[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 138 (Wednesday, October 13, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12474-S12504]
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--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report on the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill. I 
regret very much having to do this because I appreciate the fact that 
all across our country, farmers are in need of assistance. I recognize 
that it is important to try to get some of these programs out to them. 
But I am very frank to tell the Senate that I think the conference

[[Page S12475]]

badly overlooked the pressing problems which the farmers in the 
Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic are facing. I can't, in good conscience, 
support a bill which simply fails to take into account the situation 
with which we are confronted, a situation which is unparalleled.
  Steven Weber, President of the Maryland Farm Bureau, was recently 
quoted as saying:

       This is not just another crisis. This is the worst string 
     of dry summers and the worst run of crop years since the 
     1930s. Talk to the old-timers. They haven't seen anything 
     like it since they were young.
       Our farmers have been absolutely devastated by the weather 
     we have experienced, not only over this past farming season 
     but in previous ones leading up to it as well. We face a very 
     pressing situation.''

  In addition, I think this bill fails to address the needs of our 
dairy farmers. I will discuss that issue subsequently. First, I want to 
address the disaster assistance.
  Most of the disaster assistance that is available under existing 
programs is in the form of low-interest loans for those who have been 
rejected twice by commercial lenders. What this approach fails to 
recognize is that our farmers have been hit with a double whammy. First 
of all, they had the low commodity prices which farmers all across the 
country have confronted; and in addition, in our particular situation, 
our farmers were confronted by severe drought problems, as I have 
indicated, unparalleled in the memory of those now farming for more 
than half a century. Low-interest loans simply won't work to address 
the collective and drastic impact of these factors.
  Recognizing that, we sought substantially more and more direct 
disaster assistance in the Conference Agreement. And the response that 
the Conferees made to this request--the $1.2 billion that is in this 
bill--is clearly inadequate. The Secretary of Agriculture estimated 
that in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic, we needed $1.5 to $2 billion just 
for those States alone. Never mind, of course, comparable damage, 
either drought or floods, that have occurred in other parts of the 
country which also need assistance. Indeed, it should not be our goal 
to identify an amount of funding where we have to take from one to give 
to the other. These states need assistance as well. What we are arguing 
is that this package ought to be comprehensive enough to meet the needs 
in the agricultural sector all across the country. I appreciate that 
other parts of the country have been hit with droughts and floods and 
that we must address these needs as well, but the amount provided in 
this conference report for disaster assistance is clearly inadequate to 
accomplish this goal. The amount that this legislation provides and 
that which will eventually make its way into the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic 
States will not enable us to confront the problem bleakly staring our 
farmers in the face.
  We wrote to the conferees, a number of us from this region of the 
country, asking them to consider the following measures. I regret that 
very little weight was given to this request. All of them, I think, are 
exceedingly reasonable requests, and had they been addressed, it would 
have affected, obviously, the perspective I take on this legislation.
  We asked the conference committee to consider the following measures: 
First, crop loss disaster assistance programs that provide direct 
payments to producers based on actual losses of 1999 plantings. These 
payments could be drawn from the Commodity Credit Corporation funds 
without an arbitrary limit. The arbitrary limit currently in the 
agreement precludes comprehensive assistance and delays the 
availability of the assistance. We asked that yield loss thresholds and 
payment levels be determined in advance so the payments can be made to 
producers as soon as they apply, rather than providing a fixed amount 
which would require all producers to apply before a payment factor can 
be determined and payments can be issued. We asked for this measure 
because these farmers need the help now. They need it quickly. They are 
under terrific pressure.
  Secondly, we asked the committee to consider sufficient livestock 
feed assistance, which addresses losses in pasture and forage for 
livestock operations, provides direct payments to producers based on a 
percentage of their supplemental feed needs, determined in advance to 
speed payments and avoids prorating.
  Thirdly, we requested the conference to consider credit assistance 
which addresses the needs of producers who have experienced natural and 
market loss disasters.
  Fourthly, we asked the conference for adequate funding to employ 
additional staff for the Farm Service Agency and the National Resource 
Conservation Service so they could swiftly and expeditiously implement 
various assistance programs at the State and local level.
  Finally, we requested cooperative and/or reimbursable agreements that 
would enable USDA to assist in cases where a State is providing State-
funded disaster assistance.
  All of these, had they been responded to as we sought, would have 
given us an opportunity to address the situation in our region, not 
only in a forthright manner but one that would accommodate the pressing 
crisis which we confront. As we indicated, this crisis has reached 
overwhelming proportions. We risk losing a substantial part of the 
region's critical agricultural sector. The measures in this conference 
report, I regret to say, are not sufficient, nor sufficiently focused 
on the needs of the Eastern States to address their problems. That is 
one major reason I oppose this conference report and will vote against 
it.
  Secondly, this conference report deals with the dairy issue in a way 
that is harmful to our region. By failing to adopt option 1-A and 
disallowing the extension of the authorization of the Northeast Dairy 
Compact, the conference agreement has left our dairy farmers 
confronting a situation of instability. Milk prices have been moving up 
and down as if they were on a roller coaster. Our dairy farmers have 
been subjected to wide and frequent swings, which place our dairy 
producers in situations where they don't have the cash-flow to meet 
their costs in a given month. The price goes up; the price comes down. 
It takes an enormous toll on the industry in our State and elsewhere in 
the east.
  As a result of these fluctuations, the number of dairy farmers in 
Maryland has been declining markedly over the last 2 decades. We fear 
that if this process continues, we are going to see the extinction of a 
critical component of our dairy industry and the farm economy; that is, 
the family-run dairy farm. Indeed, my concern is primarily focused on 
family farmers and on sustaining their presence as part of the dairy 
sector.
  The Maryland General Assembly passed legislation to enable Maryland 
to join the Northeast Dairy Compact. They also took measures in that 
legislation to ensure that the interests of consumers, low-income 
households and processors, would be protected when a farm milk price 
was established. In fact, a representative from those groups would be 
on the compact commission, as well as from the dairy industry itself. 
Other states that are a part of the Compact or want to participate have 
taken the measures to protect same interests. And we believe this 
established a reasonable solution to provide stable income for those in 
the dairy industry, particularly family dairy farmers.
  But the conference denied what I regard as a fair and reasoned 
approach--in refusing to extend the authorization of the compact, and 
therefore, committed our region's dairy industry to a continuance of 
this unstable and volatile environment.
  Mr. President, agriculture is an important economic actor in the 
state of Maryland. It contributes significantly to our State's economy. 
It employs hundreds of thousands of people in one way or another. We 
really are seeking, I think, fair and equitable treatment. I don't 
think this legislation contains a fair and equitable solution for the 
crisis that faces farmers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. 
Indeed, it seems to ignore the fact that we have farmers as well. The 
only farmers in the country are not in sectors other than the Northeast 
and Mid-Atlantic and the needs of all of our farmers should have been 
addressed in this legislation.
  The Farm Bureau has written me a letter urging a vote against 
adoption of the conference report. I ask unanimous consent that this 
letter be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

[[Page S12476]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SARBANES. They write:

       Maryland Farm Bureau believes that many of the provisions 
     in the economic disaster relief package are important and 
     necessary. We are concerned, however, that the adoption of 
     the conference report as drafted will not meet Maryland's 
     drought disaster needs. We also believe that the absence of 
     the Option 1A dairy language will have long-term negative 
     impacts on the State's dairy industry.

  I agree with that. We should reject this package, go back to 
conference, and develop a package that addresses the dairy issue, 
allows us to develop the compact to give some stability and diminished 
volatility in the industry, and also increases the drought assistance 
package so it adequately and directly meets the needs of the farmers of 
our region.
  The conference agreement should have done better by these very hard-
working men and women, these small farm families. And because it has 
not--as much as I appreciate the pressing needs of agriculture 
elsewhere in the country, and as much as I, in the past, have been 
supportive of those needs--we in the region must take measures to have 
our farmers' needs addressed in the current context. We have 
experienced a very difficult and rough period for Maryland agriculture, 
and for agriculture generally in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. 
Because this crisis is not adequately addressed in this conference 
report, I intend to vote against it.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                   Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc.,

                               Randallstown, MD, October 12, 1999.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing to urge you to vote 
     against adoption of the conference report on Agricultural 
     Appropriations when it is considered on the floor tomorrow.
       Maryland Farm Bureau believes that many of the provisions 
     in the economic disaster relief package are important and 
     necessary. We are concerned, however, that the adoption of 
     the conference report as drafted will not meet Maryland's 
     drought disaster needs. We also believe that the absence of 
     the Option 1A dairy language will have long-term negative 
     impacts on the state's dairy industry.
       I urge you to vote to send the agricultural appropriations 
     conference report back to the conferees with instructions 
     that they add the Option 1A dairy language and that they 
     increase the drought assistance package to adequately meet 
     the needs of mid-Atlantic farmers.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Stephen L. Weber,
                                                        President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I 
commend my colleague for his comments. He could have easily been 
speaking on behalf of the State of Connecticut in talking about the 
particular concerns of his home State of Maryland. In a moment, I will 
explain why I also have serious reservations about this bill. But his 
point that the New England States, the Northeast, contribute 
significantly to the agricultural well-being of this country is well 
founded.
  I know Secretary Glickman came to Maryland and he came to Connecticut 
during the drought this past summer. The exact number eludes me, but it 
was surprisingly high, the number of farmers and the significant 
portion of agricultural production that occurs east of the Mississippi 
and north of the Mason-Dixon line, or near north of the Mason-Dixon 
line.
  So when we talk about these issues, it may seem as if it is more sort 
of hobby farms to people, but for many people in Maryland and for the 
4,000 people in Connecticut who make a living in agriculture--these are 
not major agricultural centers, but in a State of 3.5 million people, 
where 4,000 families annually depend upon agriculture as a source of 
income, it is not insignificant.
  So when you have a bill that virtually excludes people from Maryland, 
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania from 
receiving some help during a time of crisis, I hope our colleagues who 
come from the States that benefit from this bill, who I know have 
enjoyed the support of the Senator from Maryland, this Senator, and 
others during times of crisis, because we have seen a flood in the 
Midwest, or a drought in the Midwest, or cyclones and hurricanes that 
have devastated agriculture in other parts of our country--I never 
considered my voting to support people in those areas as somehow a 
regional vote. When I vote to support a farmer who has lost his 
livelihood because of a natural disaster, I think I am voting to 
strengthen my country, not to help out a particular farmer in a State 
that I don't represent.
  So when we have a drought in the Northeast, as we did, a record 
drought this year that wiped out farmers, caused them to lose 
significant income, to lose farms and the like, and then to have a bill 
that comes before us that disregards this natural disaster--in my 
State, $41 million was lost as a result of the drought--I am 
disappointed. My colleagues may have stronger words to use. I am 
terribly disappointed, as someone who, year after year, has been 
supportive of particular agricultural needs, although I didn't directly 
represent them, that our colleagues in the House and Senate could not 
see fit to provide some financial help beyond, as my colleague from 
Maryland said, the loan program, which is not much help. We don't have 
crop insurance for my row croppers. The small farmers don't get crop 
insurance. When they get wiped out or lose income, they have to depend 
upon some direct payment. A loan program is of little or no assistance 
to them.
  I am terribly disappointed that this bill excludes those farmers from 
the eastern part of the United States. It was the worst drought that 
has hit our region in decades. Congressional delegations throughout the 
region have consistently supported our colleagues in other regions when 
their States have suffered catastrophic floods, hurricanes, and 
earthquakes. We don't understand why it is so difficult for the eastern 
part of the country to convey to our colleagues how massive the 
devastation has been to our small farmers. As I have said, in my State 
alone, it is $41 million. In other States, the numbers may be higher. I 
represent a small State.

  The dairy industry is one of the major agricultural interests in our 
region. It has gotten a double hit in this legislation--inadequate 
drought relief assistance and the exclusion of provisions that would 
have extended the Northeast Dairy Compact. On top of the drought 
losses, our farmers will lose an additional $100 million if the new 
milk marketing pricing goes forward.
  While I am heartened by the recently issued court injunction 
postponing the implementation of the new pricing scheme, quite frankly, 
this is only a short-term solution and is no substitute for affirmative 
action taken by the Congress. Northeast dairy farmers are deserving of 
the same kinds of assistance we offer to the agricultural sectors in 
other parts of the country. I believe it is grossly unfair that this 
conference report has chosen to ignore their plight.
  We should not be placing one part of the country against another. I 
don't want to see a midwestern farmer or a western farmer be adversely 
affected by votes we cast here. But, likewise, I don't want to see 
farming interests in my State or my region of the country be harmed as 
a result of our unwillingness to provide some relief when they 
absolutely need it to survive.
  Inadequate drought relief and the exclusion of the Northeast Dairy 
Compact would be reason enough to vote against the legislation before 
us today. But I want to raise another issue that has caused a lot of 
consternation during the debate on this Agriculture appropriations 
bill. I am referring to the amendment offered by the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, myself, and Senator Hagel of 
Nebraska. The House leadership literally hijacked this piece of 
legislation and denied the normal democratic process to work when it 
came to this measure that was adopted overwhelmingly in the Senate by a 
margin of 70-28--by any measure, an overwhelming vote of 
bipartisanship. This measure would have ended unilateral sanctions on 
the sale of U.S. food and medicine to countries around the globe.
  The amendment had broad-based support from farm organizations across 
the country which, time and time again, have been forced to pay the 
price of lost income when Congress has decided to ``get tough'' with 
dictators

[[Page S12477]]

and bar farm exports. Farmers, over the years, have rightfully noted 
that, although in some cases sanctions have been in place for 40 years, 
there is nothing in the way of positive foreign policy results to show 
for these sanctions.
  On the other hand, the losses to our farmers are measurable and 
substantial--in the billions of dollars annually--as a result of these 
unilateral sanctions on food and medicine we have imposed for years.
  Church groups and humanitarian organizations have joined farm 
organizations in strongly opposing use of food and medicine as 
sanctions weapons on moral grounds.
  Ironically, U.S. sanctions--particularly ones on food and medicine--
have been used as an instrument by hostile governments to shore up 
domestic support and retain power, the very power that we are allegedly 
trying to change through the use of sanctions actually having 
contributed to these dictators staying in power for as many years as 
some of them have. Whether or not the United States is fully 
responsible for the suffering of these men, women, and children in 
these targeted countries, it is hard to convince many of them that the 
United States means them no ill will when we deny them the access to 
foodstuffs, critical medicines, and medical equipment--the reason 
seventy of our colleagues decided to end this policy of unilateral 
sanctions on food and medicine.
  Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership would not allow the 
process to work in conference. As a result, this bill was tied up for 
days over this single measure.
  Again, I compliment my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, and 
Senator Hagel, who are leaders on this, along with others in fighting 
for this provision.
  This is not a provision that is designed to help dictators. It is a 
provision to, in fact, change these dictatorial governments and to 
provide needed relief and opportunity for millions of people who are 
the innocent victims of these dictators, and not deny our own farm 
community and business interests the opportunity to sell into these 
markets and make a difference. They are prepared, of course, to deny, 
in the case of the major opposition, by the way, which comes from some 
Members.
  I want to emphasize that some members of the Cuban American community 
feel particularly strongly about the government in Cuba. I respect 
their feelings. I respect it very deeply. These families have lost 
their homes, jobs, and family members as a result of the government in 
Cuba under Fidel Castro. There is no way I can fully appreciate the 
depth of their feelings and passions about this. As I say, I respect 
that.
  The exile community is not unfounded in its deep concerns about what 
has happened on the island of Cuba.
  Before I make any comments about the island of Cuba and what goes on 
there, I want it to be as clear as I can possibly make it that my 
sympathies, my heartfelt sympathies go to the exiled community that 
lives in this country and elsewhere. Their passions, I understand and 
accept, and I am tremendously sympathetic.
  But I must say as well that there are 11 million Cubans who live on 
that island 90 miles off our shores who are suffering and hurting 
badly. Arguably, the problem exists with the government there. I don't 
deny that. But to impose a sanction for 40 years on the same of food 
and medicine to 11 million people in this country also is not 
warranted.
  While we may want to change the government in Cuba--and that may 
happen in time--we shouldn't be compounding the problem by denying the 
sale of food and medicine to these people.
  Many people say they won't set foot on Cuban soil while Castro 
remains in power. I understand that as well. But don't deny the 11 
million people in Cuba the opportunity to at least have basic food 
supplies and medicine. It seems to me that--in fact I believe--a 
majority of the Cuban American people in this country have similar 
feelings. Their voices are not heard as often as is oftentimes the case 
when a minority view is extremely vocal and can dominate. But I believe 
the vast majority of Cuban Americans feel strongly about Fidel Castro, 
want him out of power, and want democracy to come to their country but 
simultaneously believe the 11 million people with whom they share a 
common heritage ought not to be denied food and medicine by the United 
States.

  To make my point, these Cuban Americans try on their own to do what 
they can by sending small packages to loved ones and family members and 
friends who live in Cuba. Others travel to deliver medicines. Some 
150,000 Cuban Americans travel annually to go into Cuba to bring 
whatever they can to help out family members and friends. However, 
these gestures of generosity are no substitute for commercial sales of 
such products if the public health and nutritional need of 11 million 
people are going to be met.
  Unfortunately, the antidemocratic forces have succeeded in stripping 
the Ashcroft-Dodd-Hagel amendment from this bill. I hope enough of my 
colleagues will vote against this legislation to prevent its adoption. 
We can delay a few days, send this measure back to conference, and 
reestablish this language that was supported overwhelmingly, and I 
think supported in the House of Representatives, the other body, as 
well, and bring the measure back.
  If this measure goes forward without the inclusion of the Dodd-Hagel-
Ashcroft amendment, rest assured we will be back on this floor offering 
similar amendments at every opportunity that presents itself, and we 
will continue to do so. The day is going to come when a majority of the 
Congress and the will of the American people, including the Cuban 
Americans, I strongly suggest, is going to prevail.
  On that day, the United States will regain a moral high ground by 
ceasing forever to use food and medicine as a weapon against innocent 
people.
  I argue, as Senators Ashcroft, Hagel, Grams, and others, that the 
adoption of amendments that would allow for the lifting of unilateral 
sanctions on food and medicines will also be a major contributing 
factor to changing governments in these countries.
  Aside from helping out farmers and businesses that want to sell these 
products and the innocent people who can't have access to them in these 
countries, I believe the foreign policy implications of allowing the 
sale of food and medicine will be significant for our country and for 
the people who live under dictatorial governments.
  For those reasons, and what is being denied our farmers and 
agricultural interests in the State of Connecticut and elsewhere in the 
Northeast, and the rejection of the Ashcroft-Hagel-Dodd amendment, I 
will oppose this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do 
likewise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, some of our colleagues have denounced the 
Agriculture appropriations conference report as inadequate. I must 
agree. Without a doubt this bill is deficient.
  It fails to acknowledge the full impact of natural disasters that 
have been experienced by agricultural producers across the country.

  It fails to include adequate funding for the drought that has hit the 
Northeast.
  It fails to provide adequate funding for the hurricane damage to the 
Southeast and the Northeast.
  It fails to include adequate funding for flooded farmland in my own 
part of the country.
  This bill is also deficient in the way it got here because in the 
conference committee when it became clear that there were going to be 
steps to change the sanctions regime of this country, the minority, the 
Democrats, were simply shut out. That is wrong. That should not happen. 
But it did happen.
  So we are left with that result. As a result partly of that lockout, 
this bill fails to provide the kind of sanctions reform that ought to 
have occurred.
  In 1996 when we passed the last farm bill, the Republican leadership 
promised American farmers that what they lost in domestic supports they 
would make up through expanded export opportunities. That was a hollow 
promise. The harsh reality is that now the prices have collapsed, 
farmers are in desperate trouble, and there must be a Federal response.
  I wish this bill were better. I wish it contained adequate assistance 
for

[[Page S12478]]

those who have been hit by hurricanes. I wish it had adequate 
assistance for farmers who have had their acreage flooded. I wish it 
had sanctions reform.
  Food should not be used as a weapon. It is immoral; It is 
ineffective; and it is inhumane. But the harsh reality is we are where 
we are. We have a conference report that is flawed. Indeed, it is badly 
flawed.
  The easy thing to do would be to vote against this conference report. 
But it would not be the right thing to do. This bill is not just about 
responding to natural disasters. It also responds to the price collapse 
that has occurred and threatens the livelihood of tens of thousands of 
farmers in my State and across the country.
  The need for emergency income assistance could not be more clear.
  I can say that in my State many farmers are relying on this bill as 
their only chance for financial survival. I don't say that lightly. It 
is the reality.

  If this assistance is not passed and distributed immediately, 
literally thousands of farmers in my State are going to go out of 
business. It is that simple. A way of life and the tradition of farming 
will be lost in dozens of communities across my State. The funding in 
this bill only meets the most basic needs of our producers. Make no 
mistake, it is absolutely essential. Prices for agricultural 
commodities are at their lowest levels in 50 years in real terms. Wheat 
and barley are the lowest they have been in real terms in over 50 
years. Farm bankruptcies are rising; auctions are being held on an 
unending basis. If nothing further is done, thousands of our farmers 
will go out of the business. That is the stark reality in farm country.
  If we fail to pass this bill, we are going to mortgage the future of 
literally thousands of farm families. I think we should keep in mind 
this is not our last chance to get something done for those who have 
been so badly hurt, whether it is my farmers who have flooded acres, 
whether it is people in the Northeast and the Southeast hit by 
hurricanes, whether it is farmers in the Northeast hit by drought. 
There is another chance this year to get additional assistance. I 
sympathize with my colleagues from the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic 
States. They are not alone. In my State this year, we have been hit by 
severe storms, flooding, extreme snow and ice, ground saturation, mud 
slides, tornadoes, hail, insects, and disease. It is unbelievable what 
has happened in my State.
  Growing up in North Dakota I always thought of my State as dry. I now 
fly over much of North Dakota and it looks similar to a Louisiana rice 
paddy. There is water everywhere. Millions of acres are inundated and 
were never planted this year. Our farmers planted the lowest level of 
spring wheat since 1988, the year of intense drought. Yet prices remain 
very low--in fact, record lows. Barley production in North Dakota is 
down 42 percent. Yet prices remain very low.
  Things have gone from bad to worse this fall. Farmers were anxious to 
get into the field for harvest but were forced to stay at home and 
watch the rain. North Dakota farmers suffered through 2 weeks of rain 
at the end of August and early September, the key time for harvest. As 
a result, the completion of harvest has been delayed. Damage resulting 
from a delayed harvest is deducted from prices farmers receive for 
their crops. At this point, there is absolutely no way some farmers 
will come anywhere close to matching their expenses for this year. We 
simply must pass this bill to allow entire communities to survive.
  I was called by a very dear friend of mine 2 weeks ago describing 
what had happened to him. He was just beginning harvest when the rains 
once again resumed in our State. He had just cut his grain. It was on 
the ground and the rains came and continued day after day after day. As 
a result, that grain that was on the ground sprouted. He had 30-percent 
sprout in his fields. He took a sample into the elevator and the 
elevator said: Don't even bother trucking that in; we aren't going to 
buy it at any price.
  That happened all over my State. I know it has happened in other 
States, as well.
  Passing this bill and releasing this funding is absolutely critical 
for those farmers who have been so hard hit. Remember, passing this 
bill does not bar Congress from doing more in the future. We have other 
opportunities this year to help those who have been hit by a hurricane. 
There is other legislation moving through this body that has funds for 
those hit by hurricanes. That package can be improved upon. When we 
passed the emergency supplemental bill last May, we agreed to revisit 
agricultural emergency spending once the extent of the price disaster 
was known. We have done that. We can pass this bill now and assess 
future needs in response to natural disasters while this assistance is 
distributed.

