taxing or bonding authority to provide these required 
matching funds.
  Mr. President, our amendment would allow RUS to provide 100 percent 
of the cost of a project for the most economically disadvantaged tribes 
that can't otherwise provide the required matching funds. The amendment 
allows up to $12 million for water and wastewater projects for this 
purpose. The funds come from within RUS's existing appropriation. 
Without our amendment, a few of our tribes will continue to suffer from 
a lack of basic water and sewer systems.
  Mr. President, our amendment is not a substantial portion of RUS's 
total appropriation of $630 million, and the funds would not be used 
unless a tribe did not qualify for any of the RUS's other programs. I 
think this is an important program to help deal with the critical 
infrastructure needs of our tribes.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
National Congress of American Indians supporting this amendment be 
included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Again, I want to thank Senator Leahy and his staff for 
their work on this important amendment and I hope the Senate will 
support it.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                    July 21, 1999.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: The National Congress of American 
     Indians (NCAI), the oldest and largest Indian advocacy 
     organization is pleased to endorse the Leahy/Bingaman 
     amendment, number 1067, to the FY2000 agriculture 
     appropriations bill (S. 1233). This amendment will make 
     available $12 million dollars in direct funding for water and 
     wastewater projects in Indian Country.
       The funds for the amendment are from within the Rural 
     Utilities Service's (RUS) $630 million dollar total 
     appropriation. In general, tribes are already eligible for 
     RUS funding; however, current rules limit RUS grants to a 
     maximum of 75 percent of a project's cost.
       Infrastructure development in Indian Country is at a 
     critical need. The tribes who can benefit the most are unable 
     to access RUS grants due to their inability to obtain the 25 
     percent matching requirement from either loans or other 
     funding sources. Moreover, tribes generally lack taxing and 
     bonding authority to obtain the matching funds normally 
     required by RUS.
       The structure of the new program in the amendment parallels 
     the $20 million dollar grant program established for the 
     colonias located along the United States/Mexico border, which 
     also allows RUS to provide 100% of the cost of a project. A 
     similar $20 million grant program is also provided in the 
     bill for rural and Native Americans in Alaska. We believe 
     your amendment will benefit a number of tribes throughout 
     Indian Country and we thank you for your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                     W. Ron Allen,
                                                        President.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1527

(Purpose: To limit the use of appropriated funds for award of contracts 
                      through the HUBZone program)

