[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 137 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12405-S12420]
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--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 1906, which the clerk will 
report by title.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1906) 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.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am pleased to present to the Senate 
the conference report on H.R. 1906, the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act.
  The conference agreement provides total new budget authority of $60.3 
billion for programs and activities of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture with the exception of the Forest Service, which is funded 
by the Interior appropriations bill.
  The Food and Drug Administration and Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission are included also, and expenses and payments of the farm 
credit system are provided.
  The bill reflects approximately $5.9 billion more in spending than 
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $6.6 billion less than the level 
requested by the President.
  It is $418 million less than the House-passed bill level and $391 
million less than the Senate-passed bill level.
  I must point out that we, of course, are constrained with the 
adoption of this conference report by allocations under the Budget Act. 
The bill is consistent with the allocations that have been made to this 
subcommittee under the Budget Act, and it is consistent in other 
respects with the Budget Act.
  The increase above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level reflects the 
additional $5.9 billion which the administration projects will be 
required to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized 
losses.
  The conference report also provides an additional $8.7 billion in 
emergency appropriations to assist agricultural

[[Page S12406]]

producers who experienced weather-related agricultural and market 
losses during 1999.

  This was a difficult conference. We met on two occasions. House 
conferees at one point asked for a recess in our deliberations to 
discuss some of the difficult issues that were confronting the 
conferees. As a matter of fact, after the request for the recess for a 
conference among House conferees, we never were able to get back into a 
formal meeting with the House conferees. It was an unusual procedure 
because of that.
  Negotiations took place Member to Member, Senator to conferee among a 
lot of interested Members of the House and Senate on a wide range of 
issues. Some of the most contentiously involved issues weren't in the 
bill, one of which was the dairy proposal for reauthorization of the 
Northeast Dairy Compact, and an authorization for additional regional 
compacts.
  There was a discussion of the Senate-passed provision relating to 
sanctions and trying to change the policy by changing the statute with 
respect to the authority of the President to impose unilateral 
sanctions against the export of U.S. agricultural commodities.
  These involve situations where we are trying to influence the conduct 
of other nations using interruption in trade from the United States to 
put pressure on these other countries. Senator Ashcroft of Missouri had 
led the effort in the Senate to put language in the Senate bill on that 
subject.
  The House conferees insisted on a provision that would have imposed 
special restrictions on trade with Cuba. This ended up being a very 
difficult issue to resolve, and finally was left out of the conference 
report at the insistence of the House.
  We tried to work out other disagreements.
  We think that it is a balanced bill, and it addresses a wide range of 
needs for funding for this next fiscal year--agricultural research, 
food and nutrition programs, agricultural support programs, 
conservation programs--trying to insist that we do an effective job to 
protect the environment as it relates to agricultural production and 
the needs of production agriculture.
  I hope the Senate will look with favor on the bill. The House adopted 
the conference report on October 1, I believe, by a substantial margin. 
We hope the Senate will look with favor and act accordingly.
  Including Congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior-
year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total non-
emergency discretionary spending for fiscal year 2000 of just under $14 
billion in budget authority and $14.3 billion in outlays. These amounts 
are consistent with the revised discretionary spending allocations 
established for this conference agreement.
  It was a difficult conference. After two meetings, the House 
conferees requested a recess. Because of some intractable issues, the 
House proposed to bring the conference to a close without reconvening 
the conference committee. This was not a procedure I preferred, but one 
that was necessary to reach a conference agreement on this 
appropriations measure so that it could be approved by the Congress and 
sent to the President as close as possible to the start of the new 
fiscal year. I wish to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, my 
colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, and the chairman of the House 
subcommittee, Congressman Skeen for their hard work on this bill and 
their cooperation in achieving this conference product.
  I am pleased to report that this conference report provides increased 
funding of $51.9 million for activities and programs in this bill which 
are part of the administration's ``Food Safety Initiative.'' In 
addition, the conference report provides $649 million for the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service, an agency critical to maintaining the 
safety of our food supply, $32 million more than the fiscal year 1999 
level.
  This conference agreement also provides increased appropriations for 
agriculture research programs. An appropriation of $834 million is 
provided for the Agriculture Research Service, $49 million more than 
the fiscal year 1999 level and $25 million more than the Senate-passed 
bill level. Total funding of $950 million is provided for research, 
education, and extension activities of the Cooperative State Research, 
Education and Extension Service, $31 million more than the fiscal year 
1999 level and $19 million more than the Senate-passed bill level.
  Approximately $35 billion, close to 58 percent of the total new 
budget authority provided by this conference report, is for domestic 
food programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These 
include food stamps; commodity assistance; the Special Supplemental 
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the school 
lunch and breakfast programs; and the new school breakfast pilot 
program funded at $7 million. The conference adopted an appropriations 
level of $4,032 billion for the WIC program, $6 million less than the 
Senate bill level and $27 million more than the level recommended by 
the House. More recent data on actual participation rates and food 
package costs indicates that this appropriation will be sufficient to 
maintain a 7.4 million average monthly WIC participation level in 
fiscal year 2000.
  For farm assistance programs, the conference report provides $1.2 
billion in appropriations. Included in this amount is the full increase 
of $80 million above the fiscal year 1999 level requested by the 
administration for Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses, as well 
as appropriations to meet or exceed the fiscal year 2000 farm operating 
and farm ownership loan levels included in the President's budget 
request.
  Appropriations for conservation programs administered by the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service total $813 million, $13 million more 
than the House bill level and $5 million more than level recommended by 
the Senate.
  For rural economic and community development programs, the conference 
report provides appropriations of $2.2 billion to support a total loan 
level of $7.6 billion. Included in this amount is $719 million for the 
Rural Community Advancement Program, $640 million for the rental 
assistance program, and a total rural housing loan program level of 
$4.6 billion.
  A total of $1.1 billion is provided for foreign assistance and 
related programs of the Department of Agriculture, including $113 
million in new budget authority for the Foreign Agricultural Service 
and a total program level of $976 million for the P.L. 480 Food for 
Peace Program, $39 million above the budget request.

  Total new budget authority for the Food and Drug Administration is 
$1.1 billion, $70 million more than the fiscal year 1999 level and $5.1 
million more than the Senate-passed bill level, along with an 
additional $145 million in Prescription Drug Act and $14.8 million in 
mammography clinics user fee collections. Included in the appropriation 
for salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration is the 
full $30 million increase requested in the budget for food safety, 
along with the Senate-recommended increase of $28 million for premarket 
approval activities. The additional funding provided to the FDA for 
premarket approvals will hopefully enable the agency to speed up 
device, drug, food additive, and other product review times to prevent 
unnecessary delays in getting new products to the market.
  For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $63 million is 
provided; and a limitation of $35.8 million is established on 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration.
  Title VIII of this conference report provides emergency relief to 
agricultural producers and others who have suffered weather-related and 
economic losses. Senators may recall that during consideration of this 
bill in the Senate, an amendment was adopted providing over $7.6 
billion in disaster assistance for agricultural producers. The 
conference agreement essentially retains the amendment adopted by the 
Senate and provides $1.2 billion for 1999 crop losses for a total of 
$8.7 billion.
  Included in the emergency assistance provided is: $5.54 billion for 
market loss assistance; $1.2 billion for crop loss assistance; $475 
million for soybean producers; $400 million for 2000 crop insurance 
discounts; $328 million for tobacco producers; $325 million for 
livestock and dairy producers; $82 million for producers of certain 
speciality crops; and reinstatement of the cotton step-2 program.
  On May 14 of this year, the conferees on the Hurricane Mitch and 
Kosovo

[[Page S12407]]

supplemental appropriations bill included language in the statement of 
managers recognizing the likelihood that additional disaster assistance 
would be needed for agricultural producers this year. The conferees 
called on the Administration to submit requests for supplemental 
appropriations once it determined the extent of the needs.
  In June, 21 Senators joined me in writing the President to bring this 
statement of managers language to his attention and to invite the 
administration to submit a request for supplemental appropriations. As 
of today, we have received no response to our letter nor a request for 
any funds for farmers. Other Members of Congress have made similar 
requests of the administration with the same result.
  On September 15, 1999, the Secretary of Agriculture testified before 
the House Agriculture Committee that the estimated needs for crop 
losses was between $800 million and $1.2 billion. This bill provides 
the full $1.2 billion that the Secretary estimated was needed. While I 
understand that these estimates were issued prior to Hurricane Floyd, 
it is my understanding that damage estimates are still being 
formulated.
  A USDA press release dated September 17, 1999, states:

       The Congress, along with the Clinton Administration, is 
     also currently working on emergency farm legislation which, 
     if enacted, could offer additional assistance to farmers and 
     ranchers in North Carolina, as well as other states affected 
     by natural disasters.