  The statement of the managers on this bill made several references to 
the need for additional Federal spending for 1999 disasters. They have 
recognized the reality. I hope colleagues on the floor will understand 
there are additional opportunities to achieve the result they seek. The 
answer is not to kill this bill. This bill, however flawed, is a step 
in the right direction. It would be a profound mistake to defeat it.
  I close by urging my colleagues to support this conference report. We 
had an overwhelming vote in the Senate yesterday. It was an important 
vote to send the signal that this legislation ought to pass.
  My colleagues in the Northeast are not alone. In many ways, we are in 
the same circumstance. We desperately need those farmers who have 
flooded acres to have legislation that addresses their needs. We will 
have another chance. We will have another opportunity. That is the 
great thing about the Senate; there is always another chance.
  I close by looking at a picture that shows what is happening in my 
State. This is several sections of land in North Dakota. Everywhere you 
look is water, water, water--water everywhere. I have flown all over my 
State. It is truly remarkable; places that were dry for 30 years are 
now saturated.
  I talked about the price collapse. I want to visually show what it is 
farmers are contending with. This chart shows clearly what has happened 
to spring wheat and barley prices over the last 53 years. The blue line 
is spring wheat; the red line is barley. These are two of the dominant 
crops of my State. Today the prices in inflation-adjusted terms, in 
real terms, are the lowest they have been in 53 years. That is the 
reality.
  This chart shows the cost of wheat production with the green line; 
the red line shows what prices are. Prices have been below the cost of 
production the last 3 years. This is a disaster scenario of its own. 
This is the reality of what is happening in my State. This threatens 
the economic future of virtually every farmer in my State. The price is 
far below the cost of production. There are not many businesses that 
survive when it costs more to produce the product than is being 
received--not for a few months but for 3 years.
  The next chart shows a comparison of the prices farmers paid for 
their inputs--the green line that keeps going on--versus the prices 
that farmers received. We can see there is a gap and it is a widening 
gap. In fact, the closest we came to having these two on the same line 
was back at the time of the passage of the 1996 farm bill. Since that 
time, the prices farmers pay have gone up. Thank goodness they have 
stabilized somewhat in the last couple of years, but the prices they 
have received have collapsed. That is the hard reality of what our 
farmers confront. These are, by the way, statistics from the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.

  I want to conclude by saying we ought to pass this bill. It is not 
perfect. In fact, in many ways it is deeply flawed. But it is far 
better than the alternative of nothing. It is far better than to take 
the risk of sending this bill back to conference and having it come 
back in much worse shape. At least we can take this and put it in the 
bank because this does address the question of price collapse. It does 
not do a good enough job on the disaster side, but we have other 
opportunities that will come our way before this session of the 
Congress concludes.
  I will end by thanking the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of 
the subcommittee, and Senator Kohl, his counterpart, for the good job 
they have done under very difficult circumstances. Make no mistake, 
there are 100 Senators and there are probably 100 different opinions of 
what agricultural policy should be and what an Agriculture 
appropriations bill should

[[Page S12479]]

look like. But we do respect and admire the work they have done. We 
again thank them for their patience and perseverance bringing this bill 
to the floor. It deserves our support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, agriculture across most of America is in 
a state of crisis. We are facing incredibly low livestock and grain 
prices, coupled with weather disasters in many parts of the country, 
all simultaneously. The legislation before us, as my colleague has 
noted so ably, is imperfect. Some have referred to it as throwing a 
leaking liferaft to a drowning person, and there is some truth to that. 
But it is urgent legislation. It is legislation we need to move forward 
because the need is immense and the urgency is critical. There is 
certainly no assurance, if we were to vote this particular bill down, 
that it would be back to us anytime soon or that it would come back to 
us in a better situation than it is now.
  I think we need to recognize the inadequacies of the legislation, but 
at the same time that we move forward, we do so with a commitment to do 
better, still this Congress and in the coming year, to address the 
underlying problems that at least contributed to the crisis we have in 
rural America. Faulty agricultural policy brought to us by Freedom to 
Farm, combined with low prices, natural disasters, and weak export 
markets, resulted in an inadequate safety net--for family producers, in 
any event--across this country.
  We have seen net farm income absolutely plummet from $53 billion in 
1996 to $43.8 billion in 1999. Off-farm income in many of our States, 
including mine, South Dakota, is responsible for 80 to 90 percent of 
our family producers being able to stay on the farm. If it were not for 
off-farm income, there would be an even more massive exodus off the 
farm and ranch than we are seeing.

  Are there inadequacies in the bill? Certainly. I commend our 
colleagues, Senator Cochran, Senator Stevens, Senator Kohl, and many 
others, for hard work on this legislation under circumstances that 
surely were trying, where the level of resources would certainly not 
permit what they would prefer to see happen. Nonetheless, I think we 
have to acknowledge we need a recommitment in this body and from our 
friends on the other side of the Capitol to address the underlying 
structural problems ag faces today. I believe that involves revisiting 
the Freedom to Farm legislation. I believe that involves strengthening 
our marketing loan capabilities.
  I would like to see us pass my country-of-origin meat labeling 
legislation. I am still working with a bipartisan group of colleagues 
this week to put together legislation addressing vertical integration 
in the packing industry, so we do not turn our livestock producers into 
low-wage employees on their own land. I fear that is the road we are 
going down.
  We have to address issues of trade, value-added agriculture, farmer-
owned cooperatives, and crop insurance reform. All of these are issues 
that cry out for attention, above and beyond anything done in this 
legislation.
  I do applaud the effort in this bill to include mandatory price 
reporting on the livestock side. I do applaud some modest funding, at 
least, for my school breakfast pilot project that is included in this 
bill. I am concerned, however, the process led us to legislation that 
involves a distribution process that may not be as equitable as what I 
think the American public deserves. I will quote briefly from an 
analysis by the Associated Press, Philip Brasher, where he observes:

       Some of the largest, most profitable farms in the country 
     would be among the biggest beneficiaries of Congress' $8.7 
     billion agricultural assistance package because it loosens 
     rules that wee intended to target government payments to 
     family-size operations.
       An individual farm could claim up to $460,000 in subsidies 
     a year--double the current restriction--and the legislation 
     creates a new way for producers to get around even that 
     limit.
       The payment limits apply to two different programs: crop 
     subsidies that vary according to fluctuations in commodity 
     prices; and annual ``market transition'' payments, which were 
     guaranteed to producers under the 1996 farm law.
       Farmers are technically allowed to receive no more than 
     $75,000 in crop subsidies and $40,000 a year in market 
     transition payments under current law. But many farms, 
     legally claim twice that much because they are divided into 
     different entities. A husband and a wife, for example, can 
     claim separate payments on the same farm.
       The aid package would double those caps, so farms could get 
     up to $300,000 in crop subsidies and $160,000 in market 
     transition payments this year.
       Last year, about 550 farmers nationwide claimed the maximum 
     amount in crop subsidies, USDA officials said.
       Critics of the looser payment rules fear they will 
     encourage the consolidation of farms and hasten the demise of 
     smaller-scale operations. ``Big farms will use the extra cash 
     to buy up land from the neighbors, driving up land prices in 
     the process,'' said Chuck Hassebrook, program director of the 
     Center for Rural Affairs in Walthill, NE.
       ``What is the purpose of these farm programs? Is it to help 
     very wealthy, very large landowners get bigger and get 
     richer?''

  These are the kinds of questions and concerns many of us have. I 
think they are profound questions, having to do with the very nature of 
agriculture, the very nature of rural America. What road we are going 
down, in terms of ag and rural policy in America, policy responsible 
for feeding so efficiently and so effectively and in such an 
extraordinary manner the people of our Nation?
  But for all its failings and shortcomings, many of which I briefly 
raised this morning, the fact is there is absolute urgency this 
legislation go forward, that we address the problems of income 
collapse, disaster all over America, with this legislation; and, 
hopefully, upon passage of this legislation, we recommit ourselves to 
going expeditiously forward to address the remainder of these other 
issues I have raised, and others of my colleagues have raised, 
reflecting upon the inadequacies and inefficiencies and the 
shortcomings of this legislation. They are many. But to stop this 
legislation now would only hasten the demise of still more family 
producers all across America. It would not guarantee a return to a 
better policy anytime very soon. We need to pass this bill, then go 
forward with additional legislation to redress these inadequacies.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on passage of this legislation and 
to work with us in a bipartisan fashion on the remainder of these 
agricultural issues and budget issues before the country.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the conference report for the fiscal year 
2000 Agriculture appropriations bill addresses one of the most 
beleaguered fisheries in the United States. The Norton Sound region of 
Alaska has suffered chronically poor salmon returns in recent years. 
Norton Sound is an arm of the Bering Sea off the west coast of Alaska. 
It lies to the north of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, which has also seen 
very poor salmon returns in recent years.
  Both of these regions are extremely rural and heavily dependent on 
commercial and subsistence salmon fishing for survival.
  The provision in the conference report addresses the Norton Sound 
problem in several ways. First, it will make the Norton Sound region 
eligible for the Federal disaster assistance made available to the 
Yukon-Kuskokwim delta region last year.
  Second, it changes the income eligibility standard from the Federal 
poverty level to that for the temporary assistance to needy families 
program.
  The standard of living in many of these fish-dependent communities is 
well below the poverty line. This was one of the chief complaints 
voiced to my staff and several Commerce Department officials when they 
visited western Alaska last summer. This provision will allow more 
needy families to qualify for 1999 disaster assistance, much of which 
has gone unallocated.
  Additionally, this bill will provide $10 million in grants through 
the Economic Development Administration for infrastructure improvements 
in the Norton Sound region.
  The conference report included is $5 million in disaster assistance 
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to 
determine

[[Page S12480]]

the cause of the decline and to identify ways to improve the area's 
fisheries in the future. These funds will be available in 2001.
  The main reason these communities are unable to ride out cyclical 
fishery failures is the lack of commercial infrastructure in rural 
fisheries. The EDA grants will help provide ice machines and other 
equipment to help these communities modernize their processing 
capabilities and extract more value from the resources they harvest.
  I was also pleased to work with my colleagues from New England on 
their request for fishery disaster assistance. New England will receive 
$15 million in 2001 for cooperative research and management activities 
in the New England fisheries. These funds will provide New England 
fishermen with an important role in working to solve the problems of 
their own fisheries.
  Within this conference report, I have also asked that the 
Agricultural Marketing Service--the AMS--convene two national meetings 
to begin development of organic standards with respect to seafoods. One 
of these meetings will be held in Alaska and the other meeting will be 
held on the Gulf of Mexico coastal area.
  The AMS will use the information gathered at these meetings to 
develop draft regulations establishing national organic standards for 
seafood to be published in fiscal year 2000.
  It is estimated that the sales of organic foods will reach $6.6 
billion by the year 2000. The organic industry has been growing at a 
rate of 20 to 24 percent for the last 9 consecutive years.
  Ocean-harvested seafood should be at the same level with other 
qualifying protein commodities, such as beef, pork, and chicken. I hope 
that these protein sources will be included in the proposed U.S. 
Department of Agriculture rules to be finalized by June 2000. Ocean-
harvested seafood should not be excluded as an organically-produced 
product when USDA issues its final rule.
  This issue is very important to Alaska, as the harvesting of seafood 
is an industry that employs more Alaskans than any other industry. In 
particular, I am concerned about the inclusion of wild salmon within 
USDA's final rule for the National Organic Program. Wild salmon is an 
organic product.
  This past summer, two private certifying firms for organic food 
products visited two Alaska seafood processors to determine whether the 
wild, ocean-harvested salmon processed at these facilities could be 
certified as organic. One of the certifiers, farm verified organic, 
inspected capilliano seafoods. Their report is very positive. In fact, 
their approval allowed capalliano's salmon to be admitted to natural 
products east, which is a large organic food show in Boston, 
Massachusetts. In order to be admitted to this trade show, a product 
must be verified as organic.
  I, frankly do not know what the dispute is about. Natural fish, wild 
fish should certainly be verified as organic.
  I am confident that the AMS will find Alaskan wild salmon a very 
heart-healthy protein source, to be of high quality and organic, for 
the purposes of USDA's national organic program.
  I thank my friend from Mississippi and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know a number of 
Members are waiting to speak.
  The Governors and legislators in the six New England States had five 
goals in mind when they enacted the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact 
into law in each of their States.
  They wanted to assure fresh, local supplies of milk to consumers. In 
fact, they wanted to do it at lower prices than found in most other 
parts of the Nation. They wanted to keep dairy farmers in business, 
they wanted to protect New England's rural environment, and they wanted 
to do this without burdening Federal taxpayers.
  It turned out the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact was a stirring 
success on every one of these points. But it also had an added benefit. 
It increased interstate trade into the region as neighboring farmers 
took advantage of the compact. Not only did prices come down, but the 
number of farmers going out of business has declined throughout New 
England for the first time in many years. We find there are still some 
who favor having Federal bureaucrats run this farm program, at a cost 
to the taxpayers, instead of the States themselves, with no cost to the 
taxpayers.
  Because it has been so successful, half the Governors in the Nation, 
half the State legislatures in the Nation, asked that the Congress 
allow their States to set their own dairy policies, within certain 
limits, through interstate compacts that, again, cost taxpayers 
nothing. The dairy compact legislation passed in these States 
overwhelmingly.
  Perhaps most significant, and I mention this because we have heard 
those from Minnesota and Wisconsin attack this, what they do not tell 
us is that the retail milk prices in New England not only average lower 
than the rest of the Nation, but they are much lower than the milk 
prices in Minnesota and Wisconsin. So those in these parts of the 
country who are attacking the Northeast Dairy Compact say they are 
concerned about consumers and ignore the fact that consumers pay a lot 
more in their States than they do in New England.
  One has to ask, Why does anybody oppose the Dairy Compact? GAO and 
OMB report that consumer prices are lower and farm income is higher 
than the average for the rest of the country, without increased cost to 
the taxpayers. Why would anybody oppose it?
  One of the things I learned long ago is to follow the money, and 
there is one group making a whole lot of money on this issue. They are 
the huge milk manufacturers, such as Suiza, or Kraft which is owned by 
Philip Morris, or other processors represented by the International 
Dairy Foods Association. They oppose the compact not because they care 
for the consumers, not because they care for the farmers, but because 
they care for their own huge, bloated profits.
  Indeed, they sent around corporate front organizations to speak for 
them. One was the Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. When it 
finally became clear that Public Voice was going around fronting for 
these organizations, and that their policies were determined not by 
what was best for everybody but by corporate dollars, they finally went 
out of business.
  I've talked about the close alliances between a lead executive who 
handled compact issues for Public Voice who negotiated a job to 
represent the huge processors.
  I will give the press another lead on the next public interest group 
whose funding should be investigated, the Consumer Federation of 
America. One of their officers, formerly from Public Voice, has been 
going around Capitol Hill offices with lobbyists representing dairy 
processors.
  One might ask why would Philip Morris want to use these organizations 
instead of going directly to the editorial boards of the New York Times 
or the Washington Post to bad mouth the compact? Why not have somebody 
who appears to be representing the consumers rather than Philip Morris 
coming in and talking about it?
  The consumer representative, being paid by the big processors, could 
come in and say: Editorial board members, milk prices are higher for 
children in the School Lunch Program under this compact.
  We ought to compare those prices. Let's compare the retail milk 
prices in New England against retail milk prices in the upper Midwest. 
A gallon of whole milk in Augusta, ME, was $2.47. The price was up to 
50 cents more in Minneapolis, MN, the area opponents used as an example 
of how to save money.

  I think we ought to take a look at these issues because when we hear 
some of the big companies, such as Philip Morris and Kraft and Suiza, 
saying, well, it's not the money. But you know, of course, it is the 
money. When they say ``we are here because we're concerned about the 
consumers,'' you know--with their track record--that the consumer is 
the last thing on their mind. And when these processor groups say they 
want to protect the farmer . . . oh, Lordy, don't ever, ever believe 
that, because there is not a farmer in this country who would.
  Lastly, if anybody tells you the dairy compact will cost you money, I 
point out, not only does it not cost taxpayers any money, but the cost 
of milk is much lower than in States without a compact.

[[Page S12481]]

  Mr. President, the Governors and legislators in the six New England 
states had five goals in mind when they enacted the Compact into law in 
each of their states.
  They wanted to assure fresh, local supplies of milk to consumers--at 
lower prices than found in most of the nation--they wanted to keep 
dairy farmers in business, they wanted to protect the New England's 
rural environment from sprawl and destructive development, and they 
wanted to do this without burdening federal taxpayers.
  The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has delivered beyond the 
expectations of those Governors and state legislators.
  The Compact provided an added benefit--it has also increased 
interstate trade into the region as neighboring farmers took advantage 
of the Compact.
  This great idea--coming from those six New England states--has 
created 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.
  It is unfortunate that most still favor federal bureaucrats running 
the farm programs--I think Congress should look at more zero-cost 
state-initiated programs rather than turning a deaf ear to the pleas of 
state legislators.
  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 that cost taxpayers nothing.
  And the dairy compact legislation passed with overwhelming support in 
almost all these states.
  One of the most difficult challenges posed by the New England 
Governors is that the Compact had to cost nothing--yet deliver a 
benefit to farmers. The Compact is scored by CBO as having no costs to 
the Federal treasury.
  Major environmental groups have endorsed the Northeast Dairy Compact 
because they know it helps preserve farmland and prevent urban sprawl. 
Indeed, a New York Times and a National Geographic article that I 
mentioned yesterday discuss the importance of keeping dairy farmers in 
business from an environmental standpoint.
  Perhaps most significantly, retail milk prices in New England average 
lower than the rest of the nation and much lower than milk prices in 
Minnesota and Wisconsin, according to GAO.
  The question is: why does anyone in America oppose the dairy compact? 
Since GAO and OMB report that consumer prices are lower and farm income 
is higher than the average for the rest of the country, without 
increased costs to taxpayers, why does anyone oppose the Compact?
  The answer is simple, huge milk manufacturers--such as Suiza, 
headquartered in Texas, Kraft which is owned by the tobacco giant 
Philip Morris, other processors represented by the International Dairy 
Foods Association--oppose the Compact.
  Even the most junior investigative reporter could figure out the 
answer to my question with the above information. All anyone has to do 
is look up the donations made by these, and other, giant processors. 
All the negative news stories about the compact have their genesis in 
efforts by these giant processors and their front organizations.
  I have explained the details of this on the Senate floor so scholars 
who want to know what really happened can check the public records and 
the lobby registration forms.
  Indeed, one of the corporate front organizations--Public Voice for 
Food and Health Policy--apparently could not continue to exist when it 
was so obvious that their policies where determined by corporate 
dollars rather than good policy.
  A simple glance at the list of corporations who funded and attended 
their functions could be easily researched by any reporter. It will 
demonstrate that sad and disturbing relationship--now ended as Public 
Voice had to close up shop because it lost its conscience.
  I have detailed the close alliances between their lead executive who 
handled compact issues for them and the job he negotiated to represent 
the huge processors a couple of times on the Senate floor.
  I will give the press another lead on the next public interest group 
whose funding should be investigated--the Consumer Federation of 
America. Indeed, one of their officers--formerly from Public Voice--is 
being taken around Capitol Hill offices by lobbyists representing 
processors. A glance at who funds their functions and efforts will be 
as instruction as investigations of Public Voice.
  Why should Philip Morris or Kraft want to use these organizations 
instead of directly going to the editorial boards of the New York Times 
or the Washington Post to badmouth the compact? The question does not 
need me to provide the answer.
  What would be the best attack--whether true or not--on the Compact 
that might swing public opinion?
  It might be to simply allege that milk prices are higher for children 
in the school lunch program. Who would the editorial boards more likely 
listen to regarding school children: a public interest group or a 
tobacco company?
  By the way, I would be happy to compare milk prices after the Compact 
was fully implemented.
  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 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was 
$2.63 per gallon. Prices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, were much higher--
they were $2.94 per 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 which 
where the price on average was $2.94/gallon.
  Let's look at the cost of 1% milk for November 1997, for another 
example.
  In Augusta, Maine, it was $2.37 per gallon, the same average-price as 
for Boston and for New Hampshire and Rhode Island. In Minnesota, the 
price was $2.82/gallon. It was 45 cents more per gallon in Minnesota.
  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 benefitting consumers, local economies and 
farmers.
  I urge my colleague to vote against this bill because, as I mentioned 
yesterday, it does not provide enough disaster assistance to the East 
and it does not provide enough disaster assistance to the nation.
  Also, I cannot vote for it because it does not extend the Northeast 
dairy compact and does not allow neighboring states to also 
participate.
  It also ignores the pleas of Southern Governors who wanted to be able 
to protect their farmers without burdening U.S. taxpayers.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate is scheduled to 
vote on final passage of the fiscal year 2000 Department of 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is critical that we complete 
action on this bill today to speed assistance to American farmers in 
need. Therefore, I shall vote for the bill and urge my colleagues to 
support it also.
  The severe drought that has gripped the Eastern United States this 
year is, by all accounts, the most damaging and prolonged such 
occurrence since the early 1930s. Just like that period nearly 70 years 
ago, springs have gone dry, streams have ceased to flow, pastureland 
and crops have broiled in the relentless Sun until all possible 
benefits to livestock or man have burned away. In the 1930s the drought 
turned much of our Nation's farmlands into a veritable dust bowl. 
Modern conservation practices today may have helped to reduce the 
erosion by wind,

[[Page S12482]]

but the soil is just as dry, and farmers in West Virginia and all along 
the East Coast are suffering from the natural disaster of a generation. 
Some farmers have had to make the painful decision to sell off their 
livestock or to give up farms that have been in their families for 
generations. This is what has been happening in West Virginia. This is 
nothing short of an emergency. It demands our attention and response.
  This bill provides funding for many ongoing and long running programs 
as well as much needed assistance to farmers who suffered at the hands 
of Mother Nature this year. The $8.7 billion emergency package that is 
attached to this appropriations bill contains $1.2 billion specifically 
for 1999 natural disasters, including drought. In all, more than $1.2 
billion will be available for direct payments for farmers suffering 
crop and livestock losses from natural disasters this year, up 
significantly from the $50 million in the version that first passed the 
Senate in August. That may not be enough to fully cover the still-
mounting losses to farmers, but it is a good start. These emergency 
funds will be able to be distributed upon enactment of this legislation 
to farmers who have been waiting and waiting for the Federal Government 
to deliver. American farmers cannot afford to wait any longer for 
Federal assistance, and the Senate cannot afford to delay final passage 
of this fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report.
  Unfortunately, once this measure reached the conference committee, 
the process that we follow yearly as routine in conferences was 
sidelined. When difficult issues came before the conference, after only 
an evening and a morning of debate, the conference committee adjourned 
for lunch, and never returned. For several days, the conference was 
``out to lunch,'' until deals could be reached behind closed doors 
guided by invisible hands, and our tried and true procedure was 
circumvented. I believe that this selective bargaining is why some 
Members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the final bill. The 
best work of the Congress is demonstrated when, as a body, we cooperate 
and allow ourselves to be guided by the rules and the traditions that 
have allowed our Government to flourish under the Constitution now for 
over 200 years.
  I have stood before this body on numerous occasions since visiting 
West Virginia with the Secretary of Agriculture on August 2 of this 
year to impress upon my fellow Members what a significant impact the 
drought has had in West Virginia, and, of course, in other Mid-Atlantic 
and Northeastern States. Many of these States received a secretarial 
emergency declaration that has provided some limited USDA assistance to 
farmers who have experienced losses as a result of the drought. But, 
unfortunately, much of the assistance came in the form of loans to 
farmers who were already deep in debt. The recent losses caused by 
Hurricane Floyd make clear that more emergency assistance will be 
needed. We can do better for farmers, so I supported the Statement of 
Managers language directing the administration to conduct full 
estimates of the remaining need, and to submit to the Congress a 
supplemental budget request as soon as possible for both hurricane and 
additional drought assistance.
  When we consider all of the natural disasters that have affected 
farmers this year, from frosts that killed citrus trees, to devastating 
drought, to States ravaged by storms, and by the hurricane, I feel that 
it is highly appropriate that the Senate act now because it seems a 
certainty that the $1.2 billion will be insufficient to help farmers 
who have been harmed by nature. But the current emergency package 
attached to the conference report is essential to begin addressing the 
crisis in rural America that has only been compounded by the weather 
disasters of 1999. Failure to pass this measure will only allow the 
suffering of struggling farmers to continue without relief.
  The House of Representatives passed this measure on October 1, 1999. 
It is now time for the Senate to pass this measure.
  I want to thank Senator Cochran in particular for his study and 
consideration and for the skill with which he has brought this bill to 
its present status. I want to thank him also for supporting some of my 
requests in the bill.
  I requested that there be grants to farmers, livestock farmers in 
particular, in the amount of $200 million and also that there be 
provisions whereby farmers could restore their land, where there could 
be new vegetation planted so that they could have a chance of starting 
over again. It was in that conference that the chairman, in particular, 
supported my effort.
  I was one of the three Democrats on this side who signed the 
conference report, and did so in particular because of the funding 
which had been provided, at my request, for the livestock farmers. 
There are livestock farmers in my State who were selling out their 
entire herds, not just for this year but for good. Some of those 
livestock farmers have been in the farming business for years, and the 
farm indeed has come down to them after one or more generations. It is 
important not only from the standpoint, I think, of helping these 
people who are so in need and who have to work every day, 365 days a 
year, who can never be sure what the weather is going to be, and who 
are at the mercy, in many instances, of Mother Nature--it is important 
that we come to their aid--it is also important for our country that we 
continue to sustain the small farmer.
  In the Roman Republic, the small farmers left their farms in the 
Apennine Mountains and went into the cities and joined with the mob. 
When those farmers, those peasants of the land in Italy, left the land 
and migrated into the cities, the Roman republic began to collapse. It 
was in the homes of the Roman farmers that family values and the Roman 
spiritual values flourished. When those peasants left the land, the 
spiritual values of the Romans began to deteriorate because it was in 
the homes that they venerated their ancestors and worshipped their 
gods. They were pagan gods, but the Romans worshipped those gods.
  Those family values, which included respect for authority and order--
there is where the stern Roman discipline had its beginning. It was 
because of that stern Roman discipline that came out of the homes of 
the peasants--it was because of that stern Roman discipline that the 
Roman legions were able to conquer the various other nations around the 
Mediterranean basin.
  It was the same way in our own country in colonial days. Most of the 
people in this country were from farming stock. There was a time when 
over 90 percent of the people in this country were from the farms. That 
day has long gone, as the corporate farms have largely taken over, just 
as in the Roman Republic, the latifundia--large corporate farms--which 
were owned mostly by Roman senators, pushed the small farmers off the 
land.
  I suppose Oliver Goldsmith had that in mind when he wrote ``The 
Deserted Village.'' In his lines, he told the story of the Roman 
farmers as well as our own people.