       On page 76, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       Sec. 7____. Contracts for Procurement of Food for Peace 
     Commodities.--(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) HUBZone sole source contract.--The term ``HUBZone sole 
     source contract'' means a sole source contract authorized by 
     section 31 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a).
       (2) HUBZone price evaluation preference.--The term 
     ``HUBZone price evaluation preference'' means a price 
     evaluation preference authorized by section 31 of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a).
       (3) Qualified HUBZone small business concern.--The term 
     ``qualified HUBZone small business concern'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632(p)).
       (4) Covered procurement.--The term ``covered procurement'' 
     means a contract for the procurement or processing of a 
     commodity furnished under title II or III of the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1721 
     et seq.), section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 
     U.S.C. 1431(b)), the Food for Progress Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1736o), or any other commodity procurement or acquisition by 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation under any other law.
       (b) Prohibition of Use of Funds.--None of the funds made 
     available by this Act may be used to award a HUBZone sole 
     source contract or a contract awarded through full and open 
     competition in combination with a HUBZone price evaluation 
     preference to any qualified HUBZone small business concern in 
     any covered procurement if performance of the contract by the 
     business concern would exceed the production capacity of the 
     business concern or would require the business concern to 
     subcontract to any other company or enterprise for the 
     purchase of the commodity being procured through the covered 
     procurement.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to prevent a 
potentially harmful conflict that has come to our attention as we 
implement the new HUBZone program adopted in the Small Business 
Reauthorization Act. It appears this program doesn't quite mesh 
properly with the procurement of grain products in the Food for Peace 
program funded in this bill, and I offer this amendment to prevent the 
major economic disruption that could occur between now and the time we 
are able to correct this glitch in authorizing legislation.
  The HUBZone program is a valuable new tool I was able to put together 
as Chairman of the Small Business Committee. It provides competitive 
advantages for small businesses located in economically distressed 
areas as they seek to obtain government contracts. If these small 
businesses agree to hire 35 percent of their employees from these 
distressed areas, they become eligible for a 10 percent price 
evaluation preference in bidding on contracts awarded through free and 
open competition. The law also provides for certain contracts to be set 
aside exclusively for competition among HUBZone small business 
concerns, as well as sole source contracts.
  As we implement this program this year, we are occasionally running 
into situations where the program doesn't quite fit with existing law 
and other programs. We are working to resolve these issues in a manner 
that we hope will be as consistent as possible with both the intent of 
the HUBZone law and those other programs.
  When the government purchases agriculture products for the Food for 
Peace program, those purchases are a procurement within the meaning of 
the government's's small business procurement policies, including the 
HUBZone program. Some products like corn soy blend are procured with a 
mix of both small business set-asides and full and open procedures. In 
this particular case, 10% of the corn soy blend is purchased as a set 
aside for small business and 90% is purchased through full and open 
competition.
  Corn soy blend has only a handful of about five vendors, only two of 
which are small businesses. They would be the only ones allowed to 
compete for the small business set-aside. Only one of those two small 
businesses is a HUBZone small business, however. That HUBZone vendor 
would also be eligible for the 10 percent price evaluation preference 
in full and open competition. It could bid up to 10 percent more than 
the other vendors and still be deemed the lowest bidder. For a product 
like corn soy blend, operating on narrow price margins, this 10 percent 
preference is likely decisive.

  This means that this one HUBZone small business could lock up 90 
percent or even 100 percent of the entire market for corn soy blend.It 
would do so as a matter of law, not simply because it produces the best 
product at the best price. We could accidentally create a monopoly by 
government action, thanks to the way these various programs come 
together in this particular type of procurement.
  I can say as Chairman of the Small Business Committee, this is not 
the outcome we intended. We are not here to create monopolies, even if 
the monopoly is currently a small business. The small business program 
seeks to expand small business opportunities and foster competition, 
not stifle it.
  That's why I have offered this amendment. This amendment does not 
alter any of the existing programs--Food for Peace or HUBZones. It just 
says, let's not create a monopoly between now and the time we are able 
to adopt corrective legislation in the next

[[Page S10199]]

small business reauthorization bill, which is due next year. I'm sure 
we can fix this problem appropriately. But in the meantime, contracts 
for corn soy blend will continue to be awarded, and it is possible the 
market may have been converted into a monopoly in the short run.
  My amendment says that no funds will be used in this bill to award 
HUBZone contracts for Food for Peace commodities if the award would 
exceed the actual production capacity of the successful HUBZone small 
business. The amendment places a similar limitation on Food for 
Progress procurements of commodities, which are procured in a similar 
fashion. CCC procurements of non-commodity items--such as desks, 
computers, office supplies, and the other apparatus needed by any 
Government agency--would not be covered by this amendment.
  This means that a HUBZone small business would not be allowed to lock 
up the entire market, collect the HUBZone benefits, and then 
subcontract the actual contract performance to another firm. The 
business would be limited by the amount of commodity it could deliver 
on its own. This prevents an abuse of the program that could create a 
monopoly position for a HUBZone small business, unfairly threaten the 
livelihoods of its competitors, and unnecessarily drive up costs for 
the taxpayers.
  I should note also that this doesn't lock out anybody, including 
small businesses that I hope will in fact take advantage of the HUBZone 
program. It just prevents an abuse of the HUBZone program while we put 
together a long-term fix that reflects the particular circumstances 
that prevail in commodities procurement.
  I would note also that I anticipate this will be necessary only for 
this year. I know the managers of the Agriculture Appropriations bill 
sometimes get a little frustrated at the number of general provisions 
that get inserted into this bill, and many times these provisions tend 
to be carried over from year to year. In this particular case, we seek 
only to prevent market disruption in the interim until we tackle this 
in the small business reauthorization that will be due next year. Thus, 
I think this provision will be only for the Fiscal 2000 bill that is in 
front of us.
  This should be a non-controversial amendment, and I hope it can be 
cleared by unanimous consent. My staff and I are available to answer 
questions for anyone needing clarification on this.