  I do not believe we should delay disaster assistance until these 
estimates are complete. I believe we should take care of what we know 
is needed now and come back to address new estimates when they are 
received from the Administration.
  Mr. President, this administration does not deserve credit for one 
penny of the emergency assistance in this bill. It has been ``sitting 
on the fence.'' It has submitted no requests for funding, nor offered 
any assistance in formulating this plan.
  Other Senators may be concerned that this legislation does not 
contain legislative provisions regarding dairy or to relax unilateral 
sanctions on food and medicine. Senators should remember that neither 
the House nor the Senate versions of this bill included legislative 
provisions regarding dairy policy. Therefore, it was beyond the scope 
of this conference.
  With respect to sanctions reform, this Senator supports sanctions 
reform like the majority of other members who voted for the sanctions 
amendment during Senate consideration of this bill, but an 
appropriations bill is not the right vehicle for the enactment of this 
large policy issue. Further, on July 26, the Senate voted 53 to 45 to 
reinstate rule 16, which prohibits legislating on an appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. President, this conference report was filed on Thursday night, 
September 30, and was passed the following morning by the House of 
Representatives. Senate passage of this conference report today is the 
final step necessary to send this fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill 
to the President for signature into law.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report. Many of our 
farmers and ranchers continue to face an economic crisis. Others 
continue to suffer from extreme weather conditions, including severe 
drought and flooding. It is time we act now to provide them some relief 
and this conference report, when signed into law, will do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, at the outset, I compliment my 
distinguished colleague from Mississippi for the outstanding work that 
he has done as chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee of 
Appropriations.
  I have had the pleasure to work with Senator Cochran for some 19 
years now. We have been on the subcommittee together for that time and 
the full committee for that time. There is no more difficult area in 
the Senate than working out a farm bill on the Agriculture 
appropriations bill because, candidly, the farmers are faced with so 
many problems. These are subjects very near and dear to my heart 
because I grew up in farm territory in the State of Kansas. I was born 
in Wichita and moved to Russell County, KS, when I was 12, worked on a 
farm as a teenager, drove a tractor, and have some firsthand experience 
with the problems which the agricultural community has.
  I am very much concerned with a number of provisions in the bill. I 
declined to sign the conference report, and with great reluctance 
because of the hard work that the chairman has done and others have 
done. I intend to vote against the conference report, although I think 
there are enough votes present to pass it. There is a cloture motion 
pending. The issue has been raised as to whether there would be an 
attempt to filibuster. It may be that the issues can be worked out 
without a filibuster. I hope the issues can be worked out. But if the 
filibuster vote comes up I will vote against cloture to continue the 
consideration of this issue, even though I realize fully the importance 
of resolving our appropriations bills in the very immediate future.
  The reasons that I am concerned about the provisions of the bill 
relate to two issues.
  First, it is my view that Mid-Atlantic States, and my State of 
Pennsylvania specifically, have not gotten a fair share of the disaster 
assistance. The Agriculture appropriations bill provides for $8.7 
billion in disaster assistance. But the vast majority of this money 
goes to farmers in the Midwest to compensate for low commodity prices. 
It may be that the disaster assistance is a broader category than you 
might expect, or perhaps the disaster assistance is modified by the 
fact that some $7.5 billion goes to the Midwest to compensate for low 
commodity prices. Only $1.2 billion is provided for natural disasters. 
That $1.2 billion must compensate not only for the drought but also the 
disasters including Hurricane Floyd, flooding in the Midwest, livestock 
loss, and fishery loss. Pennsylvania alone has sustained $700 million 
in drought loss. The Mid-Atlantic States have suffered $2.5 billion as 
a result of the drought this summer.
  Year after year, Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic Senators have 
supported massive aid packages to farmers in the Midwest--some $17 
billion between August 1998 and June 1999. Now that the Mid-Atlantic 
farmers are facing a real crisis, my view is the Congress has not 
provided sufficient compensation.
  There is another issue of concern; that is, the amendment which I was 
prepared to offer in the conference. Senator Cochran has accurately 
described the conference. It was rather anomalous.
  At about 7:15, the House conferees asked for a recess of 10 to 15 
minutes. And more than an hour and a half later they had not returned.
  Although many of the conferees wanted to vote to extend the Northeast 
Dairy Compact and to allow Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, New 
Jersey, and Virginia to join, the leadership in the House was opposed. 
I believe the Northeast Compact ought to be reauthorized, and a number 
of States, including Pennsylvania, ought to be permitted to join.
  Without going into elaborate arguments, this is to provide price 
stability without any cost to the Government, but to the benefit of 
consumers. The price fluctuated from as much as $17.34 in December of 
1998 to a little over $10 in January of 1999. With that kind of 
instability, it is very difficult on the farmers.
  There is another issue about option 1-A which some 60 Senators and 
240 House Members have recommended; contrary to that very large 
majority, the Secretary of Agriculture proposed a rule which was 
different, 1-B. Dairy compact legislation was offered on April 27, 
1999, by Senators Jeffords and Leahy. I joined with 40 cosponsors. When 
the Senate considered the issue of dairy pricing and compacts on August 
4, 1999 on a vote for cloture, we received 53 votes--short of the 60 
majority.
  It is my hope yet we will work out the compact for the Northeastern 
United States and also the 1-A pricing. These are matters which impact 
very heavily upon my State and upon the farmers far beyond my State as 
a national matter.
  With reluctance, I intend to vote against the conference report and 
to support the postcloture for extended debate to try to bring about 
greater equities.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S12408]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I rise in support of the conference 
report, though I have many of the same reservations I heard the Senator 
from Pennsylvania express. I was not present to hear the comments of 
the Senator from Mississippi, but I suspect he has reservations about 
the conference report, as well.
  As was pointed out, the conference was adjourned as a result of the 
decision by the House not to come back. Many matters that were not in 
this conference report such as sanctions, probably would have been in 
the report. My guess is we are moving toward some kind of resolution of 
that particular issue that did not make it into the conference report.
  We did not get additional money in the legislation for Farm Service 
Agency employees. I think we will need that. I don't think it is fair 
to ask the Farm Service Agency to find the money from other programs, 
that basically the farmers will have to pay to deliver this program 
themselves.
  There was an effort to get--and I think we have succeeded--bipartisan 
support to provide some resources for a very heavily attacked sector of 
our agricultural economy, the hog industry, where there are not only 
low prices but also significant structural changes going on. We had an 
innovative proposal for cooperatives that enabled Members to come up 
with a win-win solution without having to put a bunch of money in the 
program and enabled Congress to use some ideas that this very important 
part of our agricultural sector had worked out on their own. I regret 
that is not in this legislation.
  There are a number of other things I would prefer to see included, 
and as a consequence I was disappointed that the conferees were not 
able to complete their work. Nonetheless, this is an extremely 
important piece of legislation for Nebraska. I appreciate in the 
Northeast there are some concerns there may not be a sufficient amount 
of resources in this bill to satisfy concerns, but the problem, of 
course, is that most of the disaster occurs as a consequence of 
problems with low prices that are affecting the feed grain section, and 
rice and cotton as well. That is where the big money is. Most of the 
crops are not grown in the Northeast and that tends to produce apparent 
inequities. There is almost nothing we can do about that kind of 
inequity.

  In the legislation I appreciate the inclusion of mandatory price 
reporting. The chairman and I had a little colloquy on that a year or 
so ago. I appreciate that being included in this legislation. A great 
deal of effort has been made in the meantime since last year's 
Agriculture appropriations bill between lots of different sectors of 
the involved economy: the livestock producers, packers, and feedlot 
operators. I appreciate that is in the legislation because I think it 
is a very important part of trying to make the market work to enable 
people who are running cow-calf operations and feedlot operations to 
get good price discovery. It is simply a way to ensure that the 
restructuring that is going on in the industry doesn't prevent the kind 
of price discovery needed in order to get a good market functioning.
  Last, I think this growing requirement to come back to Congress to 
fund disaster programs underscores the urgency of reexamining the 
Freedom to Farm contract that was not supposed to expire until 2002. 
Remember, in 1996, we promised the Freedom to Farm bill would be a lot 
less expensive than previous farm bills. We have already spent more 
than we anticipated for the entire 7 years of the program in the first 
4 years alone. Obviously, we are not done. We are heading to a point 
where we will spend as much as we did at the peak of the 1980s.
  Talking to farmers where I come from in Nebraska, I am hard pressed 
to find many that think Freedom to Farm has worked. They are not very 
enthusiastic about getting another big check from the Government. They 
would rather have modifications in the farm bill similar to what the 
Nebraska corn growers presented to the House agricultural committee 
hearing in Nebraska, saying bring back the farmer loan reserve, uncap 
the loan rates, make some adjustments in the center on trade, on 
sanctions. There are lots of things that can be done to make the 
program better. My hope as we consider this additional disaster payment 
is that we understand there is a way to operate this farm program and 
spend a lot less money.
  In all the talk about the failed farm policies of the past, we never 
spent more than $6 billion a year through the 1970s when we had a 
system called normal crop acreage. It was not the heavy hand of 
government. There was a single base planted; farmers had flexibility 
coming in. If farmers wanted to have Freedom to Farm, they didn't have 
to sign up for the farm program. It ought to be voluntary. We had a 
program in the 1970s that was a lot more efficient, a lot less costly, 
and a lot more flexible for the farmer. This is getting more and more 
complicated, more and more difficult, with more and more trips to the 
Farm Service Agency than anybody anticipated.
  My hope, as we debate this conference report, is that one of the 
things we start to consider is that in 2000 the Senate Agriculture 
Committee needs to take up, as the House Agriculture Committee will do, 
the question of whether or not we ought to rewrite Freedom to Farm in 
order to not only save the family farm but also to save the taxpayer 
getting repeatedly hit for the bills of agricultural disasters that may 
not be created by Freedom to Farm.
  I see my good friend down here, Senator Roberts of Kansas. He heard 
me talking about Freedom to Farm and he rushed to the floor to defend 
himself. I am not saying that Freedom to Farm has caused the problem. I 
am simply saying I do think it is time to reexamine it. We should do it 
in a calm and bipartisan fashion. This Freedom to Farm is getting more 
and more expensive with fewer and fewer satisfied customers.
  Last, I also hope the Senate Agriculture Committee will be able to 
resolve some differences that we have over crop insurance and we can 
enact crop insurance reform yet this year. The Senate conference with 
the House has already taken action. This is by no means the only thing 
we need to do to help people manage the risk, but Senator Roberts and I 
have listened to farmers, written a bill, we have almost 20 cosponsors, 
a majority of people on the Agriculture Committee. The distinguished 
chairman of the committee has some terrific ideas, as well, 
incorporated in his legislation.
  My hope is, with 14 legislative days remaining, we can pass that out 
of the Senate Agriculture Committee and take it up on the floor, pass 
it here, get it to conference with the House, and get that signed and 
on to the President. There is money in the budget to do it. There is 
money in the disaster program to make it easier for people to afford 
the premiums.
  It is consistent with what most of us have been talking about in 
terms of trying to give the farmers something they can use to manage 
their risk.
  I say finally, I appreciate very much the difficulty the 
distinguished chairman of this subcommittee has had. Senator Cochran 
had no easy task of trying to produce a conference report. There are 
things in it I would love to change. I know I cannot change them. But I 
will vote for this legislation and hope the President will sign it and 
hope it gets into law as quickly as possible so cash can get into the 
hands of people who desperately need it in order to survive.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Vermont. Who 
yields time to the Senator from Vermont?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the leaders on this side, I 
yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee 
for all his tremendous work on this bill. Most of what I wanted, 
however, did not succeed. It was not because of his lack of effort. He 
has put a tremendous amount of time in trying to make the bill more 
acceptable to those of us who live in the Northeast.
  It is with great disappointment that I stand before the Senate to 
express my reasoning for opposing the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture 
appropriations bill, the bill that provides funding for agriculture 
programs, research and services for American agriculture.

[[Page S12409]]