     Ill fares the land, to hast'ning ills a prey,
     Where wealth accumulates, and men decay:
     Princes and lords may flourish, or may fade;
     A breath can make them, as a breath has made:
     But a bold peasantry, their country's pride,
     When once destroy'd, can never be supplied.

  I thank all Senators for listening. I hope Senators will soon vote 
for this important bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia for his kind comments about the handling of the 
legislation. I thank him for his valuable assistance in the crafting of 
the language of our disaster assistance provisions and other provisions 
as well.
  I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. 
Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the conference report on 
the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill. I do so with 
considerable reluctance because the distinguished senior Senator from 
Mississippi, the subcommittee chairman, has always been so responsive 
to the needs of rural Maine. And the Senator, in his capacity as 
chairman, has provided valuable assistance to the State of Maine, 
particularly in the area of agricultural research, which is very 
important to my State.

[[Page S12483]]

  Unfortunately, circumstances largely beyond the control of my good 
friend from Mississippi have brought this measure before us without a 
component that is absolutely critical to the survival of Maine's dairy 
farmers. The lack of provisions reauthorizing the Northeast Dairy 
Compact creates a serious regional inequity and places an unfair burden 
on Maine's dairy farmers.
  While this measure contains $5.4 billion in payments for farmers 
harmed by low commodity prices, it ignores a mechanism that provides 
stability in pricing for dairy farmers in the Northeast. The Northeast 
Dairy Compact is a proven success, and it is absolutely critical to the 
survival of dairy farmers in Maine and throughout the Northeast.
  First approved by Congress as part of the 1996 farm bill, the 
Northeast Dairy Compact has a proven track record of benefits for both 
consumers and farmers. The compact works by simply evening out the 
peaks and valleys in the fluid milk prices, providing stability to the 
cost of milk, and ensuring a supply of fresh, wholesome local milk.
  The compact works with market forces to help both the farmer and the 
consumer. As prices climb and farmers begin to receive a sustainable 
price for their milk, the compact turns off. When prices drop to 
unsustainable levels, the compact is triggered on. The compact simply 
softens the blow to farmers of an abrupt and dramatic drop in the 
volatile fluid milk market.
  It is important to reiterate that consumers also benefit from the 
compact. Not only does the compact stabilize prices, thus avoiding 
dramatic fluctuations in the retail cost of milk, but also it 
guarantees that the consumer is assured of the availability of a supply 
of fresh local milk. Let us remember that the proof is in the prices.
  Under the compact, New England consumers have enjoyed lower retail 
fluid milk prices than many other regions operating without a dairy 
compact. Moreover, the compact, while providing clear benefits to dairy 
producers and consumers in the Northeast, has proven that it does not 
harm farmers or taxpayers in other regions of the country. Indeed, a 
1998 report by the Office of Management and Budget showed that during 
its first 6 months of operation, the compact did not adversely affect 
farmers outside the compact region and added no Federal cost to 
nutrition programs. In fact, the compact specifically exempts WIC, the 
Women, Infants, and Children's Program, from any costs resulting or 
related to the compact.

  The reauthorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact is also important 
as a matter of States rights. We often hear criticism of the inside-
the-beltway mentality that tells States that we here in Washington know 
better than they do, even on issues that traditionally fall under State 
and local control.
  That is simply wrong. In the Northeast Dairy Compact, we have a 
solution that was devised by our dairy farmers, that was approved by 
the legislators and Governors of the New England States, that is 
supported by every State agricultural commissioner in the region and 
overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, by the dairy farmers of the region. 
We in Congress should not be an obstacle to this practical local 
solution.
  It is not too late. There are a variety of ways that Congress can 
allow dairy farmers in the Northeast to help themselves. All we need to 
do is to reauthorize the compact and take advantage of those 
opportunities. I am very disappointed, however, that Congress is 
missing the logical opportunity to renew this important measure through 
the Agriculture appropriations bill. Therefore, I must oppose this 
conference report. But I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
resolve this matter before we adjourn.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. He has been extremely 
responsive to the needs of agricultural producers in my State. I know 
that he shares my commitment to resolving this matter and coming to a 
solution that will help our dairy farmers survive before we adjourn 
this session of the Senate.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back to the chairman any remaining 
time I might have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Maine for her kind comments. We will certainly continue to do 
everything possible to be responsive to the needs of agricultural 
producers both in New England and elsewhere in the country.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont, Mr. Jeffords.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the FY 2000 
Agriculture Appropriations bill. I oppose the Agriculture funding bill 
not because of what's in the bill, but because of what has been left 
out.
  I have listened to several of my colleagues speak in support of the 
disaster aid in this bill. They have spoken passionately on how we need 
to help our family farms. I, too, support providing relief to farmers 
and ranchers across the nation who have suffered from weather and 
market related disasters.
  However, this bill has ignored one of this nation's most important 
agriculture sectors--our dairy farmers. The bill, which provides $8.7 
billion in aid to farmers, in large part as direct payments, has 
neglected dairy farmers, not only in my home state of Vermont, but the 
dairy farm families in the entire country.
  Unlike the commodity farmers throughout the country, dairy farmers 
have not asked for assistance in the form of federal dollars. Instead, 
they have asked for relief from a promised government disaster in the 
form of a fair pricing structure from the Secretary of Agriculture and 
the extension of the very successful Northeast Dairy Compact, at no 
cost to the federal government.
  Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues from the states 
and regions of the country that will be receiving billions of tax payer 
dollars in aid for their farmers, that the Northeast Dairy Compact has 
no cost to the federal government and has no adverse impact on any 
farmer outside the compact region.
  If my colleagues who have opposed our efforts to bring fairness to 
all dairy farmers truly supported family farms across this country they 
would support my efforts to help protect the dairy farmers in my state 
as well as the dairy farmers in the rest of the nation.
  While Congress is providing needed government assistance to commodity 
farmers across the nation, I would like to remind my colleagues on just 
how well the Dairy Compact helps dairy farmers protect against sudden 
drops in the price of their products.
  This no cost initiative has given farmers and consumers hope. In 
large part based on the success of the Northeast Compact, which 
includes the six New England states, no less than nineteen additional 
states have adopted dairy compacts.
  In total, twenty-five of the states in the country have passed 
compact legislation. During the past year Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Georgia, Kansas, and Missouri have 
all passed legislation to form a southern dairy compact. Texas is also 
considering joining the Southern Compact.
  The Oregon legislature is in the process of developing a Pacific 
Northwest Dairy Compact. In addition, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, 
New York and Pennsylvania have passed state legislation enabling them 
to join the Northeast Dairy Compact.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact, which was authorized by the 1996 farm 
bill as a three-year pilot program, has been extremely successful. The 
Compact has been studied, audited, and sued--but has always come 
through with a clean bill of health. Because of the success of the 
Compact it has served as a model for the entire country.

  One look at the votes cast by each state legislature, and you can see 
that there is little controversy over what is in the best interest for 
the consumers and farmers in each respected state. For example, in 
Alabama and Arkansas, both legislative chambers passed compact 
legislation unanimously. It passed unanimously in the North Carolina 
House. In the Oklahoma State Senate, it passed by a vote of 44-1 and 
unanimously in the Oklahoma House. It passed unanimously in the 
Virginia State Senate and by a vote of 90-6 in the Virginia House. In 
Kansas, the bill

[[Page S12484]]

passed in the Senate by a vote of 39-1 and an impressive 122-1 in the 
Kansas House.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact was also approved on overwhelming votes 
in each of the New England state's legislative bodies.
  Mr. President, given its broad support among the states, we all know 
that the issue of regional pricing is one that will continue to be 
debated. I am pleased with the tremendous progress the Southern states 
and other Northeastern states have made to move their compacts forward.
  Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Cochran, Senator Specter and 
others progress has been made.
  While the debate continues, we must allow the Northeast Compact to 
continue as the pilot project for the concept of regional pricing.
  I am, of course, aware that some of my colleagues oppose our efforts 
to bring fairness to our states and farmers by continuation of the 
Northeast Dairy Compact pilot project. However, why do Members who 
share my admiration and respect for family farms oppose an initiative 
that has no cost to the federal government and has no adverse impact on 
farmers outside the region?
  Unfortunately, Congress has been bombarded with misinformation from 
an army of lobbyists representing the national milk processors, led by 
the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the Milk Industry 
Foundation. These two groups, backed by the likes of Philip Morris, 
have funded several front groups such as Public Voice and the Campaign 
for Fair Milk Prices to lobby against the Dairy Compact and other 
important dairy provisions.
  The real fight over dairy compacts should not come from Members of 
the Senate that support protecting small farms and consumers, but from 
the National Milk Processors who work against all farmers to the 
benefit of their bottom line, because they control the price now, and 
that gives them higher profits. All we want is a fair price.
  It is crucial that Congress debate the issues presented on dairy 
compacts on the merits, rather than based on misinformation. When 
properly armed with the facts, I believe you will conclude that the 
Northeast Dairy Compact has already proven to be a successful 
experiment and that the other states which have now adopted dairy 
compacts should be given the opportunity to determine whether dairy 
compacts will in fact work for them as well.
  Mr. President, federal dairy policy is difficult to explain at best. 
As a Member of the House of Representatives, I served as the ranking 
member of the Dairy and Livestock Subcommittee. During my years in the 
House, I worked very closely with the programs that impacted dairy 
farmers and consumers. I know the industry, I know the policies, and 
the compact is a raving success.
  Of all the programs and efforts by the federal government to help our 
nation's dairy farmers and protect the interests of consumers, the most 
effective and promising solution I have seen thus far is the creation 
and operation of the Dairy Compact.

  Unfortunately, many of my colleagues have not yet seen the benefit of 
compacts and may be basing their reasons on misinformation.
  In addition to being sound public policy, the Dairy Compact 
represents a state's right to do all it can under the law to protect 
its farmers and consumers.
  The courts agree that the Compact is legally sound. Last January, a 
federal appeals court rejected a challenge to the Dairy Compact by the 
Milk Industry Foundation. The Court found that the Compact was 
constitutional and the U.S. Agriculture Secretary's approval of the 
Compact was justified.
  In November of 1998, a Federal district court judge also ruled in 
favor of the Compact Commission in a challenge brought by five New 
York-based milk processors. The court found that the Commission had the 
authority to regulate milk that is produced or processed outside of the 
region but distributed within the Compact region. In each case, the 
courts found that the work of the Commission is of firm and legal 
grounds.
  Mr. President, in recent weeks Governors from throughout the 
Northeast and Southeast sent a letter to the Majority Leader of the 
Senate and House, urging Congress to consider and support the Dairy 
Compact legislation.
  The Governors of the Compact regions speak not only for their farmers 
and consumers but for the rights of the States. The message to Congress 
from Governors nationwide has been clear. ``Increase the flexibility of 
states and support legislation that promotes state and regional policy 
initiatives.''
  Governors from the twenty-five Compact states represent diverse 
constituents. They have all considered the benefits and potential 
impacts by compacts on all those in their states. In the state of Rhode 
Island for example, there are nearly six million consumers and only 32 
dairy farmers. Yet, the dairy compact passed overwhelmingly in the 
Rhode Island State legislature and is supported by the entire Rhode 
Island delegation. A similar story is true for Massachusetts.
  As I mentioned previously in my statement, nearly all the states 
supported the Dairy Compacts overwhelmingly.
  The success of the three year pilot program of the Northeast Dairy 
Compact, has created an opportunity for a partnership between Congress 
and the States, to help strengthen the fundamental federalism movement.
  The New England states by joining together as one are doing what any 
large state can do under the law such as California. A large State can 
do it. We can't because of the commerce clause. We have to join 
together and get a compact. We did that.
  The reauthorization of the successful experimentation of the 
Northeast Compact and the creation of a Southern Compact as a pilot 
program will help maintain that the States' constitutional authority, 
resources, and competence of the people to govern is recognized and 
protected.
  Mr. President, the Compact also stands on firm constitutional 
grounds. Does Congress possess the authority to approve the Northeast 
Interstate and Southern Dairy Compacts?
  The answer to this question is clear, simple, and affirmative. Under 
the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution, states are 
expressly authorized to seek congressional approval of interstate 
compacts, even states in the Upper Midwest. And congressional approval, 
once given, endows interstate compacts with the force of federal law. 
The Compact Clause, and the Compacts that Congress may license under 
it, are important devices of constitutional federalism.
  Despite what some of my colleagues have said, the Northeast Dairy 
Compact is working as it was intended to. Instead of trying to destroy 
an initiative that works to help dairy farmers with cost to the federal 
government, I urge my colleagues to respect the states' interest and 
initiative to help protect their farmers and encourage that other 
regions of the country to explore the possibility of forming their own 
interstate dairy compact.
  For many farmers in Vermont and New England, the Compact payments 
have meant the difference between keeping the farm and calling the 
auctioneer.
  Dairy farming in Vermont represents over seventy percent of the 
agricultural receipts in the state. No other state relies on one sector 
of agriculture more than Vermont depends on dairy.
  What we were trying to accomplish in the Agriculture Appropriations 
bill was about helping farmers and protecting consumers. Farmers 
deserve our support and recognition. It is sometimes easy to forget 
just how fortunate we are in this country to have the world's least 
expensive and safest food supply.
  Dairy farmers work harder than many of us realize. The cows have to 
be milked at least two times a day, 365 days a year; farmers work on 
the average 90 hours per week, an average of 13 hours a day; farm 
owners receive an average hourly wage of $3.65, take few if any 
vacations or holidays and have no sick leave. That is why they are so 
sensitive to something which may destroy or reduce the prices.
  Prices received by farmers in the month of October will be lower than 
the prices received over 20 years ago. Can you imagine maintaining your 
livelihood or business with salaries of 20 years ago? Think about what 
that means to consumers also. The price of milk, if you look on an 
inflationary scale, is well below what it would be for softdrinks or 
anything else.

[[Page S12485]]

  I am certain that my colleagues will agree with me that dairy farmers 
deserve a fair price for their product. What does it say about our 
values when some of the hardest working people, our farmers, are 
underpaid and unappreciated? Mandating option 1-A and continuing the 
dairy compact ensures that dairy farmers will have the needed tools to 
help face the challenges of the future.
  In Vermont, dairy farmers help define the character of the state. I 
am proud to work to protect them to protect the traditions and special 
qualities of the state. Dairy is not just a farming operation for 
Vermont and other states in New England, it is symbol of our culture, 
history and way of life. Its survival is a highly emotional subject.
  Vermonters take pride in their heritage as a state committed to the 
ideals of freedom and unity. That heritage goes hand and hand with a 
unique quality of life and the desire to grow and develop while 
maintaining Vermont's beauty and character. Ethan Allan and his Green 
Mountain Boys and countless other independent driven Vermonters helped 
shape the nation's fourteenth state while making outstanding 
contributions to the independence of this country.
  Today, that independence still persists in the hills and valleys of 
Vermont. Vermonters have worked hard over the years to maintain local 
control over issues that impact the charm and quality of the state. 
Vermont's decision to enhance and protect its wonderful scenic vistas 
by prohibiting bill boards along its highways and roads was a local, 
statewide decision. Because of the vision Vermonters many years ago 
had, driving throughout Vermont enjoying the beautiful landscapes and 
nature beauty is a pleasurable experience. And it would not be without 
cows on the hillside. Vermonters choose to control their state's 
destiny. They should, as any other state have the right to protect 
their consumers, farmers and way of life.
  Most Americans know Vermont as a tiny state in the Northeast that has 
good skiing, great maple syrup, and beautiful fall foliage--a charming 
place where the trees are close together and the people are far apart--
far from the problems that plague many communities across the country. 
It is nearly impossible to drive down any country road in Vermont and 
not pass a farm with a herd of cows. Dairy farms still define the nooks 
and crannies of the rolling hills. Maybe there's a small pond nearby 
and a few horses or sheep. Or maybe there's a pasture with bales of hay 
and cows lining up at the barn waiting for milking time.
  The look of Vermont distinguishes it as a throwback to a bygone, 
simpler time. Vermont is the home of stone fences, covered bridges, and 
red farmhouses. Vermonters have a special place in their hearts and 
lives for farmers.
  Vermonters of today are struggling to keep step with the modern world 
while holding onto the state's classic rural charm and agriculture 
base. It's a difficult task requiring much thought and work. But then 
again, overcoming difficulties through hard work is what the native 
Vermonter is all about. Farm families know all about hard work.
  Mr. President, dairy farmers did not ask Congress for billions of 
dollars in disaster aid? Instead, and most appropriately, they asked 
Congress to provide them with a fair pricing structure and the right of 
the states to work together at no cost to provide a structure that 
would help them receive a fair price for their product--not a bail out 
from the federal government.
  Therefore, I must oppose the Agriculture Appropriations bill and 
suggest that Members whose farmers will be getting federal dollars in 
disaster assistance take a close look at how the Northeast Dairy 
Compact helps protect farmers and consumers with no cost to the federal 
government or any adverse impact on farmers outside the compact region.
  I urge my friends to watch closely what is happening to dairy and to 
give us the opportunity to continue to live in a beautiful State with 
cows on the hillside.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep 
disappointment with the agriculture conference report that we in the 
Senate will vote on today. This agriculture appropriations bill falls 
well short of helping the Connecticut farmers whose very livelihood was 
badly hurt by this summer's record drought, and who are depending on 
our assistance to recover from the devastating losses they have 
suffered. Instead, this plan simply leaves farmers throughout the 
Northeast even higher and drier, and leaves me no choice but to vote 
against this bill.
  In August, I joined with Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman in 
visiting a family farm in Northford to inspect the drought damage done 
in Connecticut this year. On that day, the Secretary declared the 
entire state a drought disaster area. Since then, it has been estimated 
that farmers in our state have incurred losses of $41 million; 
together, the 13 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states estimate their 
losses at $2.5 billion.
  Sadly, despite strong bipartisan pleas for support, the agriculture 
appropriations bill shortchanges our state as well as the entire 
Northeast region. Of the $8.7 billion in ``emergency'' farm relief this 
bill provides, only $1.2 billion is available for natural disaster aid. 
This smaller allocation of money must be distributed, in turn, to 
farmers nationwide for drought, flood, and other natural disaster 
damage. It is likely that the drought-stricken farmers of the Northeast 
and Mid-Atlantic states would receive only about $300 million--less 
than one-eighth of their estimated recovery costs.
  Historically, hard working Connecticut farmers benefit from very 
little federal assistance. During the last fiscal year, for example, 
Connecticut farmers received less than one-tenth of one percent of the 
$10.6 billion paid out by the government-funded Commodity Credit 
Corporation. It is only fair that when they need emergency recovery 
assistance, the government come through for Connecticut farmers too. 
Sadly, this bill is not fair.
  This agriculture spending plan is regionally inequitable, offers 
insufficient disaster assistance for Connecticut farmers, and 
represents unacceptable public policy. In times of legitimate farm 
crises, Congress has repeatedly provided a helping hand to farmers in 
the Midwest and South. We owe nothing less to the farmers in 
Connecticut and throughout the Northeast who make a critical 
contribution to our economy. They deserve real help, not a bill of 
goods.
  I am also concerned by the disappearance during conference of the 
Northeast Dairy Compact, which had been approved by the House of 
Representatives. Because the usual conference committee proceedings 
were circumvented this year, it is impossible to know why the Dairy 
Compact is missing in action. Regardless of the answer to this 
question, the subversion of the conference committee process disturbs 
me and represents a bad precedent for our legislative process.
  Because this bill does not provide real, equitable relief for 
Connecticut farmers and does not include reauthorization of the 
Northeast Dairy Compact, I will join my colleagues from the Northeast 
in voting against it. I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a matter that will severely 
affect milk producers and processors in my state of Arizona and impede 
their ability to compete effectively in the state of Nevada. Under the 
Secretary's final rule, Arizona and Clark County, Nevada, make up one 
of the 11 consolidated Federal Milk Marketing Order Areas. During 
consideration of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, a provision was 
agreed to in the Senate by voice vote that attempted to remove Clark 
County, Nevada from this proposed order. I say attempted because the 
drafting of this language was fatally flawed. It would not have 
achieved its intended goal of allowing Nevada to remove itself from the 
system. Of course, the Nevada Senators realized this mistake and moved 
to amend the language in conference. I notified the committee, both in 
writing and orally, that I objected to any attempt to amend or modify 
the Senate-passed language. Unfortunately, the language change sought 
by the Nevada Senators was approved, and is now found in Section 760 of 
the Agriculture Appropriations bill of FY 2000.
  Section 760 creates, for the first time in nearly 75 years of federal 
milk-price