                           amendment no. 1528

       On Page 76, after Line 6 insert the following:
       Sec.   . It is the Sense of the Senate that the Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall exercise reasonable treatment of 
     producers in order to avoid harmful consequences regarding 
     the inadvertent planting of dry beans on contract acres, up 
     to and including the 1999 crop year.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1529

 (Purpose: To designate West Virginia State College in Institute, West 
   Virginia, as a land-grant college and to provide funding for the 
                        college, with an offset)

       On page 13, line 11, strike ``$29,676,000'' and insert 
     ``$30,676,000''.
       On page 13, line 13, before the semicolon, insert the 
     following: ``, of which $1,000,000 shall be made available to 
     West Virginia State College in Institute, West Virginia, 
     which for fiscal year 2000 and thereafter shall be designated 
     as an eligible institution under section 1445 of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222)''.
       On page 13, line 16, strike ``$119,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$117,100,000''.
       On page 14, line 22, strike ``$474,377,000'' and insert 
     ``$473,377,000''.
       On page 16, line 16, strike ``$25,843,000'' and insert 
     ``$26,843,000, of which $1,000,000 shall be made available to 
     West Virginia State College in Institute, West Virginia, 
     which for fiscal year 2000 and thereafter shall be designated 
     as an eligible institution under section 1444 of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3221)''.
       On page 16, line 23, strike ``$421,620,000'' and insert 
     ``$422,620,000''.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, West Virginia State College in Institute, 
West Virginia, was designated by Congress as one of the original 1890 
land-grant schools under the Second Morrill Act. The college was the 
first 1890 land-grant school to be accredited and has been accredited 
longer than any other public college or university in West Virginia.
  West Virginia was one of six states to establish a new land-grant 
college under State control. West Virginia State College faithfully met 
its duties to the citizens of West Virginia as a land-grant college in 
an outstanding manner.
  However, on October 23, 1956, the State Board of Education voted to 
surrender the land-grant status of State College (effective July 1, 
1957). Historical data suggests that this action was taken in an effort 
to enhance State College's ability to accommodate veterans returning 
home with GI benefits. In addition, the decision to surrender the land-
grant status preceded explicit funding by Congress for land-grant 
institutions.
  For thirty-three years, West Virginia State College has sought to 
regain its land-grant status. On February 12, 1991, Governor Gaston 
Caperton signed a bill into law that provided redesignation authority 
for land-grant status from the State of West Virginia. On March 28, 
1994, then U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy informed 
West Virginia Governor Caperton that State College would receive a 
partial land-grant designation that would entitle the college to 
$50,000 annually under the Second Morrill Act.
  It has become clear that funding, rather than merit, is the issue 
that must be addressed to reinstate West Virginia State College's land-
grant status. I have authored an amendment that would provide $2 
million in additional funds for 1890 Institution entitlements to be 
used for base line funding for West Virginia State College. This 
amendment does not grant full 1890 land-grant funding privileges to 
State College, but provides a $2 million entitlement. The amendment 
does not cut into the current 1890 entitlement accounts. It adds 
additional funding with an offset from the National Research Initiative 
account.
  My amendment provides fair treatment to West Virginia State College, 
an original 1890 land-grant school, and I thank my colleagues for 
supporting this provision.

  

                          ____________________