  In addition, the bill provides billions of dollars of aid for farmers 
and ranchers throughout America who have endured natural and market 
disasters. However, and most unfortunately, it neglects our Nation's 
dairy farmers.
  I understand the importance of funding these programs and the need to 
provide relief for farmers. However, dairy farmers throughout the 
country and the drought stricken Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions 
have been ignored in this bill. For these reasons, I must vote against 
this bill.
  The Agriculture appropriations bill provides $8.7 billion in 
assistance to needy farmers across the country. I believe they should 
receive the help of the Federal Government. What is troubling is that 
dairy farmers are not asking for Federal dollars, but instead are 
asking for a fair pricing structure for their products, at no cost to 
the Government.
  The drought-stricken Northeastern States are not asking for special 
treatment, just reasonable assistance to help deal with one of our 
region's worst drought.
  Weather-related and market-related disasters do occur and we must as 
a nation be ready help those in need. In Vermont, in times of need, a 
neighbor does not have to ask another for help. Vermonters are willing 
to help, whether it is plowing out a neighbors snow covered driveway or 
delivering hay to Midwestern States during one of their worst droughts, 
which we did some years ago to save Wisconsin and Minnesota from 
terrible problems.
  This summer weather conditions in the Northeastern and mid-Atlantic 
put a tremendous strain on the region's agricultural sector. Crops 
throughout the region were damaged or destroyed. Many farmers will not 
have enough feed to make it through this winter. Water for livestock 
and dairy operations dried up, decreasing production and health of the 
cows.
  The Northeastern and mid-Atlantic States were not asking for much. 
Just enough assistance to help cope with the unpredictable Mother 
Nature.
  America's dairy farmers need relief of a different kind. There is no 
need for the expenditure of Federal funds. Commodity farmers are asking 
the government for relief from natural and market disasters. Dairy 
farmers are asking for relief from the promised Government disaster in 
the form of a fair pricing structure from the Secretary of Agriculture. 
That is all we are asking.
  Unless relief is granted by correcting the Secretary's Final rule and 
extending the Northeast Dairy Compact, dairy farmers in every single 
State will sustain substantial losses, but not because of Mother Nature 
or poor market conditions, but because of the Clinton administration 
and a few here in Congress have prevented this Nation's dairy farmers 
from receiving a fair deal.
  Unfortunately, Secretary Glickman's pricing formulas 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 to instead secure its sound future.
  Secretary Glickman's final pricing rule, known as Option 1-B, was 
scheduled to be implemented on October 1 of this year. However, the 
U.S. District Court in Vermont has prevented the flawed pricing rule 
from being implemented by issuing a 30 day temporary restraining order 
on Secretary Glickman's final rule. The court finds that the 
Secretary's final order and decision violates Congress' mandate under 
the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and the plaintiffs who 
represent the dairy farmers would suffer immediate and irreparable 
injury from implementation of the Secretary's final decision.
  The temporary restraining order issued by the U.S. district court has 
given Congress valuable additional time to correct Secretary Glickman's 
rule.
  We must act now. With the help of the court, Congress can now bring 
fairness to America's dairy farmer and consumers.
  Instead of costing dairy farmers millions of dollars in lost income, 
Congress should take immediate action by extending the dairy compact 
and choosing Option 1-A.
  The Agriculture appropriations bill which includes billions of 
dollars in disaster aid seemed like the logical place to include 
provisions that would help one of this country's most important 
agricultural resources without any cost to the Federal Government.
  Giving farmers and consumers a reliable pricing structure and giving 
the States the right to work together at no cost to the Federal 
Government to maintain a fresh supply of local milk is a noble idea, 
and it is a basic law of this Nation.
  It is an idea that Congress should be working towards. Instead, a few 
Members in both the House and Senate continue to block the progress and 
interest of both consumers and dairy farmers.
  This Congress has made its intention abundantly clear with regard to 
what is needed for the new dairy pricing rules. Sixty-one Senators and 
more than 240 House Members signed letters to Secretary Glickman last 
year supporting what is known as Option 1-A, for the pricing of fluid 
milk.
  On August 4 of this year, you will recall the Senate could not end a 
filibuster from the Members of the upper Midwest, but did get 53 votes, 
showing a majority of the Senate supports Option 1-A and keeping the 
Northeast Dairy Compact operating. Most recently, the House passed 
their version of Option 1-A by a vote of 285 to 140.
  Both the House and Senate have given a majority vote on this issue. 
Thus, I felt very hopeful that its inclusion would have been secured in 
the Agriculture appropriations bill or some other place.
  Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Cochran, the Senate stood firm 
on these important dairy provisions in conference. For days he worked 
hard to hold the line to include these. His farmers should be very 
appreciative of his efforts to bring about another compact of a 
demonstration program for the Southeast. The Southeast is another 
special area of the country that needs help just to organize their 
pricing system better to help farmers survive.
  Although the House would not allow the provisions to move forward, 
both Chairman Cochran and Senator Specter led the fight for the dairy 
provisions. Farmers from Mississippi and Pennsylvania should be proud 
of the work and commitment of their Senators.
  In fact, dairy farmers throughout the country should be thankful for 
the tremendous support their livelihoods have received from Chairman 
Cochran, Senator Specter, Senator Bond, and others on the Agriculture 
appropriations conference. Since then, there have been opportunities 
supported by the Senate to extend the compact and both times it failed 
because of lack of support in the other body.
  With the Senate's leadership, the dairy provisions had a fighting 
chance in the conference committee. Unfortunately, time and time again 
House Members rebutted our efforts to include Option 1-A and include 
our dairy compacts in this bill.
  If not for the actions of the House conferees dairy farmers could 
embrace this bill.
  The October 1, 1999, deadline for implementation of the Secretary's 
rule has come and gone, but with the help of the district court, 
Congress still has time to act.
  We must seize this opportunity to correct the Secretary of 
Agriculture's flawed pricing rules and at the same time maintain the 
ability of the States to help protect their farmers, without additional 
cost to the Federal Government, through compacts.
  I understand the significance of the disaster aid in this bill and do 
not want to prevent the farmers and ranchers throughout the country 
from receiving this aid. However, in order to protect dairy farmers in 
my State, as well as farmers throughout the country, I most oppose this 
bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 20 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are going to be voting on the cloture 
motion on the Agriculture appropriations conference report. I come 
without

[[Page S12410]]

great enthusiasm for this bill, although I admit there is much in this 
bill that is important and necessary. The process by which this 
conference report comes to the Senate is a horribly flawed process.
  We face a very serious farm crisis. Part of this legislation deals 
with that crisis. This appropriations bill deals with the routine 
appropriations that we provide each year for a range of important 
things that we do in food safety and a whole range of issues at the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture and elsewhere dealing with agricultural 
research and more. But it also deals with what is called the emergency 
piece in the Agriculture appropriations bill to respond to the 
emergency in farm country these days.
  We have seen prices collapse. We have seen flooding in North Dakota 
of 3 million acres that could not be planted this spring. We have seen 
some of the worst crop disease in a century. We have seen substantial 
problems with the import of grain coming into this country that has 
been traded unfairly. We have seen the shrinking of the export market 
with financial problems in Asia. The result has been a buffeting of 
family farmers in a very tragic way, many of whom are hanging on by 
their fingertips wondering whether they will be able to continue 
farming.
  We attempted to include some emergency provisions in this piece of 
legislation. This legislation does, in fact, contain emergency help for 
family farmers. I wish it contained that help in a different manner 
than it does. It contains it in a payout called the AMTA payment. This 
bill will actually double the AMTA payment.
  The problem with that is there will be a fair number of people across 
the country who will receive payments who are not even farming, are not 
even producing anything, yet they are going to get a payment. There 
will be people in this country who will get payments of up to $460,000. 
I expect taxpayers are going to be a little miffed about that. So 
$460,000 to help somebody? That is a crisis? That is not a family farm 
where I live. Taking the limits off, and allowing that kind of payment 
to go out, in my judgment, is a step backward.
  Most important, the Senate passed, by 70 votes, a provision that 
says: Let us stop using food as a weapon. Let us no longer use food and 
medicine as part of the embargoes that we apply to those countries and 
governments around the world that we think are behaving badly. By 70 
votes, this Senate said: Let us stop using food as a weapon. Let us not 
use food and medicine as part of an embargo. This conference report 
does not include that provision because it was dropped. That is a step 
backward, in my judgment. We ought to have adopted the Senate provision 
that says: Let us not use food as a weapon. Let us stop using food as 
part of an embargo.
  There was no conference. It started. It went on for a couple of 
hours. The Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, who chaired it on our 
side, did the right thing. He opened it up for amendments. We had an 
amendment, had a vote, and the vote did not turn out right for some 
other folks in the conference, so they decided to adjourn. That was it. 
Never heard from them again. Then the leadership decided to put 
together this bill, and they coupled together a conference report. And 
so here it rests now for our consideration. I am not enthusiastic about 
it.
  But having said that, I likely will support it because farmers need 
emergency help, and they need it now. I do want to say that as harsh as 
I was about this process--and it was an awful process--I made it clear 
some weeks ago, when I talked about this, that Senator Cochran from 
Mississippi was not part of the reason this process did not work. On 
our side, he chaired the conference. And he did, I think, what should 
have been done. He opened it up for discussion, the offering of 
amendments, and to hold votes. That is exactly the way conferences 
should work. I applaud the Senator from Mississippi. As always, even 
under difficult circumstances, he is someone with whom I enjoy working 
and someone for whom I have great respect.
  But in this circumstance, we must pass some emergency help for 
farmers. This bill contains some of that emergency help. It fails to 
contain other things that I think are very important. It seems to me, 
all in all, on balance, this legislation will probably proceed forward; 
the President will sign it; we will get some help out to family 
farmers; and come back again and see if we can provide some additional 
assistance when prices collapse and when that assistance is necessary.
  It is especially the case we will need additional disaster help. I do 
not think the $1.2 billion will do the job that is necessary all around 
the country to respond to disasters. Senator Conrad has described on 
the floor, as have I, the 3 million acres that did not get planted this 
spring because of flooding. Those producers need help. To be a farmer 
and not to be able to farm, having all of your land under water, that 
is what I call a disaster. The amount of money in this bill is not 
enough to deal with all of these issues all around the country, so I 
think we are going to have to come back and add to that and try to 
provide the resources that are necessary.
  But again, let me yield the floor because I know others would like to 
speak. I say to my colleague from Mississippi, I appreciate the fair 
manner in which he proceeded.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. President, I know time is limited, so I would ask the indulgence 
of the senior Senator from Mississippi and assume that the Record 
stretched on for hours for the praise I would put upon his shoulders. 
Actually, I do not say that as facetiously as it may sound.
  I have served here for a lot of years. I know of no Senator who is a 
finer Senator, with more integrity or greater abilities than the senior 
Senator from Mississippi. On top of that, he is one of the closest 
friends I have in the Senate. I know he has driven mightily in this 
bill to include a lot of things necessary for parts of the country, 
staying within the caps.
  My concern is one in the Northeast, that while we hear of talk about 
supplementals to help us later on--the administration or whoever 
saying, the check is in the mail--this does not help us. In my little 
State of Vermont, we have witnessed over $40 million just in drought 
damage. Most of our feed grains were lost this year. Without some 
assistance, many of our farmers are not going to make it through the 
winter. In the last 2 years, they have suffered through an ice storm 
where it dropped to 30 below zero. There has been flooding and two 
summers of drought.
  Congress authorized $10.6 billion in disaster payments in fiscal year 
1999. The Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic got 2.5 percent of that. Today 
or tomorrow we will likely pass $8.7 billion in disaster assistance. 
Our farmers will get about 2 cents out of every dollar.
  According to Secretary Glickman, the drought resulted in a total of 
$1.5 to $2 billion in damages already this year. The recent rains did 
not alleviate that. Our farmers need additional funding now that is 
targeted for crop, feed, and livestock losses caused by the drought. We 
need drought funding for the crop loss disaster assistance program to 
help cover crop losses, livestock feed assistance to address feed 
shortages, the Emergency Conservation Program to restore failed water 
supplies.
  Without funding targeted drought recovery, most of the $1.2 billion 
will likely go to the Southern States to recover from Hurricane Floyd. 
And they need that funding. I am not asking we take that funding away 
from them. I am asking we take care of their needs, but let's not 
neglect the needs of the Northeast and the mid-Atlantic States.
  I wish we would vote against cloture. Then the President would say, 
wait a minute, maybe we ought to put together a supplemental request 
for victims of Hurricane Floyd, so the $1.2 billion in the Agriculture 
appropriations bill could be used for drought relief.