[[Page S12486]]

regulation, a category of milk handler which is statutorily exempt from 
milk-price regulation. Anderson Dairy--the sole processor in Clark 
County--will gain a tremendous competitive advantage from this 
exemption at the expense of the Arizona dairy industry. Allowing 
Anderson to be removed from the Arizona/Nevada order will make it the 
only milk processor with sales in Clark County that enjoys a regulatory 
exemption. But its competitors--such as the Arizona processors--will 
continue to be regulated on all Clark County sales, which make up 
approximately 20 percent of their market. In other words, Anderson will 
be able to price its milk well below that of the Arizona processors who 
remain subject to the pricing structure of the milk-order system.
  Moreover, this statutory exemption will extend to Anderson Dairy 
sales outside of Clark County. Anderson Dairy would, therefore, enjoy a 
commercial advantage in its sales in Arizona while its competitors 
would continue to be regulated on all such sales.
  A good argument can be made in support of a milk industry that is 
free from pricing regulations; however, that is not the case today. 
Competitive equity has been the foundation of Federal Milk Orders for 
over one-half century. Under 7 U.S.C. 608(c)(5)(A), handlers are 
subject to the same uniform classified prices as their competitors, and 
under Sec.  608(c)(5)(B)(ii), revenue from handlers is pooled and 
blended so that producers may benefit from ``uniform prices'' 
irrespective of handler use of milk.
  Section 760 of the FY 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill strikes at 
the heart of each component of regulatory equity by exempting the Clark 
County handler from the uniform price and economic standards applicable 
to competitors within the order, and by excluding from the producer-
revenue pool all revenue from milk sales to the plant. For the plant 
operators in Arizona who continue to operate under price regulation, 
competing against an exempt plant such as Anderson is like fencing with 
your sword arm tied behind your back. Anderson can exploit its 
commercial advantage by expanding sales to current or prospective 
customers of nonexempt handlers. Such expansion would, in the end, 
severely harm Arizona producers.
  Mr. President, legislative exemption for Clark County plants should 
greatly enhance Anderson's asset value for acquisition purposes. 
Several national and international dairy companies have aggressively 
expanded their operations in the United States during the past few 
years. These include Dean, Suiza, and Parmalat. A price-exempt plant in 
the nation's fastest growing major metropolitan area would be very 
attractive to any expanding dairy enterprise. Should this occur, the 
producers and processors in Arizona would be negatively impacted.
  Having one state subject to the pricing structure of the milk-order 
system and another, contiguous state free to set its own price creates 
an uneven playing field. When Anderson is granted the right of removal 
from a system created to maintain stability and equity within that 
region, we have effectively undermined the intent of that system.
  Some 56 years ago, U.S. Appellate Judge Frank lamented that ``the 
domestication of milk has not been accompanied by a successful 
domestication of some of the meaner impulses in all those engaged in 
the milk industry.'' Queensboro v. Wickard, 137 F. 2d 969 (1943). 
Regional preferences and exemptions will only fuel these cynical 
impulses. I hope we can find a way to rectify this egregious situation 
and maintain a level playing field for the Arizona milk industry.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this 
conference report. The East Coast suffered through months of drought 
this summer, causing enormous crop losses to our farmers. Then 
Hurricane Floyd arrived with severe rains, further affecting farmers 
with widespread floods.
  These two acts of nature are serious emergencies affecting millions 
of people, yet this conference report does not do nearly enough for 
farmers on the East Coast.
  In my state of New Jersey, agriculture is a $1 billion a year 
business involving 830,000 acres on over 8,000 farms. While in some 
more rural states these statistics may not be significant on a relative 
basis. But in a densely populated place like N.J. they are over-
powering.
  This summer's drought caused losses on 406,000 acres affecting 7,000 
of those farms. All 21 counties in my state were declared drought 
disaster areas. It has taken a truly devastating toll on our farm 
community.
  According to Secretary Glickman, the drought alone resulted in a 
total of $1.5 to $2 billion in damages throughout the Northeast and 
Mid-Atlantic regions.
  And now, we have the devastation of Hurricane Floyd on top of the 
drought disaster. If any state has suffered a true farm disaster this 
year--it's New Jersey as well as our neighbors in the northeast.
  Unfortunately, although this conference report contains $8.7 billion 
in emergency assistance for farmers, only $1.2 billion of that is for 
weather related disasters. And this $1.2 billion is spread out over the 
50 states. That will not leave a fair share for New Jersey and other 
northeastern states that actually suffered a disaster this year.
  Numerous New Jersey farmers have been left with no hay, no crops and 
no livestock worth taking to market.
  Without our help, the result of these disasters may force some 
farmers to end decades of family farming and to give up the way of life 
that they love.
  This Congress must do more. The situation facing East Coast farmers 
is a true emergency, in every sense of the word. At a time when we are 
watching entirely predictable activities like the census being declared 
emergencies, we are doing little to assist those who face true acts of 
God.
  I cannot support this conference report until the farmers in New 
Jersey and up and down the East Coast receive the help they need.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I plan to cast my vote in favor of 
the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations conference report. I do 
so, however, with great disappointment in the final package crafted by 
the Republican leadership. In short, I believe the conference report 
inadequately addresses the needs of our Nation's farmers, falls short 
on lifting economically dangerous embargos, and has turned a usually 
bipartisan, open, and fair process into a backroom operation.
  With that said, Mr. President, I cannot stand in the way of at least 
some relief for to our struggling farmers and our fragile farm economy. 
The Illinois Department of Agriculture estimates that $450 million from 
the $8.7 billion agriculture relief package will directly benefit 
Illinois producers through receipt of 100 percent of their 1999 
Agriculture Market Transition Act (AMTA) payments. This is in addition 
to the more than $450 million already received by Illinois farmers this 
year to help them through this crisis.
  The Illinois farm economy is in trouble. Farm income in Illinois 
dropped 78 percent last year to just over $11,000, the lowest in two 
decades and down significantly from the $51,000 figure in 1997. Lower 
commodity prices and record low hog prices, in particular, are 
primarily to blame for this net farm income free fall in my home State.
  The Illinois Farm Development Authority recently noted that the 
financial stress faced by Illinois farmers today is higher than it has 
been for 10 years. Activity in the Authority's Debt Restructuring 
Guarantee Program is four or five times higher today than last year. 
The Authority approved 7 to 10 loans per month in 1998. In 1999, the 
Authority has been approving 30-40 Debt Restructuring loans per month-a 
300-percent increase. This is a record level, unmatched since the 1986-
87 farm crisis.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture has predicted that prices for 
corn, soybeans, and wheat will remain well below normal and that farm 
income will again drop this year. Nationally, farm income has declined 
more than 16 percent since 1996.
  USDA is facing the largest farm assistance expenditure in its 
history. USDA processed 2,181 Loan Deficiency Payments LDPs in 1997, 
about 2.1 million in 1998--a thousand times more, and will work through 
a projected three million LDPs this year. Unfortunately, it appears 
that this crisis will drag on for the foreseeable future, further 
draining USDA's resources and reserves.
  I served as a conferee on this bill. However, I never had the 
opportunity

[[Page S12487]]

to fully debate the disaster provisions or bring up important matters 
such as producer-owned livestock processing and marketing cooperatives. 
Also, I find it unacceptable that the conference report excludes Cuba 
from the list of countries exempted from embargoes and sanctions for 
food and medicine. The Senate voted overwhelmingly in August to include 
the Ashcroft-Dodd provision in this bill. And Senate conferees insisted 
on this important language. When it became clear that the House 
conferees were on the verge of agreeing to a food and medicine 
exemption for Cuba, the House Republican leadership shut down the 
conference and completed the outstanding issues behind closed doors.
  I did not sign the conference report because I believe the process 
was tainted--conferees were excluded from important final decisions. I 
hope this is never repeated. It undermines the credibility of the 
entire Congress.
  Once the Senate acts on the conference report and sends it to the 
President, our role in helping to improve conditions in rural America 
does not end. We should vigorously explore other ways to help our 
Nation's farmers and our rural economy. We should work on short-term 
remedies like additional targeted disaster assistance as well as long-
term solutions such as expanded trade opportunities--including ensuring 
that agriculture has an equal seat at the table for the upcoming round 
of WTO talks, promotion of renewable fuels like ethanol, and tax 
fairness.
  I hope the president will sign this bill quickly and then work with 
the Congress to submit a supplemental request taking into account the 
devastating financial crisis that continues in rural America. To delay 
further action on this matter would be a great disservice to the men 
and women who dedicate their lives to production agriculture.
  Mr. ROCKFELLER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to comment on 
the conference report and the crisis in agriculture that came to pass 
in my State of West Virginia during the historic drought of 1999.
  I am happy that after seeming to be a forgotten issue for so long, 
the necessity of emergency assistance for the victims of weather-
related disasters has been included in the final bill that will be sent 
to the President. I commend the diligence of my colleague, the senior 
Senator from West Virginia, in working to ensure that this funding made 
it, and for working to include a specific mention of West Virginia's 
horrible statewide drought in the final report language.
  Earlier this year, I saw the devastation visited on my State by this 
drought, and I vowed to do whatever I could to help West Virginia 
farmers and producers. I probably have written or signed onto more 
letters about agriculture funding this year than in all my years in the 
Senate. I invited the Secretary of Agriculture to come out and see the 
damage first-hand, and I walked along with him and Senator Byrd through 
the parched fields of Mr. Terry Dunn, near Charles Town, West Virginia. 
Farmers from around West Virginia told us how terribly the drought was 
hurting them. Many of these people work their farms and another full-
time job, in hopes of keeping viable family farms that have passed down 
through four, five, and six generations.
  I voted today to approve the conference report, although I believe 
the amount of emergency assistance should have been much higher. I 
voted for cloture because this money is needed, wherever it will 
eventually go, as soon as it can be dispersed. I made the decision that 
``too little right now'' was better than ``too little, too late.''
  I also realize that other, more divisive, issues have bogged down the 
conferees much more so than the prospect of providing a helping hand to 
struggling agricultural producers in the Northeastern, Mid-Atlantic, 
and Southeastern states. Actually, I am led to believe that some level 
of drought funding was among the least contentious issues, and that the 
conferees ultimately based their number on estimates provided by the 
Secretary of Agriculture.
  Still, I remain troubled that the amount appropriated seems so low, 
and that emergency funding took so long to become a sure thing. I am 
mindful of the severe budget constraints under which they are 
operating, and the tense debates that have accompanied any attempt to 
appropriate emergency funding. But if the drought of 1999 was not a 
valid emergency, when will we see one?
  Another thing that I will never understand is how the U.S. Senate--
including Senators whose own states have suffered the worst drought 
damage since records were kept--could have voted down emergency funding 
when we originally debated this bill. I voted for the Democratic 
package which lost, and now finds its way into the final report. 
Another thing that troubles me is that while the conferees used 
Secretary Glickman's preliminary estimate of drought losses, they 
grouped those losses together with losses incurred during the 
devastation wrought by Hurricane Floyd, estimates of which exceed the 
emergency assistance in this bill by many billions of dollars, and did 
not appropriate a more realistic sum.
  Once again, I know the conferees have attempted to give guidance to 
USDA in how this money should be distributed, and I look forward to an 
emergency supplemental appropriation that will allow for meaningful 
rehabilitation of the flood-ravaged agricultural areas of the Southeast 
and New Jersey. I hope, Mr. President, that if any such supplemental 
assistance is proposed, that there be included with it sufficient 
additional funds for our many drought survivors as well.
  I hope for this, because this drought might be the last straw that 
ends the farming life as last for as many as ten percent of my state's 
small- and medium-sized farmers. Because of this terrible drought, it 
is estimated that West Virginia will suffer truly horrendous losses: As 
much as $89 million in cattle; half of our annual apple crop--for the 
worst yield since 1945; half of our corn; almost half of our soybeans; 
and nearly 90 percent of our new Christmas trees, a relatively new crop 
for West Virginia farmers, but one that has allowed many family farms 
to remain in the family.
  In closing, Mr. President, I once again applaud the efforts of my 
colleague Senator Byrd for doing all that he could to see that our 
farmers weather this crisis. And I call upon the rest of my colleagues 
to recognize that most farmers in the drought- and flood-ravaged 
portions of the eastern United States will need much more help, as soon 
as it can get to them.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep 
frustration with the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations 
conference report before us today.
  Two weeks ago, the Republican leadership pulled the plug on 
conference negotiations--and killed our prospect for comprehensive 
sanctions reform and additional assistance for agricultural communities 
hit by economic and natural disasters. When we look back at this first 
session of the 106th Congress, I believe we will see that decision as 
an enormous missed opportunity.
  Mr. President, Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in 
the nation. And agriculture is one of its top exports. The growers in 
my State need open markets. Many times, market access is closed or 
limited because of the actions of foreign countries. We can and must 
fight to break down barriers erected by other nations.
  We must also fight to break down the barriers to foreign markets 
created by our own government. Sanctions that include food and medicine 
do not serve the interest of the United States, and they certainly do 
not serve the interests of American producers. Oftentimes with the best 
of intentions, we have cut off all trade with states that sponsor 
terrorism, fail to live up to critical agreements, or refuse to share 
our principles of democracy.
  Mr. President, we cannot and must not tolerate reprehensible actions 
by rogue states. But it is clear to me, and to 69 other Senators who 
voted for sanctions reform, that we do not act in the best interests of 
American foreign policy or American agricultural producers when we 
impose unilateral food and medicine sanctions. The people in the world 
we hurt most with unilateral sanctions are American growers.
  The Senate sanctions reform package was a huge step in the right 
direction. It deserves to become law. Wheat growers in my State deserve 
access to Iran,

[[Page S12488]]

which was once our largest export market for soft white wheat. And pea 
and lentil growers deserve access to Cuba, a market valued at more than 
$17 million. In both of these cases, our foreign competitors have 
stepped into the market vacuum created by U.S. sanctions policy.
  The Administration started sanctions reform earlier this year. I 
applaud those efforts--belated as they were. I also applaud those in 
the Senate who worked so hard for passage of the Ashcroft-Dodd 
amendment. But now the Republican leadership has sent the message to 
our foreign competitors that they can continue to conduct business as 
usual--that U.S. growers will not soon be players in markets like Iran 
and Cuba.
  After hearing for years from some Republicans that the Administration 
lacked the will to reform our nation's outdated and ineffective 
sanctions policies, the Republican leadership proved it could not lead 
American agriculture into the 21st century. Too many of our producers 
already have empty wallets and empty bank accounts, and--in response--
Congress delivered empty rhetoric on sanctions reform.
  In September, I met with representatives of the Washington 
Association of Wheat Growers, the Washington State Farm Bureau, and the 
Washington Growers Clearing House. I expressed my strong support for 
the sanctions reform package and my hope that some agreement could be 
reached between the Senate and House. I did not count on the procedural 
maneuvering that doomed the sanctions package. Our growers deserved a 
better process and a better outcome.
  Mr. President, in a perfect world this bill would include sanctions 
reform. Its emergency provisions would include more money for specialty 
crops, additional funding for the Market Access Program, and increased 
Section 32 money for USDA purchases of fruits and vegetables. It would 
include more resources for farm worker housing and Natural Resource 
Conservation Service conservation operations.
  On the subject of minor crops, I would like to discuss the plight of 
apple growers in my state. The apple industry in particular is in the 
throes of the economic conditions as bad as anyone can remember. Poor 
weather has played a role, but more important are the economic factors.
  Apple juice dumping by China has removed the floor price for apples. 
Chinese apple juice concentrate imports increased by more than 1,200 
percent between 1995 and 1998. I was pleased to sponsor a letter with 
Senator Gorton, signed by a total of 21 Senators, to Commerce Secretary 
Daley urging the administration to find that Chinese dumping is 
destroying our growers and to impose stiff retroactive duties. Weak 
Asian markets and high levels of world production have contributed 
greatly to the terrible economic situation in central Washington State.
  As a result, many small family farms that grow some of the best fruit 
produced in the world are going out of business. Many of these are not 
marginal producers. They are efficient growers whose families have been 
growing high quality apples and pears and other commodities for 
generations.
  As in other parts of rural America, the communities that rely on tree 
fruit production for their economic base are reeling. It is hard to 
diversify when your economic foundation is crumbling. It is estimated 
approximately 20 percent of Washington apple growers will lose their 
farms in the next three years. And that is a conservative estimate. 
Over the August recess, I met with community leaders in north central 
Washington State. Okanogan County alone has experienced $70 million in 
losses in the tree fruit industry leading the county to declare an 
economic disaster.
  Language in the conference report directs the Farm Service Agency to 
review all programs that assist apple producers, and review the limits 
set on operating loan programs used by apple growers to determine 
whether the current limits are insufficient to cover operating 
expenses. I urge FSA to complete this review as soon as possible so 
that those of us who represent apple producing states can improve the 
Federal Government's assistance to our growers.
  The conference bill before us provides $1.2 billion in disaster 
assistance. The report language for that section of the bill mentions 
the plight of apple growers and urges the USDA to address the problem. 
However, let's be clear that it will be very difficult for my state's 
apple producers to get meaningful assistance through this bill. Simply 
put, this bill is not a victory for apple growers or their communities.
  In the future, some of my colleagues may criticize the Secretary of 
Agriculture for not recognizing the critical need in apple country and 
failing to deliver assistance. Earlier this year, August Schumacher, 
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, came to 
Washington State to hear from apple growers. I know the administration 
understands the needs of growers in my State. But the administration 
can't realistically address the needs of growers all over the country 
with only $1.2 billion. Nevertheless, I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to direct aid to apple growers in Washington State.
  I believe this Congress needs to accept responsibility for the 
shortcomings in the bill. The Republican leadership certainly bears 
complete responsibility for the unacceptable manner in which this bill 
was taken out of the hands of congressional appropriators in the middle 
of conference negotiations.
  Mr. President, while this bill is flawed, it is still a step in the 
right direction. I intend to vote for the conference report. Although 
we didn't do it two weeks ago, we must send the message this week that 
Congress will try to reestablish opportunity in rural America.
  I will vote for this bill because it provides emergency assistance to 
many of our farmers and ranchers. It funds research, including new 
positions for potato and temperate fruit fly research that are critical 
to minor crop producers in my state. It delivers a nearly $52 million 
increase for programs in President Clinton's Food Safety Initiative, 
including $600,000 for research into listeriosis, sheep scrapie, and 
ovine progressive pneumonia virus (OPPV) at ARS facilities in Pullman, 
Washington and in DuBois, ID. It provides critical funding for WIC and 
other feeding programs, and for P.L. 480.
  Mr. President, I was tempted to vote ``no'' on this conference 
report. But just as I believe the Republican leadership should have 
embraced responsibility on sanctions reform, I believe voting to pass 
this conference report is the most responsible approach. It is my 
sincere hope the Senate will pass sanctions reform and other 
legislation to provide greater economic security to communities that 
rely on agriculture before the end of this session.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for a 
provision by Senator Ashcroft included in the Senate version of the 
Agricultural Appropriations Act for FY2000. This provision passed with 
70 votes in the Senate but it was subsequently stripped out of the 
conference report after the conference stalled and never reconvened.
  The Ashcroft provision is simple. It substantially curtails the use 
of unilateral sanctions of food and medicines without removing them 
absolutely from the palette of foreign policy options. If the President 
decided to include food and medicine in future sanctions, he would have 
to receive the approval of Congress, through an expedited procedure.
  Mr. President, American farmers have spoken and they want help. In 
the past year, cotton prices have tumbled 46 percent and wheat is down 
more than 60 percent. Corn sells for as low as $1.50 for a bushel in 
some places. It is not surprising that net farm income dropped almost 
one billion dollars between 1996 and 1998. Storms and drought have 
destroyed our Nation's crops. We must help our struggling farmers out 
of this crisis.
  The farmers in my home State of Arkansas have made it clear to me 
that one measure needed to help them out of the current crisis is an 
expansion of export markets. Indeed, our farmers are missing out on 
millions of dollars in exports each year. It is estimated that 
agricultural sanctions have robbed U.S. farmers out of an estimated ten 
percent of the world wheat market and half a billion dollars in sales. 
Before agricultural sanctions were placed on Cuba in 1963, that country 
was the largest U.S. export market

[[Page S12489]]

for rice, taking more than 50 percent of total rice exports. Even 
today, American farmers are losing out to farmers in Canada, Europe, 
and Asia who sell $600 million worth of food products to Cuba.
  While President Clinton issued an executive order in April of this 
year allowing food and medicine sales to Sudan, Libya, and Iran, these 
sales would still face significant restrictions. Sales would be 
licensed on a case-by-case basis and made only to non-governmental 
entities. In some cases, where there are no non-governmental entities 
buying food for the people, no sales could be made.
  It is true that the regimes that are sanctioned from food and 
medicine, including the governments of the Sudan, Libya, Iran, Iraq, 
and Cuba, are reprehensible. But we must also consider the populations 
of the these countries--people with whom we have no argument, people 
who are starving, people who are sick because they do not have enough 
food or medicine. While governments may intentionally withhold food and 
medicine from their populations, both to foster anti-American sentiment 
and to keep the people under subjection, we benefit no one by denying 
our farmers the opportunity to sell their crops. If we allow these 
sales--if we rein back our food and medicine sanctions, then we leave 
these regimes without an excuse for not providing their people with 
food. We close off a channel of resentment and make clear to people 
living under repression that their government is solely responsible for 
leaving them hungry. And we leave these governments with less money for 
weapons. Senator Ashcroft's provision accomplishes all of these things.
  Mr. President, I am not arguing for a provision that has been 
defeated and will never reappear. Let me say again that the Senate 
passed this provision with 70 votes. I am confident that it will 
advance this legislation favorably again.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, Chairman Cochran and his staff have done a 
highly commendable job of crafting a bill to help agriculture in these 
tough times. Important funding is included in the bill for agricultural 
research, nutrition programs, natural resource programs, food safety, 
export enhancement, rural development, and marketing and regulatory 
programs. I am exceptionally pleased with the funding that will go to 
Montana to carry out important agricultural research and promote rural 
development.
  Times are tough in agriculture. In Montana, thousands of farmers and 
ranchers are experiencing a severe price crunch. Commodities simply are 
not bringing the prices agricultural producers need to break even. Now 
is an essential time to provide producers opportunities for 
diversification and increased marketing opportunities. Times are tough 
and times are changing.
  The Federal Government has the opportunity to provide agricultural 
producers with enhanced options for marketing. We can do that through 
funding for agricultural research and rural development and policy 
changes for sanctions reform, country-of-origin labeling, rescission of 
the USDA grade, balance of trade laws, and price reporting.
  I am extremely pleased with the inclusion, at my request, of 
reporting in this bill. Mandatory price reporting is a milestone for 
livestock producers. For too long there has been too much mistrust 
between agricultural producers and meat packers. Four major packers 
control 79 percent of the meat-packing industry. Many producers raising 
and feeding livestock feel that packers can control the market by not 
providing data on either the number of cattle they buy or the prices 
they pay for it. The USDA collects the information voluntarily. This 
legislation mandates that packers will provide that data twice daily 
and make it easily accessible to ranchers.
  Mandatory price reporting provides Montana producers with all the 
pertinent information they need to make the best possible marketing 
decision. It means that a Montana rancher can check the daily markets. 
They will have the necessary data to make the decision to sell their 
livestock immediately or hold out for a better price. A five cent 
increase in the market can mean an extra $30 per animal. On a 300-head 
operation that means an extra $9,000. To those experiencing the best 
economic times in years, $9,000 doesn't seem like much. I can tell 
you--to a rancher who hasn't met the cost-of-production in three or 
four years, any amount of money in the black looks pretty good.
  Lately ranchers have not had the money even to buy necessities for 
operating expenses. Due to the nature of the business and risks 
involved, farmers and ranchers are used to utilizing credit and 
operating loans. However, this economic crisis has bankers and rural 
business worried. Main Street Rural America is hurting too. Producers 
making knowledge-based marketing decisions helps everybody. It helps 
agricultural producers--and it helps rural communities who depend on 
agriculture for their livelihood.
  Kent and Sarah Hereim own a 300-head operation between Harlowton and 
Judith Gap, MT. Nine thousand dollars means to them a new computer. 
That gives them even more accessibility to marketing information and 
the ability to make better marketing decisions. A computer provides 
access to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or the Chicago Board of Trade 
for futures marketing options. It provides an updated mechanism to pay 
bills and keep spreadsheets on operating expenses. A computer can be a 
valuable tool for ranchers to keep production records, carcass data, 
grazing plans, and other management information. These records allow 
producers to be better managers and increase profits.
  Nine thousand dollars can mean a new bull in addition to the 
computer. Buying better seedstock increases genetic capability and 
produces better animals. Increase in quality increases profit. More and 
more emphasis is being placed on paying producers on a grid. Paying on 
a grid means ranchers are paid on the quality of their animals not 
merely the number of pounds. This gives producers who strive for better 
genetics and meat quality a clear advantage.
  Rural communities win too. An extra $9,000 helped the local computer 
store and it helped others in the industry. That new bull Kent and 
Sarah bought helps the seedstock (bull) producer who now has extra 
money to buy fencing supplies from the local agricultural supply store. 
The owner of that ag supply store now has extra money for Christmas 
gifts at the local clothing store. That clothing store owner puts extra 
money in a CD at the bank. In a rural community a dollar turning over 
makes a world of difference.
  This example is why it is so important to put control back in the 
hands of the livestock producer. It is exceedingly important to 
producers to have an assurance that they are receiving timely and 
accurate data. It doesn't make sense for those raising the commodity to 
be a passive price-taker. Having the information readily accessible 
puts the rancher in a position to make good marketing decisions and not 
be left fully at the mercy of the buyer.
  In Montana, livestock outnumber people by at least twice. These are 
less than a million people in Montana and over 2.5 million head of 
livestock. Sixty-four percent of the land in Montana is used for 
agricultural production. Livestock producers depend on the livestock 
markets for their livelihood. Mandatory price reporting gives them that 
data and the controls to use it.
  Also important to livestock producers is the Sheep Industry 
Improvement Center. This center, which is located at USDA, has a $30 
million budget to assist the sheep and goat industries in research and 
education.
  I realize that no long-term solution will work until this current 
economic crisis is taken care of. This bill goes a long way in getting 
producers back on their feet and on the way to a better agricultural 
sector. Immediate funding needs of farmers and ranchers are addressed 
in a manner that will give them an opportunity to get back on track.
  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.
  I am pleased that important language for durum wheat producers was 
included in the bill. Before this change, the method for calculating 
loan deficiency payments (LDP) repayments unfairly presumed a high 
quality for

[[Page S12490]]

durum, which resulted in a lower repayment rate for their crop. 
However, as a result of this language, the USDA has agreed to correct 
inequities in the current loan deficiency program (LDP) program for 
durum wheat.
  The crop insurance portion of the bill will provide $400 million to 
provide agricultural producers with a premium discount toward the 
purchase of crop insurance for the 2000 crop year. Currently, farmers 
would pay a higher premium for the year 2000 than for 1999 or 2001. 
With the lowest prices in years, agricultural producers cannot afford 
higher premiums.
  I am disappointed that sanctions reform was taken out of the bill. I 
believe these concerns must be addressed as soon as possible. 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.
  Imposing trade sanctions hurts American farmers and ranchers. 
Sanctions have effectively shut out American agricultural producers 
from 11 percent of the world market, with sanctions imposed on various 
products of over 60 countries. They allow our competitors an open door 
to those markets where sanctions are imposed by the United States. In 
times like these our producers need every available marketing option 
open to them. We cannot afford lost market share.
  Trade sanctions are immoral. Innocent people are denied commodities 
while our farmers and ranchers are denied the sale to that particular 
country. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues will see fit to open 
up more markets by supporting Senator Ashcroft.
  Farmers and ranchers must be provided a fighting chance in the world 
market, and the people of sanctioned countries must be allowed access 
to agricultural commodities.
  Again, I thank the fine chairman Mr. Cochran, and his staff, for all 
their work on this bill. I will continue to fight for Montana farmers 
and ranchers and provide a voice for agriculture.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the conference 
committee on H.R. 1906, the Agricultural appropriations bill for FY 
2000 included a legislative rider sponsored by Senator McConnell that 
would fundamentally change the H-2A temporary foreign agricultural 
worker program.
  I am concerned that the McConnell rider would be harmful to both 
foreign and domestic farm workers. The McConnell rider would 
essentially allow agribusinesses to import as many H-2A foreign guest 
workers as they want, regardless of whether there are workers here in 
America who want those jobs.
  That would be harmful to the U.S. farm workers who want the jobs, 
obviously. But it would also be harmful to other farm workers, who 
would then have to compete with more easily exploitable foreign labor. 
And I believe it would not be good for the guest workers themselves, 
who would have few of the protections and benefits to which Americans 
are entitled.
  The Administration opposes the McConnell rider. So does the U.S. 
Catholic Conference, the National Council of La Raza, the Farmworker 
Justice Fund, and the United Farm Workers. The McConnell rider also 
flatly contradicts the recommendations of the General Accounting 
Office.
  Let me take a moment to describe how the H-2A foreign guest worker 
program works, and maybe that will help explain what the McConnell 
rider does. The H-2A program allows agricultural employers to import 
foreign workers on a temporary basis, but only when there is a shortage 
locally of available U.S. workers. The Labor Department has to issue a 
labor certification that there is a shortage of available U.S. workers. 
But before employers can get that certification from the Labor 
Department, they have to recruit U.S. workers during a period of 28 to 
33 days.
  The McConnell rider would substantially shorten the period during 
which agricultural employers have to recruit U.S. workers. Under 
current law, the recruitment period is 28 days, though it can be 
extended to 33 days if employers have to refile their application. The 
McConnell rider would shorten the recruitment period to 3 days, with a 
5-day extension for refiling. The recruitment period would shrink from 
28 days to three days.
  Three days! Does anyone think any kind of meaningful recruitment is 
going to take place in a period of three days? Of course not. 
Shortening the recruitment period to three days would turn the labor 
certification process into a sham and a charade. The result would be 
that U.S. farmworkers who want those jobs wouldn't be able to get them, 
and employers would have almost automatic access to cheap, exploitable 
foreign guest workers.
  GAO agrees that shortening the recruitment period to three days would 
undermine the labor certification process. A December 1997 GAO report 
looked at this very proposal and found that ``employers will not have 
sufficient time to meet their duties as required by the program and 
domestic workers will not have ample opportunity to compete for 
agricultural employment.''
  The issue here is whether we should make the deplorable working 
conditions of farmworkers in this country even worse, because that 
would be the effect of the McConnell rider. I don't think my colleagues 
really want to do that.
  Given the--frankly--miserable working conditions that many farm 
workers have to endure, I think it would be unconscionable for us to 
add to their burdens. Farm workers don't have a lot of power. They 
don't have a lot of economic power, and they don't have a lot of 
political power. They don't have a lot of money to contribute to 
political campaigns. You don't see a lot of farm worker faces among the 
lobbying groups that visit our offices.
  Yes, there are some people who advocate on their behalf--groups like 
the U.S. Catholic Conference, National Council of La Raza, the 
Farmworker Justice Fund, the UFW. But farmworkers are largely 
disenfranchised and disempowered. Ultimately, they are dependent on our 
good will. I hope we can show a little good will towards people who 
don't have much leverage over us, but people who are very decent and 
hardworking and deserve better.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the agriculture 
appropriations conference report. First, I thank the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator 
Cochran and Senator Kohl, for their hard work on this legislation. They 
faced multiple challenges in trying to find funds for so many different 
and critical areas within agriculture.
  I support this bill, Mr. President. I support it because it will help 
provide some immediate relief to our farmers, who, in many states, are 
facing a twin blow from drought and low commodity prices. I know that 
in my home state of Ohio--where agriculture is the number one 
industry--many of our farmers are in serious financial trouble. When 
you're getting hit from both drought and low commodity prices, it 
really hurts.
  I am pleased that the bill we will send to the President today will 
take an important step toward helping agriculture producers overcome 
some of the current problems resulting from this summer's drought and 
low commodity prices. For example, the conference report includes $5.54 
billion in emergency assistance for Agricultural Market Transition Act 
payments (AMTA). This amount will double producers' AMTA payments for 
1999 crops. Also, the bill enables farmers to receive AMTA payments at 
the beginning of the fiscal year rather than in two installments. This 
is very important for many of Ohio's farmers who are struggling right 
now to make ends meet. The Senate should get this bill to the President 
as quickly as possible. Our farmers need relief now--not later.
  This summer has brought with it one of the most prolonged periods of 
drought in this century. I have talked to many farmers back home and 
have driven along the highways and back roads in Ohio--you can see how 
this summer's drought has severely stunted the growth of corn and other 
key crops. It's devastating. And this devastation is widespread. 
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has designated all but one of 
Ohio's eighty-eight (88) counties as natural disaster areas. Of those, 
Secretary Glickman designated sixty-six (66) counties as primary 
disaster areas.
  According to the Governor of Ohio, our state's farmers are expected 
to lose

[[Page S12491]]

$600 million in income due to the drought. Let me repeat that, Mr. 
President. In Ohio, our farmers stand to lose $600 million. When 
combined with the current low commodity prices, it is no wonder that 
many farmers in Ohio are asking themselves--and us--how they and their 
families are going to make it.
  In response, the bill we will send to the President today provides 
approximately $1.2 billion--to assist farmers plagued by the drought. 
It's a decent start. But, while this assistance will surely help lessen 
the immediate financial worries of many of our drought-stricken 
farmers, it doesn't address a fundamental issue here--and that is that 
our farmers aren't equipped to withstand cyclical economic downturns 
and natural disasters over which they have no control. As I see it, we 
have failed to give agriculture producers the tools they need, over the 
long-term, to manage risks--whether those risks come from the market or 
nature. There are things that we, in Congress, are trying to do to help 
get to the root of the challenges facing our farmers today. Let me 
explain.
  The United States is the most open market in the world. While our 
farmers are the most productive in the world, market barriers against 
the free and fair trade of our agriculture products exist. Dismantling 
these barriers must be a top priority. Congress can help by giving the 
President fast track authority to negotiate trade agreements. Fast 
track authority would allow the Administration to enter into trade 
agreements with other countries, where we are the most competitive and 
to negotiate with specific regions of the globe.
  Failure to pass fast track puts our farmers at a serious disadvantage 
with global competitors. For instance, the Latin America and Carribean 
region offers great opportunities for increased agriculture exports. It 
is one of the fastest growing markets for U.S. exports and will exceed 
the European Union as a destination for U.S. exports by next year. This 
market is expected to exceed both Japan and the European Union combined 
by the year 2010. Other nations already are working to break down 
barriers in this region. The United States cannot afford to sit on the 
sidelines--just watching--much longer. We need to get into the game. 
That would help our farmers.

  When our foreign trading partners are not trading by international 
rules, and doing so to the detriment of our farmers, our trade 
authorities should use all the tools available to them. For example, I 
introduced bipartisan legislation, the ``Carousel Retaliation Act,'' 
which would increase pressure on our trading partners to comply with 
World Trade Organization rules by requiring the U.S. government to 
rotate targets every six months.
  What's happening is that our nation--and especially our farmers--are 
being injured by the refusal of some foreign countries to comply with 
World Trading Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement rulings. 
Noncompliance with Dispute Settlement rulings severely undermines open 
and fair trade. As many of our farmers, cattle ranchers, and large and 
small business owners know firsthand, this is having a devastating 
impact on their efforts to maintain or gain access to important 
international markets.
  The ``Carousel Retaliation Act'' would help ensure the integrity of 
the WTO Dispute Settlement by rotating--or carouseling--the retaliation 
list of goods to affect other goods 120 days from the date the list is 
made and every 180 days, thereafter. Currently, the U.S. Trade 
Representative has the authority to carousel retaliation lists, but is 
not required to do so.
  The Carousel bill requires the U.S. Trade Representative to rotate 
and revise the retaliation list so that countries violating WTO Dispute 
Settlements cannot merely subsidize the affected industries to recover 
from retaliation penalties. American farmers are the most efficient and 
competitive in the world. When given the opportunity to compete on 
equal footing, they will be the most successful, as well.
  Besides opening new markets abroad, there are things we can do here 
at home to help our farmers prosper under the Freedom to Farm Act we 
passed three years ago. I cosponsored legislation that would allow 
farmers to open savings accounts into which they can place--tax free--a 
certain percentage of their profits during good economic times. These 
funds can remain in their accounts for up to five years. If hard times 
come along--as we know they do--farmers can withdraw funds from their 
accounts. The only time these funds would be taxed is when they are 
withdrawn from the account or after five years.
  This bill, the Farm and Ranch Risk Management (FARRM) Act, was 
included in the $792 billion tax-relief package that I supported and 
Congress passed. That tax relief package had many other provisions 
helpful to farmers. Besides the FARRM provision, the bill included the 
elimination of estate taxes, broad-based tax relief, the elimination of 
the marriage penalty, and the full deductibility of health insurance 
for the self-employed. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed this 
reasonable tax relief package--that doesn't help our farmers.
  Most important, we should get the federal government off the backs of 
our farmers so they can have the freedom to do what they do better than 
any other country--and that's produce. I have cosponsored the 
Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act, which would require the 
Environmental Protection Agency base pesticide use decisions on sound 
science rather than worst-case scenarios. Also, I have cosponsored 
legislation that would require the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) to base any ergonomic standards on sound science.
  Mr. President, our farmers need assistance--the kind that is provided 
through the agriculture appropriations bill and the kind of assistance 
that comes from pursuing trade and tax policies that would further the 
economic strength and freedom of American agriculture.
  I urge the President to sign the appropriations bill immediately so 
that farmers in Ohio--and throughout the country--can receive short-
term relief as quickly as possible. I also urge the President to take a 
long, hard look at how we can give our farmers the kind of lasting 
relief they need to stay in business not just this year, but for 
generations to come.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr President, I rise today to bring to the attention of 
my colleagues the plight of our nation's farmers. Now, one might ask, 
what is a Senator from Rhode Island doing speaking about farming? Isn't 
that usually handled by Members from the Midwest? Well, Mr. President, 
that is not the case. Farming is alive at our nearly 700 farms in Rhode 
Island. However, these same family farmers in Rhode Island and those 
across the nation are looking to Congress for some much needed help in 
the wake of this summer's horrible weather conditions.
  Today, the Senate will be asked to vote on final passage of the 
conference report on the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Agriculture and 
related agencies appropriations bill. This bill is just one of the 
thirteen spending bills which Congress must approve and the President 
must sign before the beginning of the new fiscal year. This is a major 
bill which funds many important farming and environmental programs. 
However, I must reluctantly vote against final passage of this report 
for two reasons.
  During the debate on the bill earlier this year, farmers in the 
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic were in the middle of what would become one 
of the worst droughts in the history of this region. In fact, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that Rhode 
Island experienced its driest growing season in 105 years of 
recordkeeping. As a result, crop damages were widespread. According to 
the Farm Service Agency in my state, crop losses ranged from 35 percent 
to an astounding 100 percent. These losses created a terrible financial 
burden on the farmers in Rhode Island, as well as the entire state 
economy.
  In response to these problems, as well as those experienced by 
farmers across the country, the Senate approved a $7.4 billion 
emergency relief package, and I was glad to support it. In the House, 
no such funding existed. However, as the difficulties worsened and the 
need for additional funding was necessary, I was committed to making 
sure that our family farms in Rhode Island would not be left out of the 
pot. To that end, I pressed for direct assistance to specifically 
address drought damage in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. As everyone 
knows the 1999 drought knew no state barriers or boundaries. Senators 
from both sides of the aisle knew that

[[Page S12492]]

making this a partisan issue would not make federal assistance for our 
farmers come any quicker. We needed to help our farmers and farming 
families to start the process of rebuilding for new crops and a new 
season.
  In the end, an additional $1.2 billion was allocated for assistance 
to farmers across the country who have incurred losses for crops 
harvested or intended to be planted or harvested in 1999. The key word 
in that sentence is ``across the country.'' In the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic alone, damage assessments range from $2 to $2.5 billion. 
However, this additional money will not go directly to those farmers in 
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic that need it the most. Instead, the 
money will be available to all farmers who have suffered from flooding, 
Hurricane Floyd, and the drought. This certainly is not sufficient 
funding for our region's family farmers.
  I also must vote against this conference report because of its 
failure to include language that extends the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact. This is an issue that has the support of a majority of the 
Senators in this body. In fact, during debate on the agriculture 
spending bill, a majority of Senators--53 to be exact--voted to end a 
filibuster on the dairy compact issue.
  As many of my colleagues know, the Compact was a state-generated 
response to the decline in the New England dairy industry over the last 
decade. In the early 1990s, all six New England states approved 
identical legislation to enter into the Compact. Congress approved the 
Compact as part of the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill.
  Due to the unique nature of fluid milk, it must be worked quickly 
through the processing chain and get to store shelves within days of 
its production. Due to these conditions, dairy farmers are at a 
distinct disadvantage when bargaining for a price for their product. As 
a result, the minimum farm price fluctuated wildly over time. The 
Compact corrected this problem and leveled the playing field at no cost 
to the American taxpayer. How can one be against that?
  I am heartened by the consistent efforts of my colleagues Senators 
Jeffords, Specter, and Leahy among others to keep these dairy farmers 
in mind throughout the debate on the bill and in conference. Although 
we were not successful, the issue will not go away. The dairy compact 
issue will be revisited and the voice of the majority of Senators will 
be heard.
  I thank the chair for this time, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues today in 
opposition to the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations 
Conference bill. Usually, it's a testimony to someone's power when they 
can ``kill two birds with one stone.'' Well, amazingly the managers of 
this bill were able to kill three birds with one stone - - the 
Northeast Dairy Compact, drought relief and agricultural sanctions.
  Unfortunately, the impact felt by small farmers in the Northeast will 
be meteoric. I have heard from many of my colleagues about the price 
drops their farmers have experienced this year. Well, dairy farmers 
witnessed a 40 percent price drop in one month. If it was not for the 
Northeast Dairy Compact, this drop could have crushed Vermont dairy 
farmers.
  They have also suffered through one of the worst droughts this 
century. And how does this Conference bill respond? It doesn't.
  Instead, the Conference Committee blocked Senator Specter from even 
raising his amendment to extend the Northeast Dairy Compact and denied 
any targeted disaster relief for farmers in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic who suffered through fifteen months of drought.
  However, we are yet again sending disaster payments and price 
supports to the Midwest and Southeast. I guess the Conference committee 
decided to ignore the old adage that you should not hit someone when 
they are down. Why not continue to prop up grain prices so that when 
Vermont farmers have lost all their livestock feed to the drought they 
can pay even more for feed from other states?
  When we passed the Freedom to Farm bill, one of the premises its 
success was based on was that farmers would also have the freedom to 
market. By expanding our markets overseas, our farmers would not have 
to depend on subsidies from the federal government. Yet, after the 
Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment to update our sanctions 
policy and allow our farmers access to more markets, the Conference 
committee decided to continue with the old system of guaranteeing 
farmers the price they want through artificial means and expect 
taxpayers to go along with it.
  Now, I am sure that many of these crops did suffer significant price 
or market losses and may deserve assistance. But, farmers in the 
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are just as worthy. In Vermont alone, we 
have witnessed over $40 million in drought damage. Without some 
assistance many of our farmers are not going to make it through the 
winter. In the last two years they have suffered through an ice storm, 
flooding, and two summers of drought.
  What is so galling to me is that although Congress authorized $10.6 
billion in disaster payments in Fiscal Year 1999, the Northeast and 
Mid-Atlantic have only received 2.5 percent of that assistance. Today, 
we will likely pass $8.7 billion in disaster assistance and our farmers 
will probably only receive 2 cents out of every dollar.
  Adding salt to our wounds, the Conference Committee also saw fit to 
block any extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact. Our region 
developed and implemented a system to help our dairy farmers at no cost 
to the federal government.
  I cannot understand how it made sense to the Conferees to stop a 
program that is supported by farmers and consumers alike because it 
does not increase retail price and does not cost the taxpayers money 
while continuing programs that do cost the taxpayers money. In fact, 
retail milk prices within the Compact region are lower on average than 
in the rest of the nation.
  I could go on for hours about the ironies contained in this 
Conference bill. Although I am tempted to run through the virtues of 
Vermont dairy products like my colleague from Wisconsin did last week, 
I will let the ``Best Cheddar'' award won by Vermont's Cabot Creamery 
at the U.S. Championship Cheese Contest in Green Bay, Wisconsin speak 
for itself.
  However, I do want to take just a few more minutes to reiterate the 
importance of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. 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. 
Half the Governors in the nation and half the state legislatures asked 
Congress to allow their states to set their own dairy policies--within 
federally mandated limits--through compacts.
  When it was clear that federal policies were not working to keep 
dairy farmers in business, states took the matter into their own hands 
to insure that dairy farmers stay in business and to assure consumers 
fresh, local supplies of milk. It saddens me that Congress is now 
standing in their way.
  The Northeast Compact has done exactly what it was established to do: 
stabilize fluctuating dairy prices, insure a fair price for dairy 
farmers, keep them in business, and protect consumers' supplies of 
fresh milk. Many of our friends in the South saw how the Compact 
provided a modest but crucial safety net for struggling farmers. They, 
too, want the same for their farmers, and their farmers deserve that 
same opportunity.
  Unfortunately, opponents of dairy compacts--large and wealthy milk 
manufacturers, represented by groups such as the International Dairy 
Foods Association--have thrown millions of dollars into an all-out 
campaign to stop compacts. These processor groups are opposed to dairy 
compacts simply because they want milk as cheap as they can get it to 
boost their enormous profits to record levels, regardless of the impact 
on farmers.
  Mr. President, it is time for Congress to go back to worrying about 
small farmers in this country. That is why this Conference bill is such 
a disappointment to so many of us. The triple whammy of blocking the 
Northeast Dairy Compact, providing no drought relief and closing the 
door to new markets will jeopardize the future of small farmers in my 
region.

[[Page S12493]]

  These farmers do not usually come to Congress asking for help and 
they have rarely received it. Now, when they are facing one of their 
bleakest moments Congress has said ``no.'' I expected better.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the 
passage of this very important bill for American agriculture. I want to 
thank Senator Cochran and his staff for all of their hard work to 
produce this legislation under very difficult circumstances. Although I 
feel much more needs to be done to address the problems in the farm 
sector in my state, I will be supporting this conference report today 
in the hopes that it will provide immediate help to agriculture 
producers across the country still reeling from the combination of low 
prices and poor weather this year.
  Although the underlying bill provides some $60 billion for domestic 
nutrition programs, food safety, agriculture research and extension, 
and other important programs administered by the Department of 
Agriculture, I would like to speak specifically to the farm relief 
package component of this conference report. This bill contains $8.7 
billion in emergency farm assistance for producers hard hit by recent 
plunges in commodity prices and, in many parts of this country, weather 
disasters. Of this total, nearly $5.5 billion will go to program 
commodity producers in the form of increased AMTA payments to help 
compensate for lost markets. In Oregon, we produce a considerable 
amount of wheat for export to Asia, especially in the Pendleton area 
where I am from. For many Oregon wheat producers reeling from collapsed 
markets and prices, I know these increased AMTA payments may make the 
difference between keeping land in production and having to sell the 
farm. Since the beginning of this farm crisis, we have used this 
mechanism to deliver ad-hoc market loss payments to keep program 
commodity farmers afloat, and it may be the best and most efficient 
tool available to us in the short term. However, I believe the only 
long-term solution is to expand overseas market opportunities for our 
commodities. Although unilateral sanctions reform was taken out of this 
bill in conference, I hope we will have an opportunity to revisit this 
issue before the end of this session so that we may begin to address 
some of the root causes of our commodity price problems.
  This farm aid package also provides $1.2 billion for weather-related 
disaster assistance. Severe droughts, both in the Mid-Atlantic States 
and in parts of my state, have caused tremendous agricultural losses 
this year. In addition, as we all know, flooding in the aftermath of 
Hurricane Floyd brought severe farm losses to the Carolinas this fall. 
Rising waters are also a problem for the second consecutive year in the 
Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin of Southeastern Oregon, an issue which the 
conferees have noted in this conference report. Certainly Mother Nature 
has not been kind to many of our farmers this year, and I am concerned 
that the $1.2 billion set aside in this conference report to address 
these weather-related losses may be inadequate. Should this turn out to 
be the case, I hope that my colleagues and the Administration will be 
willing to provide the resources to address these needs in a future 
supplemental appropriations vehicle.
  Perhaps the biggest reservation I have with this farm assistance 
package is that it does not provide any funding to address the problems 
of the so-called minor crops. When the bill passed the Senate last 
August, it contained a $50 million earmark for fruit and vegetable 
producers. While these farmers have persevered with virtually no 
federal assistance in the past, they have not been immune to the Asian 
financial crisis and the historic downturn in the agriculture sector 
that we have seen in recent years. Nursery and potato producers are 
just as much a part of Oregon agriculture as wheat and cattle, yet they 
are not represented in this relief package. I am especially concerned 
about the future of Oregon's tree fruit industry. A number of producers 
in my state may be forced to tear out apple and pear orchards due to 
the deadly combination of international market collapse, frost and 
other weather problems, and mounting domestic regulatory and labor 
costs. I did note that the conferees made fruit and vegetable producers 
eligible for the $1.2 billion in weather-related disaster assistance 
money. However, I am afraid that none of this funding will reach Oregon 
tree fruit producers, considering that this same pot of money will be 
stretched to the limit to assist producers impacted by weather problems 
this year. I believe specialty crop farmers deserve a place at the 
table alongside our program commodity producers, and I hope we will 
better address their needs in future appropriations legislation.
  Mr. President, despite the reservations I have about this conference 
agreement, I find that the few negatives are, in the end, outweighed by 
the many positive aspects of this bill for the Oregon farm sector. 
While I look forward to the opportunity to work with my colleagues on 
the pressing farm issues that have not been spoken to in this 
conference report, I will be casting a vote in favor of the bill. I 
hope that we will act affirmatively on this legislation today and not 
further delay the delivery of this needed relief to family farmers 
across the country.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I plan to vote for the Agriculture 
Appropriations Bill today, and I would like to thank those who have 
helped move the ball down the field. But I'd like to state for the 
record my opposition to the Conference Committee's decision to remove 
language previously approved by the Senate that would have removed 
barriers to trade for domestic producers.
  I am extremely disappointed and disheartened that this year's 
Agriculture Appropriations bill will not take steps to open up 
additional trade markets to domestic producers, especially after this 
body voted 70-28 to pass legislation that would exempt agricultural 
products from unilateral economic sanctions.
  In short, Mr. President, a small handful of people have overturned 
the will of the majority by strong-arming Congress with decisions made 
behind closed doors. The Members who removed sanctions language from 
the Conference Report are the very same members who promoted the 
Freedom to Farm Act. It's beyond me how they expect Freedom to Farm to 
work when they remove the best chance for our farmers to compete in a 
global economy.
  For months our farmers have been left hanging when it comes to 
disaster relief payments, loan guarantees and crop insurance reform. 
Producers in Arkansas should not be let down by Congress again. They 
should be looking forward to sending 300,000 metric tons of rice to 
Cuba next year. Arkansas producers have been particularly affected by 
trade sanctions with countries such as Cuba, Iran and Iraq.
  According to Riceland executive Richard Bell, who testified before 
the Senate Agriculture Committee in May, ``Probably no domestic 
commodity or product has suffered more from these trade sanctions than 
rice. The sanctions towards Cuba in particular were a major blow to our 
industry, especially to growers in the South who produce long-grain 
rice.''
  There is bipartisan support for changes in the way this country 
considers economic and trade sanctions. So, in light of the conferees' 
decision to remove sanctions language, I hope my colleagues will take a 
serious look at cosponsoring S. 566, the Agricultural Trade Freedom 
Act, which would exempt exports of food and other agricultural products 
from any current or future U.S. unilateral sanctions imposed against a 
foreign government. I also encourage my colleagues to consider 
supporting S. 1523, The HOPE Act, which will require the President to 
justify how economic sanctions serve our national interests and to 
report to Congress on an annual basis the costs and benefits of food 
sanctions.
  It's foolish to let our foreign policy objectives cloud common sense. 
Without access to foreign markets, we cannot expect the agricultural 
community to survive. Without a better long-term farm policy, it most 
certainly will not.
  While this bill provides some relief, it doesn't go far enough. What 
we must do is give our farmers a consistent, workable agriculture 
policy. We must give them some idea of what they can count on from 
their government in terms of consistent farm policy. Repeatedly passing 
emergency disaster relief bills isn't the answer. And it is clear that 
Freedom to Farm has not