  We in the East, east coast Senators, Northeast Senators, have always 
been there to vote for disaster assistance for other parts of the 
country, even though it has not affected us: earthquake assistance for 
California, flood assistance for the Mississippi Valley, drought 
assistance in the Upper Plains.
  When I became chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I brought the 
Agriculture Committee out to North and

[[Page S12411]]

South Dakota and elsewhere to emphasize why we needed drought relief, 
even though what we did was going to cost us in the Northeast. Drought 
relief for Kansas or any other place cost us in increased feed prices, 
in taxes. But we did it because it was the right thing to do. We have 
done it in cases of hurricane assistance for Texas, Louisiana, North 
and South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and other States. All we would 
like is somebody to step back and say, wait a minute, why don't we get 
back to the administration and say, what are you going to request so 
this actually takes care of everyone.
  Obviously, I was disappointed that we did not have extended the 
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. But my concern would be the same 
today, whether it was there or not, because of the drought issues. I am 
concerned that lifting the Cuban embargo for food and medicine that was 
passed by the Senate by 74 or 75 votes, the Ashcroft amendment, was not 
included.
  I would like to take a moment to reiterate the importance of the 
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and my disappointment that its 
extension is not in this bill. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact 
has proven itself to be a successful and enduring partnership between 
dairy farmers and consumers throughout New England. 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 dairy compacts are the 
answer. Compacts are state-initiated, state-ratified and state-
supported programs that assure a safe supply of milk for consumers.
  Indeed, half the Governors in the nation, and half the state 
legislatures in the nation, asked that the Congress allow their States 
to set their own dairy policies--within federally mandated limits--
through interstate compacts. And the dairy compact passed with 
overwhelming support in these States--in Arkansas, for instance, the 
Compact passed the Senate with a vote of 33 to 0 and the House passed 
it with a vote of 91 to 0. In North Carolina, the Compact passed the 
Senate with a vote of 49 to 0 and passed the House with the 
overwhelming majority of 106 to 1. Clearly, there is tremendous support 
for dairy compacts in these states.
  Since the Federal policies are not working to keep farmers in 
business, these states acted to make sure that dairy farmers stay in 
business so that consumers can be assured of fresh, local supplies 
milk. If you support interstate trade, the Northeast Dairy Compact has 
proven itself to be the answer. Once the Compact went into operation, 
the Office of Management and Budget reported an 8 percent increase in 
sales of milk into the compact region from New York and other 
neighboring States to take advantage of the higher prices. If you 
support a balanced budget, dairy compacts are the answer. The Northeast 
Compact does not cost taxpayers a single cent.
  This is very different from the costliness of many farm programs--
including many which are being funded through this appropriations bill. 
If you support farmland protection programs, dairy compacts are the 
answer. Major environmental groups have endorsed the Northeast Dairy 
Compact because they know it helps preserve farmland and prevent urban 
sprawl. In fact, the New Times reported on the importance of the 
Compact for the environment. In an article entitled ``Environmentalists 
Supporting Higher Milk Price for Farmers'' it was explained that 
keeping farmers on the land maintains the beauty of New England.
  And if you are concerned about the impact of prices on consumers, 
regional dairy compacts are the answer. Retail milk prices within the 
compact region are lower on average than in the rest of the nation. I 
would be pleased to compare retail milk prices in New England against 
retail milk prices in the Upper Midwest.
  A GAO report, dated October, 1998, compared retail milk prices for 
various U.S. cities both inside and outside the Northeast Compact 
region for various time periods. For example, in February 1998, the 
average price of a gallon of whole milk in Augusta, ME, was $2.47. The 
price for Milwaukee, WI, was $2.63/gallon. Prices in Minneapolis, MN, 
were much higher--they were $2.94/gallon. Let's pick another New 
England city--Boston. In February 1998, the price of a gallon of milk 
was $2.54 as compared to Minneapolis, MN, which was $2.94/gallon. Let's 
look at the cost of 1 percent milk for November 1997, for another 
example.
  In Augusta, ME, it was $2.37/gallon, the same average price as for 
Boston and for New Hampshire and Rhode Island. In Minnesota, the price 
was $2.82/gallon. I could go on and on comparing lower New England 
retail prices with higher prices in other cities for many different 
months. I invite anyone to review this GAO report. It is clear that our 
Compact is working perfectly by benefiting consumers, local economies 
and farmers. This major fact, that in many instances retail milk prices 
in the Compact region were much lower than in areas in the Upper 
Midwest, has been ignored by our opponents. I would also like to point 
out that before the Compact, New England lost 20 percent of its dairy 
farms from 1990 to 1996--we lost one-fifth of our farms in just 6 
years. If farms had kept going under at that rate, the prices of milk 
in stores could have dramatically increased.
  In June I received a letter from the National Grange strongly 
supporting the Northeast Dairy compact. They represent 300,000 members 
nationwide, and I want to read a few lines from their letter. It states 
that ``regional dairy compacts offer the best opportunity to preserve 
family dairy farms.'' It continues by stating that:

       The heightened interest and support at the state level for 
     dairy compacts is based largely on the outstanding 
     accomplishments of the Northeast Dairy Compact. There is 
     recognition in the dairy industry that states must work 
     together to strengthen their rural economies and ensure 
     fresh, local supplies of milk to their urban areas.

  The Grange letter notes that ``the Northeast Compact has been 
extremely successful in meeting this goal by balancing the interests of 
processors, retailers, consumers, and dairy farmers.''
  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 want to repeat 
that OMB studied the Compact and concluded that consumer prices in the 
region were on average five cents lower per gallon than the average for 
the rest of the nation and that farm income had increased 
significantly. OMB also reported that the Compact put more pregnant 
women, infants, and children on the WIC program than would have been 
the case without the Compact. The Compact has also been challenged in 
court and has been upheld as constitutional.
  The Compact does not harm other States. Contrary to what some 
opponents may suggest, the Dairy Compact did not cause a drop in milk 
production in other regions of the country such as the Upper Midwest. 
In fact, in 1997, Wisconsin had an increase in production of 1.7 
percent while the Compact was in operation. This fact refutes another 
incorrect criticism of the Compact. Contrary to allegations of Compact 
opponents, interstate trade in milk has greatly increased as a result 
of the Compact according to OMB. Milk sales into the Compact region 
increased by 8 percent--since neighboring New York and other farmers 
wanted to take advantage of the compact.
  It should also be noted that farmers in the Compact region are now 
milking about the same number of cows over the past couple of years--
they did not suddenly expand their herds to take advantage of the 
Compact as opponents had incorrectly feared. Comparing Vermont's milk 
cows and production from April of last year to April of this year, note 
that Vermont's milk production did increase--but by only 2.6 percent. 
This is slightly less than the increase for Wisconsin. However, the 
number of cows being milked remained the same for Vermont. Farmers were 
not buying more cows and expanding their operations under the Compact, 
and production increases were less than other States.
  So if all these points are refuted by the facts, what is the real 
agenda of those from the Upper Midwest? Based on newspaper accounts 
from the Upper Midwest, I think I know the answer. I know that the 
Upper Midwest massively overproduces milk--they produce far more than 
they can consume--and thus want to sell this milk

[[Page S12412]]

in the South. They do not even attempt to refute the point that they 
are trying to sell their milk outside the state. However, it is very 
expensive to ship milk because milk weighs a lot, it has to be 
refrigerated, and the trucks come back empty. I have read press reports 
about how they want to dehydrate milk--take the water out of milk--and 
then rehydrate 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 ``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 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, DC, when residents 
think we might get what is called in Vermont a ``dusting of snow.'' In 
this debate on the Northeast dairy compact, I was very hopeful a few 
months ago that we could work out an amendment on dairy which would be 
satisfactory to most members. The National Farmers Union made a great 
proposal which could have helped dairy farmers throughout America. The 
President of NFU, Leland Swenson, discussed the recent loss of millions 
of dollars by dairy farmers ``when the milk price suddenly dropped by 
37 percent'' in 1 month. In a letter to many Members of Congress, he 
pointed out that ``family dairy producers will be subject to even 
greater economic disaster when the support price is completely phased 
out at the end of the year.'' The National Farmers Union came up with 
an idea that would greatly benefit farmers in the Upper Midwest, the 
South, the West, the Northeast and the rest of the country. As their 
letter states, the proposal ``will also help consumers by ensuring a 
steady supply of fresh milk and quality dairy products at reasonable 
prices.''
  The NFU proposal consisted of: dairy compacts for the South and the 
Northeast; amendments to the federal order system that help farmers; 
and, third, a dairy price support at $12.50 per hundredweight. NFU 
concludes by saying that this proposal would ``provide a meaningful 
safety net for dairy farmers throughout the nation.'' Compacts for the 
Northeast and the South, a good support price for the Upper Midwest, 
the Midwest, Florida, the Southwest, and the West, and reform to 
Federal order system. All three components would have helped dairy 
farmers in every region. I know the huge processors launched a massive 
and expensive campaign against all elements of this NFU proposal. The 
processors, unfortunately, are for very low dairy prices. These giant 
multinational processors have bought dozens and dozens of full-page ads 
and sent snow globes to members of the Congress. Their ads demonstrate 
what they are against. They oppose: an extension of dairy price 
supports; increases in price supports; interstate dairy compacts; and 
other reforms to the federal order system designed to keep dairy 
farmers in business. They propose instead, as do other opponents of 
this compromise, nothing--they have no proposals that would help dairy 
farmers.
  Time will show that the opponents of this National Farmers Union 
package, these large processors, are making a costly error. If their 
policies of extremely low prices for dairy farmers continue to drive 
thousands of farmers out of business each year--eventually milk prices 
will dramatically increase. Unfortunately, I may only be able to say at 
a later date that ``I told you so.''
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. The Senator from 
New York and the Senator from North Dakota want to speak.
  On a personal level, I thank Senator Cochran from Mississippi for his 
fine work.
  I am sympathetic to what my colleagues from the Northeast have to 
say. They do not believe they really have been in the picture when it 
comes to disaster relief. I make a commitment, as a Senator from the 
Midwest, to fight very hard with them to do better on disaster relief 
before we leave here over the next 4 weeks or 5 weeks. As a matter of 
fact, I have a lot of concerns about this disaster relief bill as well 
and this financial package. I am not sure the farmers in northwest 
Minnesota are going to figure in. We have had a lot of wet weather. 
They haven't been able to plant their crops.
  I am very worried that they actually are not going to get this 
disaster assistance. I also worry about the formula. Altogether, this 
is an $8.7 billion relief package. I worry about the way in which it is 
delivered. As I have said before, I think the AMTA payments all too 
often go to those least in need without enough going to those most in 
need.
  Finally, on the negative side, this is all a very painful way of 
acknowledging that our farm policy is not working. It is a price 
crisis. Our farmers can't make it on these prices. We are going to lose 
a whole generation of producers unless we get the loan rate up and get 
prices up and unless we have a moratorium on these acquisitions and 
mergers. I am determined to have a vote on the moratorium bill. I am 
determined to have a vote on doing something to get the prices up for 
family farmers. That is what speaks to the root of this crisis, which 
is a very painful economic crisis and a very painful personal crisis 
because an awful lot of good people are being driven off the land. The 
only thing this does is enable people to live to maybe farm another 
day.
  I say one more time to the majority leader, I want the opportunity to 
come out with amendments and legislation that will alleviate some of 
this pain and suffering. I know other Senators feel the same way.
  Finally, I think I lean heavily toward voting for this only because 
we need to get some assistance out to people. In Redwood County, which 
has really been through it, we get about $23 million more to cover 
production losses in beans and corn from AMTA payments. I am told by 
Tracy Beckman, who directs our FSA office, that Minnesota will receive 
about $620 million in AMTA payments to be distributed to about 62,000 
eligible producers.
  I don't think this emergency financial package is anywhere near close 
to perfect. I think it is flawed in a number of ways. I think we are 
going to have to do better on disaster relief. But I desperately want 
to get some help out to people. I think at least this is a step in that 
direction. We all can come back over the next couple of weeks and do 
more.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Mississippi is 
recognized.