[[Page S12494]]

worked. According to today's Washington Post, ``Congress has now spent 
$19 billion more in the first four years of Freedom to Farm than it was 
supposed to spend during the bill's entire seven-year life-span.''
  This relief package will hopefully get several of our nation's 
producers through this growing season, but it does nothing to ease the 
minds of our agriculture community for next year. We've taken care of 
the short term needs of our agriculture community, I hope that my 
colleagues will soon take care of the long term.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to once again reiterate my 
support for the reauthorization of the very successful Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact, and I must vote against the FY2000 
Agriculture appropriations conference report without its 
reauthorization. This past Thursday night, I came to the Senate floor 
to urge my colleagues to consider certain points that should prove that 
support of the Compact is justified and I would like to briefly 
reiterate them again today.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact has addressed the needs of states in New 
England who compacted together within their region to determine fair 
prices for locally produced supplies of fresh milk. All of their 
legislatures and the governors approved the Compact and all that is 
required is the sanction of Congress to reauthorize it.
  The Compact has proven to be an effective approach to address farm 
insecurity. The Compact has protected New England farmers against the 
loss of their small family dairy farms and the consumers against a 
decrease in the fresh local supply of milk. The Compact has stabilized 
the dairy industry in this entire region and protected farmers and 
consumers against volatile price swings.
  Mr. President, over ninety seven percent of the fluid milk market in 
New England is self contained within the area, and fluid milk markets 
are local due to the demand for freshness and because of high 
transportation costs, so any complaints raised in other areas about 
unfair competition are quite disingenuous.
  All we are asking, Mr. President, is the continuation of the 
Northeast Dairy Compact, the existence of which does not threaten or 
financially harm any other dairy farmer in the country.
  Only the consumers and the processors in the New England region pay 
to support the minimum price to provide for a fairer return to the 
area's family dairy farmers and to protect a way of life important to 
the people of the Northeast.
  Under the Compact, New England retail milk prices have been among the 
lowest and the most stable in the country. The opposition has tried to 
make the argument that interstate dairy compacts increase milk prices. 
This is just not so as milk prices around the U.S. have shown time and 
time again that prices elsewhere are higher and experience much wider 
price shifts than in the Northeast Compact states.
  Also, where is the consumer outrage from the Compact states for 
spending a few extra pennies for fresh fluid milk so as to ensure a 
safety net for dairy farmers so that they can continue an important way 
of life? I have not heard any swell of outrage of consumer complaints 
over the last three years. Why, because the consumers also realize this 
initial pilot project has been a huge success.
  Mr. President, there is almost $8 billion in the Agriculture 
Appropriations Conference Report for farm disasters partially created 
by competition in the global marketplace and because of a series of 
weather-related problems. The funding will be paid for by the federal 
government. Now, some of my colleagues want to create a disaster 
situation for Northeast dairy farmers by taking away a program that has 
not cost the federal government one cent. There has been no expense to 
the federal government--not one penny--for the Northeast Interstate 
Dairy Compact. The costs to operate the Dairy Compact are borne 
entirely by the farmers and processors of the Compact region. And, when 
there has been a rise in the federal milk marketing prices for Class I 
fluid milk, the Compact has automatically shut itself off from the 
pricing process.
  In addition, the Compact requires the compact commission to take such 
action as necessary to ensure that a minimum price set by the 
commission for the region does not create an incentive for producers to 
generate additional supplies of milk. There has been no rush to 
increase milk production in the Northeast as has been stated here 
today. There are compensation procedures that are implemented by the 
New England Dairy Commission specifically to protect against increased 
production of fresh milk. No other region should feel threatened by our 
Northeast Dairy Compact for fluid milk produced and sold mainly at 
home.
  There is no evidence that prices Northeast dairy farmers receive for 
their milk encourages overproduction of milk that spills over into 
other regions and affects dairy farmers in other areas. I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record, a table from the Daily Market 
News showing USDA Commodity Credit Corporation purchases of surplus 
dairy products with the total and percentage by regions for the last 
three fiscal years.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  USDA COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION PURCHASES OF SURPLUS DAIRY PRODUCTS
 TOTAL, AND PERCENTAGE BY REGIONS FY 1996/97, FY 1997/98 AND FY 1998/99
                                 TO DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 1998/99
                                             1996/97   1997/98     \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total estimated milk volume (million).....       390     1,412     2.090
                                           =============================
Percentage:
    Midwest...............................      56.8       9.6       9.5
    West..................................      43.2      90.2      90.5
    East..................................       0.0       0.2       0.0
                                           -----------------------------
    U.S...................................     100.0     100.0     100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ October 1, 1998-September 3, 1999.
 
Notes: The eastern region from Maine to Florida has sold no surplus
  dairy products to USDA this fiscal year. All CCC purchases have been
  nonfat dry milk with 164 million pounds (90.5%) coming from the
  western states and 15 million pounds (9.5%) coming from the Midwest
  states for a total of more than 179 million pounds.
Sources: Dairy Market News, USDS-AMS: Vol. 65--Report 39 (Oct. 2, 1998)
  and Vol. 66--Report 35 (September 3, 1999).

  Ms. SNOWE. An important point here, Mr. President, is that, despite 
what has been said on the Senate floor today, the Eastern region of the 
country from Maine to Florida--the very states that wish to compact--
sold no surplus dairy products to the USDA this past fiscal year. All 
Commodity Credit Corporation purchases came from the Western and 
Midwest states.
  And, despite what has been stated by the opposition, there are no 
added costs to the federal nutrition program. There has been no adverse 
price impact on the WIC program--the Women's Infants and Children's 
program--or the Federal school lunch and breakfast programs. In fact, 
the advocates of these programs support the Compact and serve on its 
commission.
  So, I ask for the support of my colleagues today for my dairy farmers 
in Maine and to vote against the Agriculture Appropriations Conference 
Report because it does not include the reauthorization of the Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact as the State of Maine and every other New 
England state legislature, governor and its citizens have requested, 
and I thank the Chair.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation. It does not provide adequate relief to farmers across this 
country. It fails to address issues which will decide the fate of tens 
of thousands of family farms. It fails to give relief to an entire 
region with a significant farming community. The drought afflicting 
farmers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions is as severe a threat 
to their existence as low crop prices are to others. The farmers of my 
state wish they had crops to receive low prices for. Yet this bill 
fails to remotely begin to address their concerns. The entire relief 
package of $8.7 billion is primarily focused on low crop prices in the 
South and to a much lesser degree the Midwest. Only $1.2 billion or 
slightly over 10% is for ``weather-related disaster relief''.
  To put this in perspective, let me explain the extent of the drought 
damage. Despite recent rains, New Jersey is in the middle of its driest 
season in 33 years. From June to August the State received less than 2 
inches of rain. Normally, we receive more than 8 inches during this 
period. Reservoir levels in Northern New Jersey dipped to 10% below 
normal--and despite the

[[Page S12495]]

recent ``rains'', farmers have not recovered. The impact of the drought 
on New Jersey agriculture is devastating. 400,000 acres on 7000 farms 
have sustained damage from 30%-100%. Damage estimates are $80 million, 
and expected to reach $100 million.
  But let me be clear that New Jersey is not alone. Secretary Glickman 
estimates that the need for drought relief in the Mid-Atlantic and 
Northeast regions is over $2 billion. Governors of our States estimate 
the damage to be closer to $2.5 billion. But even the limited amount of 
funds offered in the Agriculture Conference report isn't designated for 
drought--the entire country including losses from Hurricane Floyd will 
compete for this funding.
  Mr. President, my region of the country has a long tradition of 
helping out other regions in need. I recall my House colleagues 
referring to the Great Midwest Drought of 1988. Many considered this 
drought the worst in the Midwest since the Great Depression. That year, 
we passed an emergency relief bill which provided direct disaster 
payments to farmers in the amount of $3.4 billion. I voted for this 
bill because it was the right thing to do. I realized that farmers in 
these states needed drought relief, and I gave my vote of support, 
because it was needed.
  In 1992, Hurricane Andrew, one of the most destructive storms of this 
century, ripped through Florida, inflicting $30 billion in damage. I 
voted for the Emergency Supplemental bill which brought $9 billion to 
Florida, to help the citizens of that state recover from the enormous 
damage to infrastructure, homes, businesses, and crops.
  1993 was another horrible year for the Midwest, this time, hit by 
flooding. Many call it the Great Midwest Flood of 1993. Midwestern 
states were horribly damaged by the breaching waters of the 
Mississippi. I voted for this $2.5 billion supplemental for farm 
disaster payments. Mr. President, New Jersey was not hit with severe 
flooding in 1993. In fact, New Jersey only received $5.5 million in the 
bill. But I voted for this package nonetheless. Because farmers in the 
Midwest needed it, and it was right to provide them with adequate 
relief.

  In January of 1994, the Northridge Earthquake rocked Southern 
California, causing in excess of $30 billion. I voted for H.R. 3759 
which provided $4.7 billion in supplemental funding to assist 
Californians in their time of need. My point, Mr. President, is to 
illustrate that I have voted to assist the people of other regions of 
this country in their time of need, despite the fact that my state may 
not reap substantial benefit. I ask that my colleagues respect that New 
Jersey and other Northeast states have endured a prolonged drought that 
threatens our remaining agriculture.
  Over the August recess, I visited farms and county fairs and spoke to 
New Jersey farmers about the effect of the drought on their livelihood. 
They understand weather and they accept the difficult life of a farmer 
but they cannot understand how Congress, which repeatedly sends 
billions to the South and Midwest, can ignore them in their time of 
need. I don't have an answer for them but I can only imagine it is 
because Members do not realize the extent of the agriculture community 
in my State and our region.
  So I would like to educate this body to the significant agriculture 
community in New Jersey and the Northeast. There is a reason why they 
call New Jersey the Garden State. The $56 billion food and agriculture 
complex is New Jersey's third largest industry, behind only 
pharmaceutical and tourism in economic benefit. Last year, New Jersey's 
9,400 farms generated over $777 million in sales. Nearly 20% of the 
entire state of New Jersey is productive farmland. That's one million 
acres of working farms in New Jersey. And in an era of increasing 
consolidation in the agriculture industry, virtually all of New 
Jersey's farms are family-owned. The average farm size in New Jersey is 
just over 100 acres. At $8,370 an acre, our farmland is the most 
valuable in the nation.
  Farmers in the Garden State produce more than 100 different kinds of 
fruits and vegetables for consumption locally in New Jersey but also 
for export around the world. Nationally, New Jersey is one of the top 
ten producers of cranberries, blueberries, peaches, asparagus, bell 
peppers, spinach, lettuce, cucumbers, sweet corn, tomatoes, snap beans, 
cabbage, escarole and eggplant. Mr. President, in addition to the fruit 
and vegetable farmers of my state, a small number of individuals from 
Warren, Salem, Sussex, Burlington, and Hunterdon counties are the 
backbone of agriculture in New Jersey. These are New Jersey's dairy 
farmers. The dairy industry is an important segment of our agricultural 
economy, supplying almost one-fifth of the fluid milk and dairy 
products used by over 7.5 million residents in New Jersey. The industry 
is comprised of 180 dairy farmers. Farmers who get up early to milk 7 
days a week, 365 days a year, starting out long before dawn, before 
most of us are up.
  However, this pales in comparison to what the dairy industry used to 
be. New Jersey has lost 42% of its dairy farms in the past decade. New 
Jersey dairy farmers produced 300 million pounds of fresh, locally 
produced milk in 1997, with a value of $41.3 million.
  If we do not re-authorize the New England Dairy Compact and allow for 
New Jersey's entrance the remaining 180 farmers will be gone in the 
next decade. New Jersey's state legislature has already approved entry 
into the compact. The loss of dairy farms--whether from inadequate 
relief from this summer's drought or from an inability to enter the 
Dairy Compact means more that just a loss of business in New Jersey. 
This is more than just a nostalgia about the decline of a time in 
America when agriculture was dominated by family farms, it is also 
about the practical reality of the loss of open space. It is about 
farms being sold to developers and turned into parking lots & strip 
malls. It is a story we know all too well in New Jersey. An average of 
10,000 acres of rural/agricultural land is being developed piecemeal 
every year in New Jersey. In 1959, New Jersey had 1,460,000 acres of 
farmland; today we have but 800,000. In 1959, New Jersey had 15,800 
farms. Today we have 9,400.

  As I said earlier this horrible drought has crippled the fruit and 
vegetable farmers in my state. Unfortunately, it has also had a 
devastating impact on New Jersey's already very tenuous dairy industry. 
It has compounded the dire circumstances affecting dairy farmers from 
low prices. Erratic fluctuations in dairy prices is forcing many out of 
business. For example, in March dairy farmers across the country 
experienced a 37% drop in milk prices. When the price drops, the price 
family farms must pay to feed their cows, hire help, and pay utility 
costs stays the same. As prices decline and costs increase, farmers 
need a mechanism to ensure stable prices for milk or they will go out 
of business.
  In addition to the erratic market, New Jersey's family farms face a 
threat from a pricing system introduced by the Department of 
Agriculture. This system, Option 1B, would almost surely be the death 
knell for New Jersey's dairy farmers. Option 1B, would reduce dairy 
farmer income in New Jersey by $9 million a year.
  New Jersey's membership in the Compact would set a floor on dairy 
prices and reimburse farmers in times of financial trouble. It would 
provide protection in the event of another drastic price drop. Compacts 
would also help maintain environment efficiency and open space by 
preserving the more than 100,000 acres of New Jersey farmland for 
agricultural use and preventing development.
  Unfortunately, the Dairy Compact and Option 1A pricing provisions are 
not included in this Conference Repot. This will force dairy farmers in 
my state out of business. Like real drought relief, the dairy 
provisions necessary to sustain farmers in our region are simply not 
present.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report and send 
a message that we should implement farm policy for a nation of farmers, 
not to serve certain regions at the expense of others.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the FY2000 Agriculture 
appropriations bill. This important piece of legislation provides a 
total of $60.3 billion. While a large portion of this funding goes 
toward food stamps and nutrition programs, this bill also contains 
funding for agriculture research, conservation, rural development and 
direct assistance for our farmers to get through these tough times.
  Farmers across the board are facing difficult times. Prices are the 
lowest

[[Page S12496]]

this decade and exports are decreasing while imports are increasing. 
For most commodities, the cost of production exceeds the revenue 
received. It doesn't take long to go out of business when your costs 
are more than what you can get for your end product.
  The problem is price, not the farm bill or farmers. Because of the 
Asian flu and depression of other world markets, our farmers are 
suffering. Simple economics tells you when supply is above demand, 
prices will drop. Ag commodity prices will increase as our world 
markets come back, but we don't expect that to happen this year or 
next. If we want our farmers to stay in business, we must help them in 
the short term until commodities can be sold on a world market.
  Something must be done to help the American farmer through these 
tough times, which is why I support this bill's $8.7 billion in farmer 
aid. The emergency aid includes $5.54 billion in additional agriculture 
market transition payments, which represent a 100 percent increase in a 
producer's 1999 payment. This is a direct payment that our farmers 
could receive before Thanksgiving if the President signs the bill into 
law. This is the immediate assistance our farmers and farm groups ask 
for in hearings in the Agriculture Committee and elsewhere.
  The conference report includes assistance for crop insurance premium 
write-downs to maintain the 1999 level, which is essential if we want 
farmers to keep using the program. I am also pleased to see assistance 
to certain specialty crop producers. These are just a few of the 
provisions that I supported in this bill.
  The conference report also contains mandatory livestock price 
reporting legislation. I supported this price reporting legislation 
when it was voted out of the Agriculture Committee and I am pleased to 
see it is moving forward. There needs to be greater transparency within 
the livestock industry. Our producers need information on which to base 
their marketing decisions, and this legislation will provide that.
  As others have noted, this conference report does not include 
sanctions reform language that passed by wide margin on the floor of 
the Senate. However, I understand legislation to exempt agricultural 
commodities from unilateral economic sanctions will come before the 
Senate before we adjourn, and it is something we ought to pass this 
year. In order to insure the long term survival of the Agriculture 
industry in the United States we must work on trade and sanctions 
reform to enable U.S. producers to compete on a level playing field 
with the rest of the world.
  Mr. President, I hope the Senate adopts the conference report today 
and the President signs it into law so that the hard working farmers 
across the country can get the assistance we have promised them and 
that they so deserve.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support the FY 2000 Agriculture 
Appropriations Conference Report because it provides important 
emergency assistance for America's farmers and will provide $15 million 
in disaster assistance for the commercial fisheries failure in the Gulf 
of Maine. I believe that this funding is crucial to the survival of 
fishing industry in New England. It will allow our fishermen to use 
their fishing vessels as research platforms to do, among other things, 
cooperative research activities in partnership with the New England 
Fisheries Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
  I thank appropriations committee Chairman, Mr. Stevens, and the 
Democratic ranking member, Mr. Byrd, for their support of New England 
fishermen and their assistance in obtaining the funding included in the 
Conference Report. I also thank Agriculture appropriations subcommittee 
chairman, Mr. Cochran, and Democratic ranking member, Mr. Kohl, and 
their staffs. Finally, I thank Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Gregg, and Ms. Snowe 
for their support in including this provision in the conference report.
  Last year, we were able to secure $5 million in emergency assistance 
for cooperative activities to assist fishermen who were negatively 
affected by groundfish closures in the Gulf of Maine. These new funds 
will be used to help fishermen overcome drastically reduced trip 
limits. A trip limit of 30 pounds, about 2 cod, was imposed immediately 
after the fishery opened. This was raised to 100 pounds by Commerce 
Secretary Daley at the request of the New England Fisheries Management 
Council.
  These trip limits have had a severely detrimental economic and social 
impact on many fishery-dependent communities in New England. Ongoing 
stock recovery requirements have required continued reductions in 
fishing and resulted in continuing hardship. The additional funding 
included in the Conference Report will be used to employ fishermen in 
cooperative research programs, fund on-vessel observer programs, and 
provide training and education for fishermen.
  I thank my colleagues for recognizing that New England fishermen and 
their communities require disaster assistance until our fisheries have 
a chance to rebuild.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, during my service as a United States 
Senator representing the State of Washington, I have consistently 
reiterated one message to the growers and producers I represent. While 
I am not a farmer, and could not possibly pretend to understand the 
intricacies of the business, I will always do my best to understand 
farmers' needs and work on agriculture's behalf. But there is one 
message growers in the State of Washington have emphasized to me that I 
understand without question. When times are tough and the check book 
doesn't balance, families feel the pinch.
  When times are tough, I have asked farmer after farmer, ``why do you 
do this?'' The job is terribly difficult, so much of what growers 
depend upon is unpredictable, and for two years in a row now, world 
markets have driven prices so low that fathers are telling their sons 
and daughters not to enter the family business.
  But immediately after I question their dedication to their 
livelihood, I'm reminded of the golden, rolling wheat and barley fields 
of the Palouse. I remember my countless visits to Yakima and Wenatchee 
and seeing the lush, vibrant greens of the orchards, rising up out of 
the dust bowl that was once Central Washington. I think about the 
hearty breakfast I ate that morning and the apples and sandwiches 
packed away in my grandchildren's lunches. So much of what farmers do 
and what they produce is a part of our daily lives, that their 
existence in this country is paramount and deserves recognition.
  Farmers are proud, tough, hardworking Americans. Apple growers in the 
State of Washington, for example, don't like to come to my office and 
ask for help. In the past few months, however, I have visited with many 
growers who are visibly despondent. Washington leads the nation in 
apple production, and over the past year, it's estimated that producers 
have lost at least $200 million in the fresh market. From Tonasket to 
Wapato, the message from orchardists was clear--we need help.
  Over the past two months, I have communicated to my colleagues and 
others the significance of identifying a mechanism to assist fruit and 
vegetable growers in the disaster assistance package. During debate on 
the Senate floor in early August, I was able to assist in securing $50 
million specifically for fruit and vegetable relief. In the conference 
report we're addressing today, potential relief for these very growers 
is incorporated in the $1.2 billion available for crop loss assistance. 
While I am frustrated that the specific designation for fruits and 
vegetables was removed, I am particularly pleased that apples were 
mentioned specifically.
  Apples are not the only commodity produced in Washington that could 
stand to benefit from the crop loss section of the package. Asparagus 
growers, hard hit by weather and a lack of labor have lost thousands of 
dollars in fresh product. Potato growers who have also been impacted by 
poor growing conditions can approach the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
for assistance. Many are surprised to learn that the State of 
Washington produces more than 230 food, feed and seed crops, and I hope 
that many of these commodities will receive the assistance they 
require.
  Wheat growers in Washington will also benefit from the $5.5 billion 
available for market loss in the disaster