[[Page S12413]]

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the authority of the leadership, I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have received a number of letters from farm organizations and other 
groups supporting the adoption of the conference report or supporting 
invoking cloture so we can get to consideration of this conference 
report. Included among these groups are the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, asking for a vote on cloture this afternoon; the National 
Corn Growers Association; the National Association of Wheat Growers; 
the U.S. Rice Producers Association; the American Soybean Association; 
International Dairy Foods Association; the National Barley Growers 
Association; the Louisiana Cotton Producers Association, and others.
  I ask unanimous consent that all of these letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     American Farm


                                            Bureau Federation,

                                 Park Ridge, IL, October 12, 1999.
       Dear Senator: The American Farm Bureau Federation supports 
     passage of H.R. 1906, the conference report on FY 2000 
     Agriculture Appropriations. We urge you to vote for cloture 
     this afternoon.
       We are thankful to the members of the conference committee 
     for their diligent work in securing much needed financial 
     assistance for farmers who are suffering from this year's 
     devastating drought and low commodity prices.
       However, we remain disappointed by the process which 
     rendered inadequate levels of funding for weather disaster 
     assistance, excluded trade sanctions reform and did not make 
     needed changes in dairy policy. We appreciate the efforts of 
     members of the House and Senate who worked for these needed 
     changes.
       Farm Bureau will continue to work to secure these 
     beneficial changes in farm policy.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Dean Kleckner,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                     National Corn


                                          Growers Association,

                                  Washington, DC, October 8, 1999.
     Hon. Charles S. Robb,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Robb. On behalf of the 30,000 members of the 
     National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), I strongly urge the 
     United States Senate to pass the fiscal year 2000 agriculture 
     appropriations conference report. America's farmers are 
     facing Depression-era low prices and the political posturing 
     that continues to delay delivery of the desperately needed 
     $8.6 billion farm assistance package puts these farmers at 
     risk.
       I cannot stress enough the importance of this farm aid 
     package and the importance of its timely passage. In many 
     cases, the market loss assistance payment will be the only 
     way many of our farmers will meet their end-of-year expenses.
       The NCGA urges Congress to vote ``aye'' on cloture, 
     preventing an impending filibuster from further delaying the 
     bill, and vote ``aye'' on final passage. Acting immediately 
     on this bill will allow us to get this appropriations process 
     behind us and to then turn our attention to the challenge of 
     crafting long-term policy solutions that will restore the 
     health of the agricultural economy and help us avoid the need 
     for future emergency assistance packages.
       NCGA looks forward to working with Congress on those long-
     term goals in the months to come. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lynn Jensen,
     President.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Wheat Growers,

                                 Washington, DC, October 10, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Cochran: As President of the National 
     Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG), and on behalf of wheat 
     farmers across the nation, I write to commend you and the 
     subcommittee on your hard work in completing the FY2000 
     Agriculture Appropriations bill.
       I believe that the emergency assistance package included in 
     the bill will go a long way in meeting the needs of America's 
     wheat producers. At the same time, however, I am very 
     disappointed that the sanctions reform provisions of the 
     Senate's version of the bill were not included in the 
     conference report. NAWG remains committed to lifting all U.S. 
     unilateral sanctions on food and will continue to work 
     towards this goal.
       It is my understanding that a handful of your colleagues 
     are attempting to block the adoption of the conference report 
     in an effort to address policy matters outside the bill's 
     intended scope. This is unfortunate.
       NAWG encourages all Senators to vote for cloture and final 
     adoption of the conference report as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jim Stonebrink,
     President.
                                  ____



                              U.S. Rice Producers Association,

                                     Houston, TX, October 1, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and 
         Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The U.S. Rice Producers Association 
     (USRPA) represents rice producers in Mississippi, Missouri, 
     Texas, and California, as well as affiliate members that 
     include rice millers, marketers, and other allied businesses. 
     We are writing to express our strong support for the passage 
     of the conference report on H.R. 1906, the fiscal year 2000 
     agricultural appropriations bill. While this bill is not 
     perfect, it will help to address some of the critical 
     concerns of American rice producers who are facing record low 
     prices.
       Emergency Assistance: H.R. 1906 includes a package of 
     emergency economic assistance that will be critical to the 
     economic survival of rice producers across the nation. With 
     prices for rice projected to fall by more than one-third 
     compared to last year's already low prices, the enactment of 
     this direct emergency assistance is imperative.
       Equitable Marketing Loan Payments: H.R. 1906 includes a 
     provision to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     correct the inequitable treatment received by a number of 
     rice producers when the benchmark World Market Price for rice 
     was significantly adjusted downward in August by the 
     Department of Agriculture. For a number of producers, 
     particularly in Texas and Louisiana, only the enactment of 
     this provision can address this issue.
       Comprehensive Sanctions Reform: We are disappointed that 
     the conference report fails to enact reforms regarding our 
     government's use of unilateral agricultural sanctions. We 
     oppose restrictions on the free and open export of U.S. 
     agricultural commodities that deny American farmers access to 
     important export markets. In particular, Cuba was a very 
     large and dependable market for U.S. rice prior to the 
     imposition of sanctions. However, we do not believe that the 
     failure of the bill to address the sanctions issue should be 
     viewed as a reason to defeat this very important bill.
       As such, we urge you and your colleagues to vote for final 
     passage of the conference report on H.R. 1906.
           Sincerely,
                                             Dennis R. DeLaughter,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                 American Soybean Association,

                                                  October 8, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and 
         Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the American Soybean 
     Association (ASA), I would like to express our strong support 
     for immediate passage of the Conference Report on 
     agricultural appropriations for FY-2000. Favorable 
     consideration of this important legislation is even more 
     urgent since it will provide emergency relief for producers 
     of soybeans and other commodities who are suffering from 
     historic low prices and from severe crop losses.
       U.S. soybean farmers have seen prices fall 32% in the past 
     three years, to a season average level of $5.00 per bushel 
     for the 1999 crop, according to USDA. This represents a 
     decline of $4.4 billion in the value of this year's harvest, 
     compared to 1996.
       While sluggish foreign demand is partly responsible for 
     lower prices, another factor is the increase in U.S. soybean 
     production under ``Freedom to Farm.'' Since 1996, soybean 
     plantings rose eight million acres, or 12%, from 66 to 74 
     million acres. This increase has disadvantaged traditional 
     soybean producers, and particularly those who do not receive 
     large payments under the AMTA formula.
       With Congress prepared to again provide supplemental AMTA 
     assistance to offset low prices received by producers of 
     former program crops, ASA is pleased that the farm relief 
     package includes $475 million to partially compensate 
     producers of soybeans and other oilseeds. This amount will 
     add an estimated 15 cents per bushel to farmers' income from 
     the sale of this year's soybean crop and from marketing loan 
     gains or Loan Deficiency Payments. ASA would like to express 
     appreciation to you for your leadership in including and 
     retaining this provision in the final Conference Report.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                      Marc Curtis,
     President.
                                  ____

                                               International Dairy


                                            Foods Association,

                                  Washington, DC, October 8, 1999.
       Dear Senator: Next Tuesday, you will be asked to vote on 
     cloture to stop a filibuster of the final agriculture 
     appropriations conference report as some members seek to 
     force inclusion of controversial dairy compacts in the bill. 
     Without question, dairy compacts artificially inflate milk 
     prices, under the guise of helping dairy farmers.
       Now is not the time to hold up this agriculture 
     appropriations bill--which includes important farm relief 
     measures. And it certainly isn't the time to unnecessarily 
     increase milk prices to consumers.
       Attached are numerous editorials from across the nation 
     that strongly urge Congress to reject higher milk prices, and 
     let

[[Page S12414]]

     modest free market reforms stabilize the industry. We urge 
     you to vote for cloture and let the agriculture 
     appropriations process move forward.
       Sincerely,
                                              Constance E. Tipton,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____

                                                   National Barley


                                          Growers Association,

                                 Alexandria, VA, October 12, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Cochran: On behalf of barley producers from 
     across the United States, I am writing to urge Congress to 
     expedite approval of the conference report for FY2000 
     agricultural appropriations (H.R. 1906). While the conference 
     process was clearly imperfect and barley growers are 
     frustrated by the refusal of the congressional leadership to 
     allow conferees to consider provisions to enact much-needed 
     reforms to US sanctions policy, this package contains several 
     provisions of critical importance to barley producers and to 
     the entire agricultural community. It is important that this 
     package be approved immediately.
       As such, barley growers urge you and your colleagues to 
     vote for final passage of the conference report on H.R. 1906.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jack Q. Pettus,
     Washington DC Representative.
                                  ____

                                                  Louisiana Cotton


                                        Producers Association,

                                     Monroe, LA, October 11, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cochran: The Louisiana Cotton Producers 
     Association strongly supports passage of the FY 2000 Ag 
     Appropriations Bill. The financial aid provided for in this 
     bill will to a large degree be the only means by which many 
     are able to hold onto the family farm. Your leadership and 
     support for agriculture is well documented and greatly 
     appreciated.
       I look forward to our continued partnership in 2000 as we 
     attempt to improve upon a farm bill that is in dire need of 
     reform.
           Sincerely,
     Jon W. ``Jay'' Hardwick.
                                  ____



                             National Grain Sorghum Producers,

                                   Abernathy, TX, October 8, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Cochran: On behalf of the National Grain 
     Sorghum Producers we urge you to support the Agriculture 
     Appropriations Bill as presented by the Conference and 
     approved by the House.
       Farmers across the United States need these funds now.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Dan Shaw,
     Washington Representative.
                                  ____



                                      American Sugar Alliance,

                                  Washington, DC, October 8, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cochran: The associations listed below, 
     representing U.S. sugarbeet and sugarcane farmers, 
     processors, and refiners, unanimously support the 
     Agricultural Appropriations Bill Conference Report.
       We thank you for your unfailingly support for American 
     production agriculture and we look forward to continuing to 
     work with you in the future.
       Sincerely,
         American Sugarbeet Growers Association; American Sugar 
           Cane League; Florida Sugar Cane League; Gay & Robinson, 
           Hawaii; Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers; Sugar Cane 
           Growers Cooperative of Florida; United States Beet 
           Sugar Association.
                                  ____

                                                  American Textile


                                      Manufacturers Institute,

                                 Washington, DC, October 12, 1999.


  Tuesday, October 12 Cloture Vote on Ag Appropriations: Vote Yes on 
              Invoking Cloture--Vote Yes on Final Passage

       Dear Senator: The FY 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Bill 
     provides needed assistance to U.S. agriculture, including 
     restoration of funds for the cotton competitiveness program, 
     and we urge you to support the conference report. 
     Specifically, we urge you to vote YES on Tuesday, October 12 
     on the motion to invoke cloture on consideration of this 
     bill, and to vote YES on final passage of the conference 
     agreement.
       Funding for ``Step 2'' of the cotton competitiveness 
     program was capped in the 1996 farm bill and the program ran 
     out of funds in December of 1998, resulting in an immediate 
     and sharp decline in already low raw cotton prices. As we 
     have indicated to you previously, the surge over the last few 
     years in cheap imports from China and other nations of the 
     Far East, in large part because of Asia's economic 
     difficulties, has had a severe impact on the American textile 
     industry. Restoration of funding for Step 2 will help offset 
     some of this damage by making the U.S. cotton and U.S. 
     textile industries more competitive with foreign 
     manufacturers.
       As a final point, we understand and sympathize with the 
     concerns of Senators from dairy producing states. However, we 
     strongly urge that these issues be dealt with in an 
     expeditious manner without holding up this badly needed 
     agriculture spending bill. Please do everything you can to 
     achieve such an outcome which will address the needs of dairy 
     producers without holding American textile manufacturers and 
     cotton producers hostage. We need this conference report to 
     be signed into law as quickly as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Carlos Moore,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                                                 Calcot, LTD.,

                                Bakersfield, CA, October 11, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cochran: First, I want to thank you for all of 
     your efforts to get the agricultural assistance package to 
     where it is today. Calcot's membership, which totals over 
     2000 members who grow almost 50 percent of the cotton in 
     Arizona and California, fully support the conference bill.
       Growers are distressed at the delay in getting the 
     conference passed by the Senate. Hopefully, the cloture vote 
     tomorrow afternoon will be successful and this bill can be 
     forwarded to the President shortly after that. Growers 
     desperately need the benefits provided in the assistance 
     package, and we really need Step 2 to prevent the loss of 
     further sales of cotton.
       Again, we appreciate your efforts to provide this package, 
     but we need it passed by the Senate and signed by the 
     President at the earliest possible date.
           Sincerely,
     T.W. Smith.
                                  ____