[[Page S12497]]

package. The nearly $.60 cent per bushel payment to growers will most 
certainly ensure that the highly demanded soft white wheat our farmers 
produce will continue to flow to recovering Asian markets.
  While the disaster package contained in the Fiscal Year 2000 
Agriculture Appropriations bill is most certainly the highlight of the 
legislation, there are other important, annual funding priorities 
included. As a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I 
have worked to ensure that the research demanded and deserved as a 
result of the passage of the Farm Bill is provided for the Pacific 
Northwest. From research for hops to disease eradication in cherries, 
this bill provides funding necessary to ensure the longevity of the 
essential public-private investment in our nation's food production.
  Language and funding in this bill directed at the implementation of 
the Food Quality Protection Act are also essential. Programs related to 
export enhancement and market development received the favorable 
attention growers in my state demanded. And the land grant universities 
are secure in knowing that the formula funds necessary for continued 
excellence in education are available.
  With all that said, there are many in this body who know I was not 
pleased with the removal of Senator Ashcroft's sanctions relief 
amendment in the conference report. Sanction relief is essential for 
the long-term prosperity of agriculture in America. While I received a 
commitment that the Senate would take up this issue before the 
adjournment of this session, I cannot over-emphasize the absolute 
importance and sincere necessity in addressing this issue. Food and 
medicine sanctions do not cripple regimes or dismantle communist 
governments. Instead, they hurt our family farmers and keep food out of 
the mouths of those who cannot provide for themselves. I initially 
refused to sign the conference report over this issue, and sincerely 
hope the Senate will address this matter in the very near future.
  I am also not pleased with the manner in which this bill was dealt 
with in the waning hours of conference. Conferees were literally locked 
out of decisions related to the sanctions issue, dairy, and items 
included in the disaster package. This ``top-down'' philosophy is not 
what should drive the passage of appropriations bills.
  All in all, Mr. President, what we have before us today is a good 
bill. Its contents include year-long negotiations on a variety of 
issues related to the essential functions administered by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. While some issues have caused me to struggle 
with my support or opposition to the legislation, the benefits of its 
passage are overwhelming. It is my hope that the President will give 
his blessing to the bill so that our struggling farm economy can 
receive the charge it needs to rejuvenate our agriculture communities.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this 
conference report. The East Coast suffered through months of drought 
this summer, causing enormous crop losses to our farmers. Then 
Hurricane Floyd arrived with severe rains, further affecting farmers 
with widespread floods. These two acts of nature are serious 
emergencies affecting millions of people, yet this conference report 
does not do nearly enough for farmers on the East Coast.
  In my State of New Jersey, agriculture is a $1 billion a year 
business involving 830,000 acres on over 8,000 farms. This summer's 
drought caused losses on 406,000 acres affecting 7,000 of those farms. 
All 21 counties in my State were declared disaster areas. It has taken 
a truly devastating toll on our farm community. According to Secretary 
Glickman, the drought alone resulted in a total of $1.5 to $2 billion 
in damages throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. And now, 
we have the devastation of Hurricane Floyd on top of the drought 
disaster. If any State has suffered a true farm disaster this year--
it's New Jersey as well as our neighbors in the Northeast.
  Unfortunately, although this conference report contains $8.7 billion 
in emergency assistance for farmers, only $1.2 billion of that is for 
weather-related disasters. And this $1.2 billion is spread out over the 
50 States. That will not leave a fair share for New Jersey and other 
northeastern States that actually suffered a disaster this year. 
Numerous New Jersey farmers have been left with no hay, no crops, and 
no livestock worth taking to market. Without our help, the result of 
these disasters may force some farmers to end decades of family farming 
and to give up the way of life that they love.
  This Congress must do more. The situation facing East Coast farmers 
is a true emergency, in every sense of the word. At a time when we are 
watching entirely predictable activities like the census being declared 
emergencies, we are doing little to assist those who face true acts of 
God. I cannot support this conference report until the farmers in New 
Jersey and up and down the East Coast receive the help they need.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I give due credit to the conferees for 
their hard work to complete action on the Agriculture Appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 2000 which supports the nation's farming economy 
and federal programs through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 
This year's agriculture appropriations bill is also intended to provide 
needed government aid to farmers and their families who have suffered 
critical losses due to severe drought and difficult market conditions. 
However, with much regret, I must vote against this legislation.
  I have several concerns with this final conference agreement.
  First, it contains $253 million in earmarks and set-asides for towns, 
universities, research institutes, and a myriad of other entities that 
were included in this bill without consideration in the normal merit-
based review process. This is $82 million more than was included in the 
Senate version of the bill. Clearly, the House had to get its turn at 
the trough.
  For example, $1.75 million is provided for manure handling and 
distribution in five states, including Mississippi, Iowa, Nebraska, 
Texas and Arizona. Why these five states have a monopoly on manure 
problems in our nation is not adequately explained in this report, nor 
is a rationale provided as to why an earmark of $200,000 is provided 
for sunflower research in Fargo, North Dakota. Unless weather 
conditions are anticipated to change dramatically, it is difficult to 
fathom why spending thousands of dollars on sunflower research in a 
state known for severe weather conditions is more critical than other 
farming emergencies.
  No other clear explanations are provided for earmarking $750,000 for 
the U.S. Plant Stress & Water Conservation Lab in Lubbock, Texas, as 
well as $1,000,000 for peanut quality research in Athens, GA; $500,000 
for fish diseases in Auburn, AL; and, $64,000 for urban pests in 
Georgia. These may very well be meritorious projects, but I must 
question again why these specific projects and localities are singled 
out for direct earmarked funding rather than undergoing a competitive 
review.
  In addition to direct earmarked funding, the conferees have included 
very blatant directive language which singles out specific projects in 
various states for special consideration for grant funding, loans or 
technical assistance from USDA. With these actions, even the limited 
funding made available to USDA for competitive grant and loan 
assistance is not fairly distributed since the conferees have included 
such directives to steer the agency away from considering many other 
meritorious projects that are equally in need around the country.
  Another problem with this spending bill is the inclusion of language 
which provides for an exception for a single producer from the state of 
Nevada from pending federal milk marketing orders to be implemented by 
the USDA. This provision will exclude a single dairy producer in Clark 
County, Nevada from the proposed new Arizona/Las Vegas Marketing area 
when USDA's rules take effect, thereby preventing this single producer 
from competing fairly with the rest of the milk industry.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, there are few issues which cause 
as much controversy and divisiveness as proposed milk marketing 
restructuring proposals. Yet, without any debate, language was included 
in the Senate bill, without notice or debate, to protect this single 
dairy producer while the rest of the nation will be forced to comply. 
Retaining this provision in the conference report is a serious 
infraction of out obligation to treat all interests fairly and to abide 
by the Senate's

[[Page S12498]]

rules which preclude legislation on appropriations bills except when 
approved by a super-majority.
  Mr. President, finally, I am concerned that this legislation contains 
$1.2 billion more than the Senate bill in emergency aid for farmers. 
The House bill contained no such funding at all.
  Late last year, the Congress provided $5.9 billion in emergency 
disaster assistance for farmers as part of the FY 1999 Omnibus 
Appropriations bill. Earlier this year, we provided another $574 
million in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. I opposed 
both of those bills, in part because the bills contained excessive 
amounts of pork-barrel spending but also because of the use of the 
``emergency'' designation for large amounts of non-emergency purposes, 
some of which was included in the farmer aid package.
  While I understand and sympathize with the plight of America's 
farmers who face economic hardship due to a wide variety of natural 
disasters, I cannot support the designation of the entire $8.7 billion 
in assistance to farmers as an emergency.
  The Congress has certain rules that apply to its budget process. One 
of those rules states that, once a Senate-House conference convenes, 
negotiations are limited to only the funding and legislative provisions 
that exist in either bill. Adding funding that is outside the ``scope'' 
of the conference is not in order, nor is the inclusion of legislative 
provisions that were not in either the Senate- or House-passed bills.
  Once again, the appropriators have deviated from the established 
process in agreeing on the provisions in this conference report by 
adding another $1.2 billion in emergency funding to the bill--funding 
that was considered by neither the House nor the Senate--just the 
appropriators. That $1.2 billion for crop disaster loss payments that 
was added to the emergency farm aid package may very well be needed by 
some of our nation's farmers. But its inclusion at the last minute 
defeats the entire concept of fiscal responsibility, which is premised 
on the full Congress debating budget priorities, not just the 
appropriators.
  There were other last-minute add-ons in the conference which were not 
included in the Senate or House bill, including: $2 million for water 
and waste forgiveness loans; $15 million for Norton Sound Fisheries 
failure in Alaska; $56 million for administrative costs associated with 
managing emergency asssistance programs; and, an entirely new title to 
the bill, Title IX, which contains 25 pages of legislation to establish 
a new mandatory price reporting system for various livestock. While 
this legislation originated in the Senate, it was never called up for 
debate or a vote.

  This last provision was never offered as an amendment on the Senate 
floor during consideration of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, 
probably because it would have been ruled out of order since it is 
legislation that is not supposed to be included on an appropriations 
bill. Instead, it was simply inserted into the appropriations bill, 
behind closed doors, without debate.
  American taxpayers have to give up their hard-earned tax dollars to 
pay for these last-minute tactics by the Appropriations Committees. 
Clearly, Congress appears to favor spending that benefits the special 
interests of a few, rather than spend the taxpayers' dollars 
responsibly and enact laws and policies that reflect the best interests 
of all Americans.
  Let me state again that I support federal assistance for farmers and 
others in need, but only when decisions to spend tax dollars for such 
aid are considered fairly and truly help those in need. But when we 
continue the shameful and provincial practice of padding appropriations 
bills with excessive amounts of dubious emergency spending and special-
interest pork-barrel projects, we are short-changing the taxpayers as 
well as our agricultural industry. This bill may help some farmers and 
producers who are truly in dire need of federal assistance, but we are 
harming those in the agriculture industry who are trying to follow 
established guidelines to qualify for other types of non-emergency 
assistance.
  This bill designates $8.7 billion as emergency spending for FY 2000--
money that can only come from the non-Social Security surplus. The 
Defense Appropriations bill contains another $7.2 billion in emergency 
spending, which I will also oppose. Together, we are spending almost 
$16 billion in emergency spending, but, Mr. President, the non-Social 
Security surplus is only estimated to be $14 billion. That means, pure 
and simple, that if we approve these two bills with their emergency 
funding, we will once again be dipping into the Social Security surplus 
to pay for the continued operations of the federal government.
  Already this year, the Senate has approved appropriations bills or 
conference agreements containing almost $10.5 billion in wasteful and 
unnecessary spending. Surely, among these billions of dollars, there 
are at least a few programs that we could all agree are lower priority 
than desperately needed aid for America's farmers. Surely, in the 
voluminous lists of billions of dollars of pork projects, there are a 
few that the Congress would be willing to give up to ensure that we not 
once again dip into the Social Security Trust Fund--a Fund financed by 
the payroll taxes of American workers who are counting on their money 
being available to help them through their retirement years.
  This bill demonstrates that the Congress cares more about taking care 
of special interests than it does about American families. It is the 
taxpayers who have to shoulder the burden to pay for the pork-barrel 
spending in this appropriations conference report and the others that 
will follow, and I will not vote to place that burden on American 
families.
  The full list I have compiled of the objectionable provisions in this 
final conference report will be available on my Senate webpage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as may be consumed to 
the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First, I would like to say that the senior Senator from Mississippi 
has one of the toughest jobs on Capitol Hill, along with the senior 
Senator from Indiana. Chairing the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Agriculture and the Agriculture Committee in the Congress are just 
incredibly difficult tasks. The diversity of agriculture and the needs 
of agriculture are historic in this Chamber.
  Trying to come up with a proper mix of how to solve the needs and the 
difficulties in farm country is complex. It is difficult.
  I understand coalitions have to be put together to pass bills. In 
this case, a coalition was put together to pass a bill that, in my 
mind, did not represent the interests of my area of the country, 
particularly my State of Pennsylvania. I understand that. I appreciate 
the difficulty in doing it.
  I understand that Pennsylvania has a very difficult time 
participating for one reason. We are a very diverse State 
agriculturally. We have a tremendous amount of richness in our 
agriculture. It is our No. 1 industry. Pennsylvania's No. 1 industry is 
agriculture. Most people don't know that. Most people don't know that 
the State of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has the 
largest rural population of any State in the country. We take 
agriculture very seriously. Obviously, our rural population depends 
heavily upon agribusiness for survival.
  We have been hit this year with an absolutely historic drought that 
has devastated our farm community. Throw on top of that, sort of adding 
insult to injury, a big chunk of our State was hit very hard by 
Hurricane Floyd. Not only did we have drought on top of drought and the 
crops burned up, but they had floods. We have a situation where in 
almost every county of our State crop losses are in the area of at 
least 30 percent, and in many areas and many counties it is 100 
percent.
  I looked at the bill we have before us in the Senate and the one that 
came out of conference. I was hoping we could focus more of the $8 
billion that is in this bill on the area of the country that was 
affected most dramatically by weather this year. In my mind, it has 
not. I am not just speaking for Pennsylvania. I am talking about all of 
the Northeastern States

[[Page S12499]]

that were affected--the Mid-Atlantic States--by drought. The big chunk 
of this bill is for AMTA payments, which are payments to farmers who 
are program farmers.
  Before we pass this bill, we are going to give $5.5 billion out to 
farmers who were previous to the Freedom to Farm bill in Government 
programs. The problem in Pennsylvania is we have a very small 
percentage of those farmers because of our diversity. We have very few 
program crops. We have a lot of specialty crops, livestock, and dairy. 
As a result, a very small percentage of our farmers participate in the 
AMTA payments. A very small percentage of, frankly, most of the Mid-
Atlantic and Northeastern farmers participate in the AMTA program.
  When you look at the $8 billion-plus that is in this bill and you see 
$5.5 billion of it going to AMTA, almost none of that is going to the 
area that is most affected by the drought. It is going to the area that 
is having bumper crops.
  The reason we are providing ``disaster'' help, the disaster in most 
of the country is they have too much harvesttime. As a result, prices 
are low. So we are going to give them money because they have too many 
crops to sell at too low a price.
  I can tell you my farmers in Pennsylvania wish they had something to 
sell. So I am a little frustrated when you look at where the bulk of 
the money is going. It is going to areas that are hardly hit by a 
disaster, and certainly no weather disaster. It is a disaster of 
richness, if you will, because of the tremendous amount of harvest that 
has occurred in that area, and, obviously, the world situation and the 
like. When you look at what is specifically targeted for my area of the 
country, the ``drought relief'' is $1.2 billion. Not all of it goes to 
drought relief. A lot of it is going to hurricane disaster relief.
  I can tell you my Governor told us that just the preliminary numbers 
in Pennsylvania are approaching $1 billion in losses for drought. So 
$1.2 billion for drought and hurricane relief doesn't even begin to 
touch on what the problem is in Pennsylvania.
  I know some have said we can do a supplemental appropriations bill in 
the spring to see what the problem is. My farmers can't wait until 
spring. They have to survive the winter. While some folks are getting 
double AMTA payments, $11.2 billion worth of money, my farmers are 
going to be told to wait until the spring.
  Our area of the country has come to the table time after time after 
time after time as the Upper Midwest, the Southeast, and other areas of 
the country have suffered drought, pestilence, floods, hurricanes, 
tornadoes--I can go on and on--a disaster a year in those areas. We 
understand that. Our taxpayers and farmers have come to the table and 
been willing to put up money. We are a big country, and we will pitch 
in together to help.
  When it comes to our farmers being hit with the worst drought in a 
century, the answer is: Wait until the spring. We may pass a 
supplemental if you need it.
  That doesn't cut mustard. I understand we had a vote here yesterday 
on cloture and a group from the Northeast cast our votes on cloture. We 
were defeated. We will be defeated today. This bill will pass and will 
become law. I understand the need for getting assistance to farmers. I 
have to speak up and say what is in this bill is not enough to take 
care of the needs of the farmers in my State.
  A couple of other things happened that were disconcerting. We had 
$134 million in specialty crop money that came out of this bill. We 
grow a lot of fruits and vegetables in Pennsylvania, specialty crops, 
important crops. We had $134 million for that. When it came from 
conference, the money was out and ``specialty crop'' was defined as 
only tobacco and peanuts. We don't grow a lot of tobacco and peanuts in 
Pennsylvania or New Jersey or a lot of other areas hit by the drought.
  Again, that money was designated to help some of our farmers who are 
not the farmers who have been at the Government trough for years and 
years and years with program crops, but folks making it on their own, 
not coming to Washington asking for money. The one time we ask for 
money, the answer is no. I think that is a very sad commentary. We took 
the money for specialty crops, for fruits and vegetables--again, people 
who have never gotten Government subsidies--and we give them to two 
programs that are still getting Government support--tobacco and 
peanuts.
  That is a misguided policy. I understand the dynamics of trying to 
pass a bill. I understand the power and the influence of the peanut 
lobby, the sugar lobby, and the tobacco lobby. I understand now we have 
the honey program back in place, and the mohair program is back. I 
understand all that.
  I keep looking at what it does to those who have been paying the 
bills for a long time for agriculture in the northeastern part of the 
country. What I see is a neglect of a bunch of farmers who work just as 
hard as folks in other areas of the country who don't ask the 
Government to help very much. We hardly ever ask the Government to help 
in our agriculture. The one time we get hit with the drought of the 
century, the answer is: We will give you a little here, and wait until 
next year, and maybe we can give you some more. By the way, some of the 
other stuff we were going to give you, we will not.
  I thank the chairman for the money for crop insurance. That is 
something I very much wanted. The $400 million to help try to get 
farmers into the crop insurance business is very important. We need 
more farmers covered with risk management tools. Crop insurance is 
important. I urge the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator 
Lugar, to take that up quickly and move forward on crop insurance to 
put the money to good use.

  I have to oppose this bill, reluctantly. I understand the difficult 
job the Senator from Mississippi had in trying to craft this to pass 
the Senate and get it signed by the President, but for me it doesn't do 
enough for my area of the country.
  I will have to vote ``no'' on the bill.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Specter, for his comments about the work that went into crafting 
this bill and the challenges we faced along the way. We appreciate very 
much his assistance. He is a member of the legislative committee on 
agriculture and has provided valuable advice, counsel, and assistance 
in the crafting of this bill. We thank him for that.
  As I understand the status of time, we have about 20 minutes 
remaining on the Republican side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 26 minutes remaining and 19\1/2\ 
minutes on the Democratic side.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Grams.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to first commend my colleagues 
for their overwhelming cloture vote last night that permits the Senate 
to move closer to passing this very important Agriculture 
appropriations conference report. I especially commend my colleagues 
for stopping an intended filibuster that was designed to apply pressure 
to extend the life of the Northeast Dairy Compact. I look forward to 
the day when we can talk about the Northeast Dairy Compact in the past 
tense with its detrimental effects on Midwest dairy farmers; that time 
will be ended.
  After hearing all the rhetoric about how compacts are necessary to 
save small family dairy farms, I think it is very important to 
highlight some information my office recently received. According to 
the USDA, NASS data regarding 1998 dairy herd size averages, Vermont 
dairy farm herd sizes averaged 85 head and New York farms averaged 81 
head. In the Midwest, Minnesota dairy farms averaged 57 head and 
Wisconsin farms averaged 59 head. Again, Vermont dairy farms averaged 
in size almost 50 percent larger than Minnesota dairy farms. So much 
for the idea that the Northeast is competing against corporate farms in 
the Upper Midwest.
  I cannot stress this point enough: The Northeast Dairy Compact is 
heavily subsidizing large-scale dairy operations while those small 
farmers in the region do not receive enough to seriously impact their 
bottom line.
  We have always known that compacts are bad for consumers, especially 
low-income consumers. But now we have additional data from the USDA 
showing they help large-scale dairy farming operations rather than 
helping what we hear a lot about, the small farm proponents they claim 
to help.

[[Page S12500]]

  Dairy compacts are an economic zero sum game in which there are many 
losers--most importantly, again, the consumer, and especially low-
income consumers. Dairy farmers in the noncompact regions become 
losers. We hear the rhetoric that somehow the compact is only there for 
the Northeast and it doesn't have any effect on any other dairy farms 
across the country. That is completely false. It does have dramatic 
effects and impacts upon prices of farmers in other areas, especially 
in the Upper Midwest.
  The real winners in this zero sum game, again, are the large dairy 
producers located in the Northeast that receive literally tens of 
thousands of dollars in subsidies for their already profitable 
businesses, not the small dairy farmer who supporters say were the 
focus of this idea to begin with.
  The average 6-month subsidy for large Northeast dairy farms is 
projected to be $78,400--$78,400 in 6 months. Dairy farmers in 
Minnesota would relish that kind of an income if it were spread across 
the whole year. But Minnesota farmers wisely have rejected this effort 
that distorts the system and harms their fellow farmers in other 
States.
  Compact supporters have chosen a strategy of pitting one region of 
the country against another, offering the cartel-like protection of a 
compact to other States to prod them into joining the economic warfare. 
They say: In order to strengthen our position, let's encourage others 
to set up compacts, let's try to expand these ``cartels,'' and then we 
can encourage more votes--and then, again, pitting one region of the 
country against another, encouraging economic warfare. Then they can 
carve up the market, they can receive fixed prices for the milk they 
produce, and they claim this policy does not discriminate against other 
regions of the country.
  Higher prices promote higher production. It doesn't take a scientist 
to figure this out. That is, production is expanded beyond the compact 
region's fluid needs, the excess production then goes into nonfluid 
dairy products or nondrinkable milk products, and this depresses the 
nonfluid prices nationwide.
  The overproduction in the Northeast generated by the compact --the 
cartel, the fixed prices, encouraging overproduction--then is spilt 
over into other regions of the country, which then depresses those 
prices. When they say it has no effect on other dairy farms around the 
country, that is completely false. It does. Where does the excess milk 
go? Again, the prices encourage overproduction, the overproduction then 
is spread out across the country, and that depresses the prices for 
dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest.
  It is very disappointing to me that colleagues would describe 
themselves as free marketers, who understand the basic principles of 
economics would sign on to this protectionist economic power grab. For 
farmers who raise corn, soybeans, wheat, potatoes, and other 
commodities, it seems we are willing in this Congress to try to work 
for their best interests. There is no difference if you raise corn in 
Iowa or Illinois or Minnesota or Pennsylvania; the markets treat that 
corn the same. It is on a competitive basis. The farmers compete on 
their productivity. But when it comes to milk, it is completely 
different. If you are in one part of the country, you get more money 
for your milk than in other parts. Now in the Northeast we want to set 
up a cartel that has price fixing, that encourages overproduction, 
which then spills over to the rest of the country.

  Why do we support one part of a national agricultural policy but then 
distort another part of that policy, and that is dealing with dairy? 
Why should dairy farmers be treated differently than any other farmer? 
Why should we take dairy markets from one region of the country and 
give them to another region of the country? That is exactly, again, 
what the cartel does. Because the milk produced in the Northeast that 
is not consumed in fluid form is spilled over into the Midwest as 
powdered milk, cheese, and butter. So they are now competing for those 
markets and we are then giving them those markets, or at least a share 
of them. Should large producers in the Northeast be able to thrive at 
the expense of small farm families in the Midwest?
  Our farm families in the Midwest are among the most productive in the 
country. Yet their fate now depends not on their competitiveness, not 
on their ability to produce in a competitive manner but on the raw deal 
presented to them by subsidized dairy farmers in the Northeast.
  I am always frustrated by the claim from our pro-compact 
spokespersons, and repeated again in a recent Christian Science Monitor 
article, that compacts are necessary to guarantee customers and 
consumers ``an ample supply of fresh, locally produced milk.'' I am 
satisfied this rhetoric is designed to scare consumers into believing 
if they do not support these compacts they will then go to the grocery 
store and encounter empty milk cases because they cannot get ``fresh, 
locally produced milk.''
  The well-known truth is, with the modernization of refrigeration and 
transportation, we could basically eliminate the entire milk marketing 
orders in this country. That is why they were established to begin 
with, because there was not the refrigeration, there was not the 
transportation to ensure an adequate supply of milk in other parts of 
the country. So it has distorted the entire dairy process.
  But now, with new types of refrigeration and transportation, milk can 
be shipped all over the country and can go to any consumer from 
anywhere, fresh, just as, say, oranges from Florida, lettuce from 
California, red meat from down in Texas. But our country's dairy supply 
is more than adequate to produce fluid milk; that is, the class I milk, 
as they call it. That milk can be supplied to any part of the 
continental United States. There is no shortage of fluid milk 
production in America. It should be built on a competitive basis, not 
protectionist, not a compact region, not guaranteeing some farmers 
protection at the expense of other farmers.
  The country produces three times as much milk as it consumes as a 
beverage. ``The milk may not be locally produced,'' is what you have 
heard--some of the jargon now, ``fresh, locally produced''--but it will 
be fresh. To tell consumers they will not get fresh, locally-produced 
milk, again, is an intentional deception designed to lead people into 
thinking if there are no compacts, the grocers' milk supply will dry up 
or deliveries might be sporadic or frequently interrupted, which 
is simply not true. The perception that somehow Midwest milk is not as 
good as anything produced locally is also an affront to the hard-
working dairy farmers in my State.