                                          USA Rice Federation,

                                   Arlington, VA, October 8, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, 
         Rural Development and Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the USA Rice Federation, we 
     want to express our support for the FY 2000 Agricultural 
     Appropriations Conference Report. The programs funded by this 
     legislation, and especially the economic assistance package, 
     are urgently needed by America's farmers who are suffering a 
     crisis due to low prices and weather-related disasters.
       We urge you and other members of the Senate to support the 
     Report and its quick implementation.
           Sincerely,
                                                A. Ellen Terpstra,
     President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____


          [News From Independent Community Bankers of America]

           ICBA Welcomes House Passage of Farm Relief Package

       Washington, DC. (Oct. 1, 1999)--The Independent Community 
     Bankers of America today welcomed the House of 
     Representatives passage of H.R. 1906, the Fiscal Year 2000 Ag 
     Appropriations bill on a 246-183 vote.
       ``The $8.7 billion bill will provide much needed economic 
     assistance to struggling farmers who are trying to generate 
     positive cash flows and repay their operating credit as well 
     as plan for new loans. Congress will need to also consider 
     providing additional funds to provide payments for disaster 
     losses and additional money to ensure adequate guaranteed 
     loan funding is available,'' said ICBA President Bob 
     Barseness.
       ``While we realize the bill has generated considerable 
     controversy lately, we are hopeful Congress will provide this 
     much needed financial assistance to our farmers as soon as 
     possible.'' ICBA added.
                                  ____



                                National Peanut Growers Group,

                                     Gorman, TX, October 12, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and 
         Related Agencies, Senate Appropriations Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The National Peanut Growers Group is a 
     coalition representing peanut growers across the United 
     States. We appreciate very much your hard work in developing 
     the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture, Rural Development and 
     Related Agencies appropriations bill. You have always 
     supported our industry.
       The bill contains several key provisions that assist peanut 
     growers. In addition to important peanut research projects, 
     the bill provides approximately $45 million in direct 
     disaster payments to peanut growers based on the 1999 peanut 
     crop.
       Language was also added during the Conference that requests 
     the Secretary of Agriculture use peanut growers marketing 
     assessment monies to offset potential program losses in the 
     1999 peanut crop.
       We support the FY 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill and 
     urge its immediate passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Wilbur Gamble,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                 American Bankers Association,

                                 Washington, DC, October 12, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cochran: On behalf of the American Bankers 
     Association (ABA), I am writing to express our support for 
     the FY

[[Page S12415]]

     2000 Agricultural Appropriations Conference Report (HR 1906). 
     The ABA represents all categories of banking institutions 
     which includes community, regional and money center banks and 
     holding companies as well as savings associations, trust 
     companies and savings banks. Our members are deeply concerned 
     about the future of our agricultural and rural borrowers.
       At the end of 1998, our members had over $70 billion in 
     outstanding loans to farm and ranch customers. We provide 
     American agriculture with the credit needed to produce our 
     nation's safe and abundant food and fiber.
       We join you in supporting the Conference Report because it 
     will address the emergency needs of this vital national 
     industry. Our nation's farmers and ranchers have been 
     battered by low prices and, in some areas, by severe weather 
     conditions. Many of our farmers and ranchers are losing hope 
     and are deciding to leave agriculture.
       For many of these farmers and ranchers the FY 2000 
     Agricultural Appropriations Conference Report can make the 
     critical difference between staying on the farm or leaving it 
     forever. We thank you for supporting the legislation, and we 
     urge you to impress on your colleagues the urgent need to 
     pass the legislation as quickly as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Floyd E. Stoner.

  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the cloture 
vote this afternoon. I acknowledge the work of our colleague, Senator 
Cochran, and our colleague, Senator Kohl, who are the chairman and 
ranking member of this committee. I have found in my time in the Senate 
that Senator Cochran is a very fair man. He is somebody who keeps his 
word. He always has time to listen. I appreciate that very much. I also 
appreciate the difficulty he has, along with Senator Kohl, in bringing 
this bill to the floor. This is not easy to do. It is a very difficult 
thing year after year, to deal with all of our colleagues on these very 
contentious issues. I thank my colleague, Senator Cochran, for his 
patience more than anything else because he has certainly demonstrated 
that. I also thank Senator Kohl because he has also listened carefully 
to the needs of our colleagues from around the country.
  I represent one of the most agricultural States in the Nation. My 
producers there have been hit by a triple whammy of bad prices, bad 
weather, and bad policy. The prices are the lowest they have been in 
real terms in over 50 years. There is a price collapse occurring that 
is putting enormous financial pressure on our producers.
  Bad weather. I guess the simple fact that we had 3 million acres in 
the State of North Dakota not even planted this year tells a story, not 
because it was too dry but because it was too wet. What an 
extraordinary circumstance. Back in 1988 and 1989, we had the worst 
drought since the 1930s. Now we have the wettest conditions in 100 
years. Everywhere you go in North Dakota, at least in a big chunk of 
our State, there is nothing but water. Who could have believed this 
dramatic change? And we are hurt by bad trade policy and bad 
agriculture policy that has further burdened producers.
  There are several parts of this package that I think are critically 
important. The 100-percent AMTA supplemental payment is going to mean 
that a North Dakota wheat farmer, instead of getting a transition 
payment of 64 cents a bushel on wheat, is going to get $1.28. It may 
not sound like much to many of my colleagues, and it isn't much in the 
great scheme of things. That is going to make the difference between 
literally thousands of farm families having to be forced off the land 
and being able to survive for another year. That is critically 
important.
  Second, there is a 30-percent crop insurance discount. That is very 
important because we have not devised a crop insurance system that can 
work for the farmers of this country.
  So those are two important provisions. They deserve our support.
  As soon as I am positive about this bill, I also want to point out 
those parts of the bill that are deficient because there is inadequate 
disaster assistance in this bill. There is not enough money for those 
who are victims of Hurricane Floyd; there is not enough money for those 
who are the victims of the drought in the eastern part of the United 
States; there is not enough money for those farmers in my State who 
have been flooded out. These are farmers who didn't take a 30-percent 
loss or a 40-percent loss; they took a 100-percent loss because their 
land is under water.

  Mr. President, we have to do better. We will have a further 
opportunity to do so in the legislative process later this year. I hope 
very much we will do that. But right now, the right vote is to vote for 
cloture.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I must respectfully disagree with my 
colleague from North Dakota. This bill is a disaster for the farmers in 
the Northeast. We have been hit, in this bill, by a triple whammy. No. 
1, the dairy compact hangs by a thread. No. 2, the pricing support 
system for dairy 1-A is replaced by 1-B. And then, to add insult to 
double injury, what has happened is that there is so little disaster 
relief--given the hurricane in North Carolina, flooding in North 
Dakota, and the worst drought in a generation in the Northeast--it is 
hard to see how the money allocated here covers the needs of hard-
pressed farmers.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. It just does not 
do the job for us. I have spoken to many on my side, including our 
minority leader, who shares our heartfelt concerns; and we are going to 
make an effort to do whatever we can to get extra disaster relief in 
other supplemental bills. But it is faint concern, little concern, to 
the people and farmers in the Northeast.
  We have 220,000 farmers in the Northeast, according to the Secretary 
of Agriculture. We have a program, a dairy program, and fruits and 
vegetables as well, that are different from the majority of farming 
here in this country. It is not a row crop, and they are not large 
farms; they are family farms.
  I will leave my colleagues with a plea: We need help. We need real 
help, particularly this year when low prices and the drought have 
severely affected us. We are not getting the help we need in this bill, 
and we hope we can come back another day and get it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I yield the time 
that he may consume to the distinguished Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, because of the lowest commodity prices 
in a quarter century in the Midwest and probably every place else in 
the United States, I support the conference report we are considering 
this afternoon. While there are elements of the legislation that I 
might not support, or would rather not have in the bill, I think the 
greater good is served by passing this legislation as quickly as 
possible. The sooner we pass this legislation, the sooner we can assist 
the family farmer. That was our intention when we began this process 
the first week of August, and I am glad to see it will be accomplished 
in the near future.
  As everyone is aware, there is a crisis in rural America due to these 
low commodity prices. I made a promise 3 years ago to guarantee a 
smooth transition from big government command and control to a market-
driven agricultural economy. We predicted 3 years ago, in the 1996 farm 
bill, that that smooth transition would require about $5.5 billion for 
the year 1999. We didn't anticipate the lowest prices in 25 years and, 
obviously, that transition turned out to be more difficult than we 
anticipated. To remedy the situation we have added economic assistance 
in this bill that we did not predict was necessary three years ago.
  A number of factors have contributed to the downturn in the 
agriculture economy that we have experienced over the last 18 months. I 
would like to tell you that the answer to our problem is as easy as 
changing the 1996 farm bill. But, in fact, the economics involved are 
complex and international. For example, we saw soybean prices take a 
nosedive a while back, not because of anything we did in this country, 
but because the Brazilian currency lost one-quarter of its value 
overnight.

[[Page S12416]]

 Brazil happens to be a major soybean producer and also an exporter. 
That action also shaved roughly a dollar a bushel off of U.S. soybean 
prices.
  Another example is that Asia has been one of our fastest growing and 
strongest export markets. But when the Asian economy crashed, they 
could no longer buy American pork and our grain. The financial crisis 
Asia experienced hurt all our farmers in America, even my friends and 
neighbors back at New Hartford, Iowa.
  Global trade manifested by exports has become a mainstay of our 
Nation's family farmers. Roughly one-fourth of farm receipts today come 
from overseas sales. Iowa is a significant supplier to the world, being 
the Nation's No. 2 exporter of agricultural commodities, after 
California. The solution is to increase our access to world markets by 
passing fast track and opening doors through the World Trade 
Organization and other trade agreements, not by limiting our ability to 
compete in the world market by choking our own production.
  There are 100 million new mouths to feed every year, almost a billion 
in the next decade. Farmers someplace in the world are going to feed 
those new mouths. I would rather it be Iowa or United States products 
than Brazilian and Argentine products. We can do it and compete. In the 
short-term though, the most effective means of helping our family 
farmers in need is providing economic assistance as quickly as 
possible.
  The fastest means to provide emergency relief to our farmers is 
through the AMTA mechanism. I would like to mention that some of my 
colleagues have criticized our plan to distribute income assistance 
through the AMTA payment mechanism. I have heard and witnessed 
statements that would lead some to believe that landowners who do not 
share in production risk or management are benefiting from this 
assistance. The 1996 farm bill states that payments are only available 
to those who ``assume all or part of the risk of producing a crop.''
  Recently, 53 Senators signed a bipartisan letter asking Secretary 
Glickman whether there are payments being made to those who do not 
share risk in agriculture--risk in a specific farming operation. If 
that is occurring we have requested in the letter to Secretary Glickman 
that the proper disciplinary action for any official approving payments 
in this manner be administered. But if this is not happening, I 
apologize for my colleagues who have delayed the process by making 
baseless claims due to their own ignorance.

  So the action we take today guarantees the future stability of the 
family farmer and the agricultural economy. It is with this in mind 
that I support this cloture motion and hope this bill passes, because 
within 10 days after getting this bill signed by the President, this 
money can be distributed to the farmers of America.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Democratic leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know we are close to running out of 
time. I will use my leader time to make a few comments on the pending 
conference report.
  I come to the same conclusion as the distinguished Senator from Iowa, 
and I would like to elaborate, if I could, briefly on why I have come 
to that conclusion.
  I believe we ought to be supportive of this conference report, but I 
must say I am deeply disappointed that we have to be in this position 
in the first place. This is a badly flawed bill from many perspectives. 
I strongly disagree with using the AMTA mechanism as the only mechanism 
by which we provide resources to those in need. As a result of our 
reliance on AMTA, there will be thousands of people no longer directly 
involved in agriculture who are going to get payments of over five and 
a half billion dollars. Our view is that that is a tragedy, given the 
limited resources we have available to us and the extraordinary need to 
ensure that resources are spent in the most prudent fashion. They will 
not be, in large measure, because of the formula incorporated in this 
language.

  I also am very deeply concerned about the fact that there is no loan 
availability in this bill. There are going to be farmers who are going 
to be turned away from banks throughout the country. When they are 
turned away, as is happening on many occasions, farmers go to the Farm 
Service Agency to ensure they can get the resources they need.
  Let us be clear. There is no recourse as a result of this 
legislation. Farmers have no opportunity to get alternative loan 
availability because there is no money in this bill for loans. For that 
reason, too, I am very concerned about the deficiencies in this 
legislation.
  As most of us know, we have lost a substantial number of our pork 
producers. The number of pork producers in South Dakota has diminished 
substantially in recent years. In fact, we have lost a large portion of 
the percentage of our hog producers in the last year in large measure 
because of the disastrous crisis they are now facing. There is not $1 
in here for livestock producers involved in pork production. As a 
result, our pork producers have no hope of obtaining any kind of 
assistance as a result of this legislation.
  I must say we also are deeply concerned about the impact this 
legislation could have, if this is the last word on the circumstances 
those in the Northeast currently are facing. They have experienced 
serious drought. Other parts of the country have faced other serious 
farm disasters. The disaster assistance in this package is absolutely 
unacceptable. The $1.2 billion is a fraction of what will be required 
if we are going to meet all of the obligations this country should and 
must meet to address disaster needs, especially in the Northeast, in 
the coming 12 months. We have an extraordinary deficiency with regard 
to disaster assistance.
  As a result of that as well, I am deeply troubled that we are faced 
with a very untenable choice: vote for this, and get some assistance 
out to those who will receive it, in time for it to do some good, or do 
nothing and hope that somehow in some way at some time we can resolve 
this matter before the end of the session.
  I sadly come to the conclusion that what we have to do is take what 
we can get now, to take what we have been able to put in the bank now, 
and keep fighting to address all of these deficiencies before the end 
of this session. I have said just now to my colleagues in the Northeast 
that we will not rest, we will not be satisfied until we have 
adequately addressed their needs in disaster assistance before the end 
of this session. We will make that point with whatever vehicles we have 
available to us, appropriations or otherwise. It is absolutely 
essential that we provide that assistance before the end of this year 
and send a clear message that we understand the gravity of their 
circumstances and are prepared to address it.
  I might also say that we have to look also at an array of policy 
considerations. My view is that we are in this box in large measure 
because we created it ourselves. Those who voted for Freedom to Farm 
are coming to the realization that clearly this is a situation that has 
to be resolved through public policy, in new farm policy, with the 
creation of a safety net, with the creation of market incentives to 
create more of a balance between supply and demand than what we have 
right now.
  That is a debate for another day. We are left with a choice about 
whether or not we provide $8.7 billion in aid now, as poor as the 
vehicle may be, to people who need it so badly. I will vote yes, and I 
encourage my colleagues to do likewise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a 
letter addressed to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
strongly endorsing the method of payment used for the disaster 
assistance portion of this bill from the American Soybean Association 
and other groups be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
record, as follows:

     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Stevens: We are well aware that some have 
     encouraged conferees on the FY00 agricultural appropriations 
     bill to use alternative forms of funding emergency farm 
     income disaster assistance rather

[[Page S12417]]

     than supplemental Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA) 
     payments.
       In Secretary Glickman's September 15 testimony before the 
     House Agricultural Committee, he says ``To be sure, there is 
     an immediate need to provide cash assistance to mitigate low 
     prices, falling incomes, and in some areas, falling land 
     values. Congress should enact a new program to target 
     assistance to farmers of 1999 crops suffering from low 
     prices. The Administration believes the income assistance 
     component must address the shortcomings of the farm bill by 
     providing counter-cyclical assistance.'' He goes on to say, 
     ``The income assistance should compensate for today's low 
     prices and therefore they should be paid according to this 
     year's actual production of the major field crops, including 
     oilseeds, not a formula based on an artificial calculation 
     done a decade ago.''
       Mr. Chairman, we strongly disagree with that philosophy. 
     The current economic distress is partly a result of the 
     unfulfilled promises of expanded export markets, reduced 
     regulations, and tax reform that were part of the promises 
     made during deliberation of the 1996 farm bill. The costs of 
     these unfulfilled promises fall upon those people who were 
     participating in farm programs at that time.
       The AMTA payment process is in place and can deliver 
     payments quickly. The administrative costs of developing an 
     alternative method of payments would be very high and eat 
     into funds that should go to farmers. Given the 7\1/2\ months 
     it took the Department to issue weather disaster aid last 
     year, we are unwilling to risk that producers might have to 
     wait that long for development and implementation of a new 
     farm economy disaster aid formula. Time is also critical for 
     suppliers of goods and services to producers. They need 
     payments for supplies now to stay in business, not just 
     promises that something will happen in the future.
       Supplemental AMTA payments provide income to producers of 
     corn, wheat, cotton, rice, barley, and grain sorghum. Soybean 
     producers will receive separate payments under the Senate 
     Agricultural Appropriations language. Crop cash receipts for 
     these producers in 1999 will be down over 20 percent from the 
     1995-97 yearly average. Producers who have smaller than 
     normal crops due to weather problems will receive normal 
     payment levels. This is better than using the loan deficiency 
     payment program (LDPs) which are directly tied to this year's 
     production.
       We urge you to retain the $5.5 billion in supplemental AMTA 
     payments as the method of distribution for farm economy aid 
     in the agricultural appropriations conference agreement. Any 
     alternative would certainly take additional time to provide 
     assistance to producers--time which we cannot afford.
           Sincerely,
         American Farm Bureau Federation; American Soybean 
           Association; National Association of Wheat Growers; 
           National Corn Growers Association; Nation Cotton 
           Council; National Grain Sorghum Producers; National 
           Sunflower Association; U.S. Canola Association; USA 
           Rice Federation.


                            freeman lake dam

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the conference report making 
appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies which is currently 
before the Senate contains language under the Watershed and Flood 
Prevention Operations account of the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, NRCS, to utilize Emergency Watershed Protection Program monies 
to perform rehabilitation of designated dams constructed under the 
agency's watershed program. Is this correct?
  Mr. COCHRAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask the distinguished Chairman of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee if the conference report directs NRCS to 
provide financial assistance for the Freeman Lake Dam located in 
Elizabethtown, Kentucky?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I assure the gentleman from Kentucky that the Conference 
Report does contain the language as he has described.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Chairman for including this project in the 
conference report. The Freeman Lake Dam is in dire need of 
rehabilitation, and the safety of the community rests upon the 
integrity of this dam. Finally, I would ask the gentleman from 
Mississippi, is it the conference's intent that funding to rehabilitate 
this dam comes from existing Emergency Watershed Protection program 
funds, since this structure represents a serious threat to life and 
property.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the chairman.


                      food and drug administration

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about certain aspects 
of the FY 2000 funding level for the Food and Drug Administration. My 
greatest concern is that while the FY 2000 conference report provides 
about $70 million over FDA's 1999 funding level of $982,217 million, 
this is about $90 million below the agency's FY 1999 request of $1.142 
billion.
  While the conference report for FY 2000 does fund important new 
initiatives within the FDA such as food safety programs, other key 
priorities are not accommodated such as $20.4 million for phase I 
funding for construction of the agency's Los Angeles laboratory 
facility and $15.3 million for improvements to FDA's adverse event 
reporting system.
  I thank the chairman for allowing me to bring these vital issues to 
his attention. If Congress can find resources to fund these important 
priorities, the American public will reap great benefits. Finally, I 
commend him for your demonstrated leadership and expertise in financing 
the operations FDA and I look forward to continuing to work with you on 
funding this key public health agency.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Utah for his comments regarding 
funding for the Food and Drug Administration. As the Senator knows, the 
Congress is required to comply with fiscal year 2000 budget caps on 
discretionary spending. Unlike the President's budget, we do not have 
the luxury of being able to offset appropriations' increases with 
savings from questionable scoring tactics, or from new user fee and 
other proposed legislation which has not won the support of the 
appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress.
  I understand the Senator's concern that this conference agreement 
does not provide the full fiscal year 2000 level requested for the FDA. 
However, it does provide the FDA with a substantial increase in funding 
from the fiscal year 1999 level to provide the amount requested for two 
of FDA's highest priority activities--food safety and premarket review. 
I can assure my colleague from Utah that we will continue to review the 
funding needs of this critical public health agency and consider future 
requests of the agency to enhance funding for its essential activities, 
including those which he has brought to our attention here today.


                        wic program requirements

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the conference 
report on H.R. 1906, the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies. Included in this 
Act is more than $4 billion for the Special Supplemental Nutrition 
Program for Women, Infants, and Children commonly known as the WIC 
program. This is one of the most successful programs provided by the 
federal government, and I am glad to see that an increase above last 
year's level is provided in this Act.
  However, I have concerns about language in the statement of managers 
to accompany this conference report about the WIC program. This 
language relates to the so-called ``sugar cap'' and I would like to ask 
my friend from Wisconsin, the ranking member of the appropriations 
subcommittee, about this specific provision.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Michigan, and he is correct, there 
is language in the statement of managers that instructs the Department 
of agriculture not to make any exceptions to the WIC sugar cap.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask the Senator, did this or any similar language appear 
in either the House or Senate measures before the conference committee 
convened?
  Mr. KOHL. This particular language was offered in the conference 
committee, and it does not appear in either the House or Senate 
versions of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bills or reports.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. I was surprised to learn that 
language relating to specific nutritional policy of the USDA--policy 
that has been the subject of significant study and debate within the 
agency for years--that language which appears to reach a conclusion on 
the outcome of years of study has been slipped into the fiscal year 
2000 appropriations report. This language appeared, deus ex machina, at 
the very last minute and without discussion by all the conferees. 
Thankfully, the language is not binding on USDA, so the agency can 
continue with their

[[Page S12418]]

decision making process, without being bound by the language in the 
conference report.
  Substantively, the report language conflicts with the USDA's own 
recommendations on children's diets. When the National Association of 
WIC Directors and the USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion 
both urge people to add fruit to their cereal, it is irrational and 
incoherent to deny people the opportunity to obtain fruit in their 
cereal. But that is what the report language would accomplish.
  USDA should make a determination on how the sugar cap on breakfast 
cereals in the WIC package of foods should be calculated and how best 
to incorporate fruit into WIC participants' diets. The agency should 
bring nutritional science and common sense to the task, and it should 
ensure that the rule is consistent with the nutritional recommendations 
that it makes regarding children's diets.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague that the 
USDA, which has the expertise to make an informed decision about the 
value of fruit and other foods in children's diets should be left alone 
to design the composition of the WIC food packages. Over the past 
several years, the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill has become a vehicle for the debate surrounding the 
content of sugar in certain foods eligible for inclusion in the WIC 
program. More recently, the fiscal year 1999 Statement of Managers 
instructed the Department to provide $300,000 for a study by the 
National academy of Sciences on this issue, which was not conducted. 
Now, the fiscal year 2000 Statement of Managers includes language 
directing that no exception to the sugar cap be made. I assume that 
this pattern of direction is as frustrating to all of us as it is to 
WIC program administrators, participants, and suppliers.
  Our goal, quite simply, should be to promote a healthy diet for all 
Americans. USDA nutrition policy should consider the totality of U.S. 
eating habits and aim for consumer education and program implementation 
that deals with a person's overall diet rather than one burdened by 
requirements attached in a piecemeal fashion.
  It is unfortunate that the grip of political consideration has taken 
hold of a matter best left to nutritionists and those trained in the 
science of public health. It is also unfortunate that the result has 
been inconsistent policy development where certain nutritional 
limitations have been imposed on some components of USDA nutrition 
programs, but not on others. This issue should be resolved by experts 
who can best determine dietary guidelines properly suited for all 
Americans. My intent also does not suggest that USDA nutrition programs 
should be made more complicated than they are, but that a simple 
injection of common sense should prove refreshing and, hopefully, a 
basis for sound public policy.
  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the view of the Senators from Michigan and 
California regarding this issue. For many years, I too have grown 
concerned by the trend away from healthy food choices and toward eating 
patterns that may lead to tremendous health care costs in the future. 
To the extent that human health is a result or human choices, there is 
probably no better example than in what we choose to eat.
  In my opinion, American consumers receive too much persuasion 
regarding diet from our popular culture and far too little from those 
best qualified to provide good counsel. In the instance of the matter 
raised by the Senator from Michigan, I am not sure what benefits to 
public policy are achieved by an never ending discussion within 
political circles where expertise in human nutrition is probably 
lacking. Does this send a good strong message to the American consumer 
regarding the right choices to make regarding nutrition? I hardly think 
so.
  It is time, it is long time, for politicians to step back and let the 
experts decide what is best for the American consumer. The Senator from 
Michigan makes some valid points regarding the need for a common sense 
approach to nutrition and public health. I hope the Department of 
agriculture recognizes that their responsibly transcends the political 
winds where some matters, such as sound nutritional advice, have no 
place. I would not expect doctors at the Mayo Clinic to take my advice 
on how to proceed with a delicate operation. Further, I would not 
expect nutrition experts at USDA to take my advice on what details best 
constitute a totally balance diet for a certain population beyond my 
suggestion that they use their best judgement base don their knowledge 
and experience. If they don't follow those standards it is unclear why 
they are there in the first place.


                           tobacco provisions

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the tobacco 
provisions of this bill, will provide an additional $328,000,000 in 
funds for farmers who produce the major cigarette tobaccos--burley and 
flue-cured tobacco. It is those farmers who have been the most affected 
by recent developments with respect to the manufacture and use of 
cigarettes. It is those farmers also who are the subject of the recent 
``Phase II Settlement'' in which moneys are being made available to 
burley and flue-cured tobacco growers through the use of State trusts. 
It is also my understanding that the bill's reference to those farms 
who receive ``quotas'' under the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938, is 
intentional, and does limit the relief, to burley and flue-cured 
tobacco. The reference to ``quotas'' is to poundage quotas and burley 
and flue-cured tobacco are the only tobaccos under the current 
regulatory scheme that receive poundage ``quotas'' as opposed to 
acreage allotments. This limitation to burley and flue-cured tobaccos 
is intentional and reflects recent developments.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies 
Appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2000.
  The conference report provides $68.6 billion in new budget authority 
(BA) and $48.5 billion in new outlays to fund most of the programs of 
the Department of Agriculture and other related agencies. Within this 
amount, $8.7 billion in BA, and $8.3 billion in outlays is designated 
as emergency spending for farmers who have experienced weather-related 
disasters, and for additional market transition payments to compensate 
farmers for depressed commodity prices. All of the discretionary 
funding in this bill is nondefense spending. When outlays from prior-
year appropriations and other adjustments are taken into account, the 
conference report totals $73.0 billion in BA and $55.7 billion in 
outlays for FY 2000.
  The Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 302(b) conference 
allocation totals $73.0 billion in BA and $55.7 billion in outlays. 
Within this amount, $22.7 billion in BA and $22.6 billion in outlays is 
for nondefense discretionary spending, of which $8.7 billion in BA, and 
$8.3 billion in outlays are designated as emergency spending. For 
discretionary spending in the bill, and counting (scoring) all the 
mandatory savings in the bill, the conference report is at the 
Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation in BA and outlays. It is $8.7 billion 
in BA and $8.5 billion in outlays above the 1999 level for 
discretionary spending, $1.1 billion in BA and $1.0 billion in outlays 
above the Senate-passed bill, and $8.2 billion in BA and $7.7 billion 
in outlays above the President's request for these programs.
  I recognize the difficulty of bringing this bill to the floor at its 
302(b) allocation. I appreciate the committee's support for a number of 
ongoing projects and programs important to my home State of New Mexico 
as it has worked to keep this bill within its budget allocation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Senate Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   H.R. 1906, AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS, 2000, SPENDING COMPARISONS--
                            CONFERENCE REPORT
               [Fiscal year 2000, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
                                     Purpose   Crime  Mandatory   Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
  Budget authority................    22,687  ......    50,295    72,982
  Outlays.........................    22,578  ......    33,088    55,666

[[Page S12419]]

 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority................    22,687  ......    50,295    72,982
  Outlays.........................    22,578  ......    33,088    55,666
1999 level:
  Budget authority................    14,005  ......    41,460    55,465
  Outlays.........................    14,093  ......    33,429    47,522
President's request:
  Budget authority................    14,520  ......    50,295    64,815
  Outlays.........................    14,831  ......    33,088    47,919
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority................    13,882  ......    50,295    64,177
  Outlays.........................    14,508  ......    33,088    47,596
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority................    21,619  ......    50,295    71,914
  Outlays.........................    21,532  ......    33,088    54,620
 
  CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority................  ........  ......  .........  .......
  Outlays.........................  ........  ......  .........  .......
1999 level:
  Budget authority................     8,682  ......     8,835    17,517
  Outlays.........................     8,485  ......      -341     8,144
President's request:
  Budget authority................     8,167  ......  .........    8,167
  Outlays.........................     7,747  ......  .........    7,747
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority................     8,805  ......  .........    8,805
  Outlays.........................     8,070  ......  .........    8,070
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority................     1,068  ......  .........    1,068
  Outlays.........................     1,046  ......  .........    1,046
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my 
disappointment that the agriculture appropriations conference report 
that Congress is sending to the President does not ratify a Southern 
Dairy Compact that 14 state legislatures have approved.
  I recently met with several dairy farmers from Tennessee who stressed 
to me the importance of the Southern Dairy Compact to their farms' 
survival. Dramatic fluctuations in the price of milk continue, and it 
is increasingly difficult for these family farms, many of which have 
been passed down from one generation to the next, to hang on during the 
hard times. Let me illustrate how dire the situation is: in the last 
two years, 400 dairy farms in Tennessee have been forced out of 
business, reducing the total number of farms producing Grade-A milk in 
the state to under 1,000 for first time since anyone started counting.
  Today I will vote to cut off a filibuster on the agriculture 
appropriations conference report because America's farmers are in 
urgent need of the disaster assistance the bill provides and cannot 
afford any delay in its delivery, but I am no less committed to the 
establishment of a Southern Dairy Compact. I believe it would provide 
the stability in milk prices that dairy farmers need to survive and 
would protect the region's local supply of milk. Fourteen southern 
states, including Tennessee, have voted to participate in the Southern 
Dairy Compact, and it's now up to Congress to ratify it. I will 
continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to get that done.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Cochran and his staff for 
putting together a bill that encompasses the needs of agriculture. I 
also thank Chairman Stevens for his cooperation during the agricultural 
appropriations process. I am pleased with the funding that went to my 
home State of Montana as well as to important national programs for 
agriculture.
  During this economic crisis in agriculture, immediate funding needs 
of farmers and ranchers must be addressed. I believe this bill does 
that. The $8.7 billion package contains important funding for 
Agricultural Marketing Transition Act, AMTA payments for wheat and 
barley producers in Montana, as well as $322 million for livestock 
producers and $650 million in crop insurance.
  Additionally, I am thrilled that price reporting was included in the 
final bill at my request. I have been trying to secure price reporting 
for our livestock producers for quite some time now. This legislation 
will provide producers with the information they need to make prudent 
marketing decisions, and take the control out of the hands of the meat 
packers.
  Four major packers control 79% of the meat-packing industry. It is 
necessary to have this price reporting information accessible to 
producers so that they may take advantage of the best possible market 
opportunities available. Additionally, they must have the assurance 
that they are receiving accurate data.
  The majority of livestock producers in Montana sell their feeder 
calves to feeder markets, which are highly concentrated. Increased 
concentration within the agricultural industry provides them fewer and 
fewer options open for marketing. Price reporting will increase market 
transparency and present producers an accurate view of the market.
  The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the American Sheep 
Industry, and the National Pork Producers Council worked extensively 
with State producer organizations and the packers to craft a bill that 
will work for everyone and directly benefit producers. The end result 
of this work is the legislation included in agricultural appropriations 
as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Agriculture on July 29, 
1999. I join all of these interested parties in directing the 
Department of Agriculture and the administration generally to this 
document for use in the correct interpretation and administration of 
this important law.
  I am disappointed that policy issues such as dairy and food-related 
sanctions were eventually stripped from this bill. I believe these 
concerns must be addressed as soon as possible. I will support Option 
1-A legislation in H.R. 1402, in order to ensure my dairy farmers are 
taken care of. Additionally, I will support Senator Ashcroft in his 
efforts to exempt food and medicine from sanctioned countries. American 
farmers and ranchers stand much to lose by not having all viable 
markets open to them.
  Again, I thank the fine chairman, Mr. Cochran, for all his good work 
on this bill. I will continue to work for Montana farmers and ranchers 
to make sure they make not only a decent living but one that is 
profitable and fulfilling.
  I thank the Chair.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             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 conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 1906, the Agriculture appropriations 
     bill:

         Trent Lott, Thad Cochran, Tim Hutchinson, Conrad Burns, 
           Christopher S. Bond, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Robert F. 
           Bennett, Craig Thomas, Pat Roberts, Paul Coverdell, 
           Larry E. Craig, Michael B. Enzi, Mike Crapo, Frank H. 
           Murkowski, Don Nickles, and Pete Domenici.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call under the rule has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 1906, the Agriculture 
appropriations bill, 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.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, is 
absent because of illness in the family.
  The yeas and nay resulted--yeas 79, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 322 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--20

     Biden
     Chafee
     Collins
     Gregg
     Jeffords
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dodd
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 79, the nays are 
20.

[[Page S12420]]

 Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Mississippi is 
recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I will propound 
the following unanimous consent request which has been cleared, I am 
told, on both sides of the aisle. It relates to the further handling of 
the Agriculture conference report.
  I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 9:30 a.m. 
on Wednesday there be up to 5 hours equally divided for debate between 
Senator Cochran and the minority manager or his designee, with an 
additional hour under the control of Senator Wellstone, on the 
Agriculture appropriations conference report, and that following the 
use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of 
the conference report without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have been authorized, on behalf of the 
leader, to announce, for the information of all Senators, there will be 
no more votes tonight.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________