  A compact spokesman in the Christian Science Monitor article also 
claims that locally produced milk will be cheaper to deliver than the 
milk bought and brought in from outside the area. Not if you live in a 
compact region, it will not be cheaper. Compacts are designed to 
protect inefficient producers in one region against the more efficient 
producers in another--specifically, the efficient farmers in the Upper 
Midwest. When people argue that when dairy products are no longer 
produced within a region prices to consumers go up within the area, do 
not believe it. If that were true, why would they need compacts at all?
  If milk produced locally would be cheaper, why do they need a compact 
at all? The reason they need it is to drive up their prices. Dairy 
compacts create a minimum price for milk, and they are designed to keep 
cheaper milk out of the region, not in the region. Again, we don't do 
this with any other farm product. We do not set a floor or a minimum 
price for corn from one region to another. We don't pit the Northeast 
against the Midwest against the Southeast against the South; we do not 
do that. But in dairy we do.
  Dairy compacts create a minimum price for milk, and they are designed 
to keep cheaper milk out of a region, not into the region. So, again, 
why do they need compacts at all if their arguments are true?
  Upper Midwest producers can sell class I fluid milk in New England 
for less than the $16.94 per hundredweight floor price of the compact. 
But the floor price in New England effectively keeps the cheaper milk 
out of the market. Indeed, after the Northeast Compact was enacted in 
1997, the price of milk rose--this is the price of milk in New 
England--from $2.54 all the way up to a high of $3.21 a gallon. Milk 
prices

[[Page S12501]]

there initially jumped about 20 cents a gallon. In fact, there were 
some grocers who put up signs along the dairy case that said: Don't 
blame me for the higher prices in milk. Blame the compact. That was 
because consumers were complaining about the jump in the price of milk 
in the New England area.
  So it does drive up the price. They always quote a study that was 
done. They said the first 6 months the compact went into effect, it had 
basically no effect. I would like them to take the last 6 months 
because the compact had not even geared up in those first 6 months, so 
it had very little chance to distort the market. But now, take a poll, 
now take a survey, do the report now, and I will bet the 6 months in 
the last 6 months would be much different than what they are quoting 
today.
  I believe compacts are clearly bad for America. I urge my colleagues 
to reject their extension and insist they not, again, be slipped into 
another appropriations bill in the dead of night.
  To wrap up about the dairy bill--I also wanted to talk about the 
Agriculture appropriations conference we are considering. I am pleased 
again it contains the $8.7 billion in emergency appropriations. I urge 
the USDA to work to get the assistance to our Nation's farmers without 
delay.
  I am also encouraged by conference report language urging the 
President to be more aggressive in strengthening trade negotiating 
authority to help American farmers and also in expressing Congress' 
goals for the upcoming negotiations. The conference report is not 
perfect but it will give our farmers the help to make it through 
another year. But it will be imperative that Congress continues to 
address reforms in our trade sanctions, EPA regulations, crop 
insurance, and also in the Tax Code for farmers to have an environment 
in which they can truly thrive. I am also glad conferees added 
additional assistance to farmers who suffered through these natural 
disasters.

  I urge the USDA, when it is distributing the aid, to remember farmers 
in the northwestern part of my State of Minnesota have been prevented 
from planting due to flooding. In fact, some farmers in the 
northwestern part of Minnesota have not had crops now for 7 years 
because of varying disasters: Flood, drought, disease, et cetera. In 
northwestern Minnesota this year, crop agents and FSA crop acreage 
reports show that 70 to 75 percent of the entire area's tillable acres 
were prevented from being planted in 1999. Only 10 percent of the 
normal intended acreage of annual crops will be harvested this year at 
all. Rainfall amounted to over 200 percent of normal in the critical 
planting months of April, May, and June.
  I know there have been many farmers across the Nation affected by 
drought this year, just the opposite of the problems we have had. But I 
do expect USDA to provide sufficient and equitable relief to farmers in 
northwestern Minnesota who have been shortchanged in the past by some 
of these relief bills. I now hope Congress will turn to enacting long-
term solutions that will make such emergency packages as this one 
unnecessary.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
fulfill our responsibilities to the American farmer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Who yields time? The Senator from 
Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to ask the manager of the bill a 
question relative to fiscal provisions within this bill. The context of 
these questions is when we commenced this session of Congress, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimated the non-Social Security surplus 
for fiscal year 2000 would be approximately $21 billion. Thus far, we 
have committed $7 billion of that to the 1999 supplemental 
appropriations bills through the designation of various items as 
emergencies.
  This bill has additional items designated as emergencies totaling 
$8.7 billion. The effect of this, plus prior action, would be to reduce 
the estimated non-Social Security surplus to $5.3 billion.
  We also have in the offing other emergency provisions which will 
total approximately $15 billion and thus eliminate the non-Social 
Security surplus and place us in a position of having to do what we 
have all committed not to do, which is to dip into the Social Security 
surplus by in excess of $10 billion.
  In that context, I want to ask the manager a short list of questions, 
and I say to my good friend, the Senator from Mississippi, I commend 
him for the work he has done this year and in previous years on behalf 
of American agriculture. I know the frugality with which he approaches 
his task. He has been faced, as has happened in the past, with an 
unusual set of circumstances affecting American agriculture and thus 
the necessity for emergency spending.
  What is the level of emergency spending included in this conference 
committee report?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the amount 
included in the conference committee report that is attributable to 
emergencies is $8.7 billion which is for disaster assistance and 
economic assistance for farmers.
  Mr. GRAHAM. How much has been designated for emergency spending in 
the Senate bill which this body passed?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, when we passed the bill in the Senate, 
there was $7.6 billion approved by the Senate as emergency spending for 
agriculture.
  Mr. GRAHAM. And how much had been approved by the House in its 
original version of the Agriculture appropriations bill?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the House bill contained no funds for 
disaster assistance or economic assistance designated as emergencies.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator. The emergency spending items which 
were included in the fiscal year 2000 conference report, what is their 
degree of adherence to the statutory criteria for emergency spending, 
which are that spending must be necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen, 
and not permanent in character?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding there is no 
statutory test for defining or deciding what is and is not an 
emergency. Even for OMB, it is a matter of policy, as we understand it, 
and that is an executive branch agency under the jurisdiction of the 
President of the United States.
  In the Senate, an emergency is whatever the Senate decides is an 
emergency. A majority of the Senate can designate an event or an 
appropriation as being for an emergency purpose, and that is how we 
judge whether it is an emergency--whether a majority of the Senate 
approves it as such.
  Mr. GRAHAM. To the extent those criteria of emergency being 
necessary--sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and not permanent--if those were 
the criteria, what proportion of the $8.7 billion of emergency spending 
would meet those standards?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I say again, we have no set of criteria. 
There is no statute that provides any criteria or test against which a 
finding of emergency need be made. So it would be presumptuous on my 
part to try to answer what part or if all of the emergency spending in 
the bill would stand the test of the criteria the Senator has 
identified. All five of the ones you have listed are subjected to--
there is no analytical test, in other words, with which one can do 
this. I do not think there is any substitute for good judgment and 
common sense myself, and I think that is what the Senate relies upon.
  Mr. GRAHAM. In the fiscal year 2000 budget, how much is budgeted for 
emergencies that potentially will occur in the fiscal year that began 
on October 1?
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Appropriations Committee allocations that were made 
to each subcommittee do not contain a designation for emergencies as 
such. And as far as I know, the budget resolution did not contain any 
specific section with an authorization or a designation of funds in the 
budget for emergencies.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If I can editorialize a moment on that question, it seems 
to me this would be analogous to a family which, for instance, in its 
budget had said: We will estimate the cost of medical care for our 
family will be $250. At the end of the year, they found, in fact, it 
was $1,000. They had to make certain end-of-the-year adjustments in 
order to fill that $750 missing element in their budget. When they 
began to write the budget for the next year, one would think prudence 
would say: Let's include $1,000 as our medical expenses,

[[Page S12502]]

not a number which has been proven to be inadequate.
  I suggest somewhat the same analogy would be applicable here. If we 
have shown there is $8.7 billion of emergency spending and we have 
appropriated zero for those emergencies, for the future it would be 
prudent to begin to incorporate into our ongoing budget some funds to 
respond to these emergencies. We do not know the characteristics, we do 
not know the geographic location, we do not know when the emergency 
will occur, but we are pretty sure there is going to be some kind of 
emergency somewhere in American agriculture that will warrant a 
response.
  Prudence would indicate we ought to have a fund from which to meet 
those needs so that every year we are not in the position of having 
passed an emergency appropriation which, as we know, has the effect of 
vitiating all of the normal budgetary rules, including budgetary rules 
that require we offset spending with either reductions in spending 
elsewhere or with additional revenue. The effect of this is to go 
directly to the budget surplus.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I think his 
point is illustrated by the fact we have seen legislation introduced to 
reform and improve the Crop Insurance Program to get at that kind of 
problem. If farmers find crop insurance both affordable and effective 
to compensate them for losses of this kind, they would buy crop 
insurance. We have a flawed program now. We are trying to get the 
legislative committee to act on legislation on that subject.
  Senator Lincoln from Arkansas and I have cosponsored a bill that we 
think is needed in order to make that kind of program effective and 
more attractive in the South. We think the current program does not 
represent a reasonable or thoughtful investment of a farmer's funds--at 
least that is the attitude of most southern farmers with whom we have 
talked on this subject.
  One other point on this and that is, there is a Federal Emergency 
Management Agency appropriation that is made every year. That is a 
subject in the budget resolution, and we have in the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill funds to appropriate to that agency to respond to 
the needs of people confronted with disaster. It is not that the budget 
is silent on the subject of disasters. There is the Crop Insurance 
Program that is subsidized by the Government, and there is the FEMA 
program that is funded in the budget each year.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The other two questions relative to the budget relate to 
advance funding. Is there any advance funding in this conference 
report, i.e., funds that were normal fiscal year 2000 expenditures 
which are delayed to a future fiscal year?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as far as the regular appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2000 funds are concerned, there is no advance funding. 
In the disaster assistance package, there is $30 million for advance 
funding of fisheries disaster assistance.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Finally, relative to the payment adjustments, is there 
any change in this conference report relative to the timing of payments 
made to vendors that are beneficiaries which will have the effect of 
moving fiscal year 2000 costs into future years?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is none that this Senator knows 
about.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes 22 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much? Nine minutes and how much?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will yield myself 4 minutes and hurry.
  I want to say a few words about both parts of the bill before us. The 
first part is the regular fiscal year 2000 Ag appropriations bill. I 
commend and thank the chairman, Senator Cochran, and thank our ranking 
member, Senator Kohl, for their hard work and conscientious effort to 
craft this bill under difficult spending constraints.
  There are important provisions in the bill providing funding for 
agriculture programs, agricultural research, food safety, nutrition, 
conservation, rural economic development, and in other areas. There are 
a number of items in this bill that are especially important to my 
State of Iowa, which I will not list here. I just want to say the 
regular fiscal year 2000 bill is basically a good bill under the 
circumstances.
  There is a matter that deserves special mention; and that is, in the 
Senate we had an overwhelming vote of 70-28 to remove sanctions on food 
and medicine. The Senate conferees also voted in the conference to hold 
the Senate position, but the House conferees adjourned before we could 
even vote on sanctions reform. So after all these years of hearing all 
the talk about removing embargoes on food and medicine, the Republican 
leadership in the House walked away before we had a chance to reform 
it. So we still have embargoes on food, embargoes to keep our farmers 
from selling food to foreign customers.
  I also want to mention a provision that was stuck in this bill on the 
H2A program. That program allows bringing in foreign agricultural 
workers if the employer cannot find domestic workers. The provision in 
this bill will significantly shorten the time during which an employer 
has to look for U.S. workers before bringing in foreign workers.
  I recognize that it can be hard to find U.S. workers for agricultural 
jobs in some instances, but I do not think that Congress ought to be 
changing the law to make it easier to cut U.S. workers out of those 
jobs and give them to foreign workers.
  I now will turn to the emergency assistance package, which totals 
about $8.7 billion. My colleagues and I have been working since last 
May to get this Congress to pass a farm assistance package. We had to 
fight for too long this summer even to get a recognition here in 
Congress that there is a farm crisis. Then we had to fight to get this 
Congress to take any action. And finally, we had to fight for a package 
that would be adequate to deal with the severe economic hardship in 
rural America.
  So, we have come a long way since last spring. This emergency package 
will provide a good deal of assistance to help farm families survive 
this crisis. I am disappointed, however, that the bill uses the same 
payment mechanism as the failed Freedom to Farm bill and that it does 
not contain an adequate amount of assistance to respond to the droughts 
and other natural disasters around the country.
  The emergency package has far too little in it for livestock 
producers--particularly for pork producers who have lost $4 billion in 
equity over the past 22 months. And it contains no money for emergency 
conservation work and repairing flood damage. Nor is there any economic 
development assistance for rural communities that are suffering because 
of the downturn in agriculture.
  On balance, I am supporting the emergency package because it will get 
some money out to farm families who are struggling to remain in 
business.
  As I have said, it is like throwing a leaking liferaft to a drowning 
person. That is how I feel. I am standing on the shore. Someone is 
drowning. All I have is a leaking liferaft. Do I throw it to them or 
not? Of course, I do, in the hopes that shortly we will get something 
better. But right now our farmers are drowning. They are sinking. So 
this emergency bill will help for a little bit, but it is not a long-
term solution to the problem.
  The fact that Congress is passing a stopgap emergency package for the 
second year in a row demonstrates that our current farm policy is not 
working. We must reform the failed Freedom to Farm bill before next 
year.
  Unless we reform Freedom to Farm, all the signs indicate farmers are 
going to need another emergency package next year, too. Frankly, you 
can only go to the well so many times.
  We cannot continue to have a farm policy in this country that lurches 
from one crisis to the next. It is time to address the root problem: 
the lack of a farm income safety net in the Freedom to Farm bill. The 
Freedom to Farm bill has to be changed to restore farm income 
protections that were eliminated when the bill was enacted.
  Freedom to Farm is a bankrupt farm policy and it is bankrupting 
America's farm families.
  As we have said repeatedly, this bill uses a payment mechanism that 
has

[[Page S12503]]

nothing to do with what farmers planted this year. The Freedom to Fail 
bill is already a proven failure. So why on Earth would we want to go 
right back to the Freedom to Fail bill to try to remedy its 
shortcomings? This bill includes $5.5 billion in Freedom to Farm type 
payments. They would be paid out based on base acres and yields set 
some 20 years ago. The payments would have nothing to do with this 
year's planting. In fact, they can go to people who planted nothing.
  Using the so-called ``three-entity rule,'' an individual could get 
$80,000 of these payments and not have planted anything. Add that to 
the $80,000 in regular AMTA payments, which they also could get without 
planting anything. This bill then also doubles the payment limit for 
marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments to $150,000. Now in 
practice, that is $300,000 through the use of the three-entity rule. 
The total that potentially could be paid to one individual then is 
$460,000.
  This bill does not treat oilseeds fairly. There is a very complicated 
and confusing program for providing direct payments to oilseed 
producers. It is going to take a long time to get this program sorted 
out and to get the payments out to producers of soybeans and other 
oilseeds--and the payments are not going to be fairly distributed among 
producers. Here is the real irony of this emergency assistance package. 
With the AMTA type payments, if you did not plant anything this year 
you can still get as much as an extra $80,000 under this package.
  I have some examples under the payment scheme we have in this 
emergency package. All of these farmers have 500 acres of land, half 
planted to corn and half planted to soybeans. Yet the payments range 
anywhere from $19,941 down to $2,040--three neighbors right in a row, 
farming 500 acres--half in corn and half in soybeans. Or you can have a 
farmer who decides to go to Palm Beach. He has 500 acres. He did not 
plant anything. He is going to get $17,901 even though he never did 
anything. Yet for farmers in the State represented by my friend from 
North Carolina, who have had disaster losses--or farmers in Iowa, the 
Dakotas, Minnesota, the Northeast and East who have had drought or 
other disaster losses--they are going to get pennies on the dollar. 
Farmers who worked hard, planted a crop, have hardly anything to show 
for it. But here is a hypothetical example of a farmer who planted 
nothing, who has 500 acres, and he is going to get $17,900. That is not 
right.
  Let me run through these examples in a little more detail. I ask 
unanimous consent that a table summarizing the examples be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Palm
           Farmer               Smith      Jones      Brown      Beach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total acres.................        500        500        500        500
Corn base acres.............        500        250          0        500
Corn planted................        250        250        250          0
Soybeans planted............        250        250        250          0
Payment.....................     19,941     10,990      2,040     17,901
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HARKIN. For the first farmer, Smith, all 500 acres are corn base. 
Those are the acres on which the direct AMTA-type payments are made. 
Again, 250 acres planted to corn and 250 acres planted to soybeans. 
That farmer will receive an additional AMTA type corn payment of 
$17,901 and a soybean payment of $2040, for a total of $19,941. Keep in 
mind this farmer is receiving both a corn payment and a soybean payment 
on the very same acre on some of the land.
  The second farmer, Jones, has 500 acres, but this farmer has only 250 
acres of corn base. Again, 250 acres in corn and 250 acres in soybeans. 
This farmer will receive $8950 in AMTA type corn payments and $2040 in 
soybean payments, for a total of $10,990.
  Another farmer, Brown, has 500 acres, but no corn base, with half the 
land in soybeans and half in corn. This farmer will receive $2040, 
because that is all that would be paid on the soybeans.
  In summary, 500 acres of land, half planted to corn, half planted to 
soybeans, and you have a range of payments from $2040 all the way up to 
$19,941. All because the AMTA payments are based on what was planted 20 
years ago or more, not on what farmers are planting now.
  And here is the real kicker, a landowner who chooses to plant nothing 
can receive a payment. So the owner of that 500 acres could still 
receive the $17,901 without planting a seed. I call this the Palm Beach 
Farmer example.
  Mr. President, there is a lot wrong with this bill, but there is an 
overriding need to get assistance out to farmers. Frankly, I have 
little confidence that we would get anything better if this bill were 
sent back to conference. I have amendments that I am still prepared to 
offer. But we couldn't even get the House conferees to come back to the 
table. They were forbidden by their leadership to do so.
  This bill could have been much better, and I deeply regret that we 
were foreclosed from improving it. So I will vote for this conference 
report,with some reluctance, simply because so much is at stake for 
farm families and rural communities in my state of Iowa and across our 
Nation.
  As I said, it amounts to throwing a leaking liferaft to a drowning 
person. Let's throw the liferaft out; but let us change the bill next 
year so we are not back once again trying to pass emergency farm 
assistance.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend, the Senator 
from Mississippi, and the Senator from Wisconsin for all their hard 
work on this very difficult bill. I intend to support this bill.
  Let me talk briefly about what this Agriculture Appropriations bill 
does for North Carolina and what it will not be able to do for North 
Carolina. In North Carolina, we talk about things in terms of before 
and after Hurricane Floyd, unfortunately.
  Before Hurricane Floyd, our farmers were struggling, having very 
difficult times, financially and otherwise. Their crop prices were at 
the lowest levels they have been in many years. And they needed help; 
they desperately needed help. One of the things this bill does is 
provide some of that help in the way of direct market assistance for 
some of the problems they had before Hurricane Floyd.
  We have about $328 million in this conference report for North 
Carolina's tobacco farmers. I have to say, for those around the country 
who are not familiar with North Carolina's farming operations, an awful 
lot of our farmers are tobacco farmers. They may farm a lot of other 
crops, but tobacco is often the staple that allows them to farm those 
other crops. This money was desperately needed. And they needed it now. 
They needed it even before Hurricane Floyd hit. Having visited with our 
farmers, including our tobacco farmers, all over the State of North 
Carolina, we are very pleased and very proud that we were able to get 
them the assistance which they deserved and which they needed.
  Sadly, though, I have to also talk about the situation after Floyd. 
This bill provides $1.2 billion for disaster relief. I have to say, I 
think this is way short of what we are going to need in North Carolina. 
We have a real emergency, I think by anybody's standards, in the 
agricultural farming community in North Carolina as a result of 
Hurricane Floyd.

  I have been all over North Carolina and have spent a lot of time in 
eastern North Carolina, visiting our farms that have been devastated by 
Hurricane Floyd. The reality is, this is a loss from which it is going 
to take many years to recover.
  Of this $1.2 billion, some reasonably sized chunk of that money will 
go to farmers in North Carolina. It will not ultimately be enough. But 
it is critically important that we get some of that money to them, and 
get it to them quickly. I urge the Secretary of Agriculture to do as 
much as he can to get as much of this money as is possible disbursed in 
the immediate future because these farmers need help. They already 
needed help before Hurricane Floyd. And they need help now more than 
ever. They need it immediately.
  What this photograph I have represents is what I saw all over eastern 
North Carolina as a result of Hurricane Floyd and in the wake of 
Hurricane Floyd. We can see almost the entire farm--except for the 
farmhouse--is under water. This property, which has been involved in 
farming for many years, is now under water. And the crop losses have 
been completely devastating.

[[Page S12504]]

  This scene is repeated over and over and over, all over eastern North 
Carolina. We are told the best estimates are, at this point, that there 
is somewhere between $800 million and $1 billion in agricultural losses 
in North Carolina. Obviously, the money in this bill is not going to be 
adequate since it is for the entire country. It is not going to be 
adequate to deal with the loss in North Carolina alone which approaches 
$1 billion. We are going to have to do more.
  I want the people of North Carolina, and particularly our farmers in 
North Carolina, to know that we fully recognize they need help. They 
need help quickly. They do not need loans. They were already up to 
their necks in debt and up to their necks in loans before the hurricane 
hit. They need help. They need direct disaster relief, and they need it 
immediately.
  I point out, both for my farmers in North Carolina and to my 
colleagues, that the money that was recently put in the VA-HUD 
conference report, the approximately $2.48 billion for FEMA, will not 
help with the farming problem in North Carolina because that money is 
not designated and indeed cannot be used specifically for agriculture.
  We are going to have to have some direct appropriation through some 
vehicle in this Congress--this session--to help our farmers because if 
we do not they are going out of business. They are the heart and soul 
of North Carolina and to our economy in North Carolina, and 
particularly to our rural economy in North Carolina. We have to be 
there for them. They have been there for us. We have to step to the 
plate and provide them with the support they need.
  Finally, I express my disappointment with the lack of any dairy 
legislation in this conference report.
  I supported dairy legislation. I continue to support it. We recognize 
the plight of dairy farmers in North Carolina. We understand the 
difficulties and problems they have. We will continue to search and 
aggressively pursue ways to solve the problems with which they are 
confronted.
  Again, I thank the distinguished managers of this measure.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains for 
debate on the conference report under the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes 53 seconds remain. All time is 
majority time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Democrats have used all time allocated to them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on their side.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I will yield back time if no other 
Senator seeks recognition because I don't need to talk anymore.
  I have talked enough about the bill, trying to explain that we have 
attempted to identify not only the emergency needs that exist by reason 
of the collapse of prices for commodities for agricultural producers 
but also the disaster assistance that is needed now to compensate those 
who have suffered drought-related and other weather-related disasters 
on the farm.
  We have in the conference report a statement by managers indicating 
that we realize it may be difficult or impossible to ascertain the 
exact dollar amount of losses attributable to disaster during this crop 
year. For that reason, we call upon the Department of Agriculture, the 
Secretary, to monitor the situation and submit to the Congress, if it 
is justified, a supplemental budget request for any additional funds.
  We are confident the Senate and the House, as well, will carefully 
consider any supplemental request for such funds. We think this is a 
generous response to the needs in agriculture, but we know it is not 
enough to satisfy every single need of every individual in agriculture. 
I don't know that anybody could design a program that would do that. I 
don't recall there ever being a more generous disaster assistance 
program approved by this Congress than this one--$8.7 billion in 
emergency assistance. We hope that will be helpful. That is only a part 
of this legislation, however.
  There is $60 billion of funding for all the fiscal year 2000 programs 
that will be administered by the Department of Agriculture and also 
funds for the operation of the Food and Drug Administration and the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This bill is within its 
allocation under the Budget Act. It is consistent with the budget 
resolution adopted by this Congress. We are hopeful the Senate will 
express its support by voting overwhelmingly for the conference report.
  I am aware of no other Senator who has requested time to speak on the 
bill. I know we have 5 minutes remaining on the bill. To await the 
arrival of any Senator who does want to speak, I suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, all time has been used on the conference 
report on the Agriculture appropriations bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 323 Leg.]

                                YEAS--74

     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
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Biden
     Chafee
     Collins
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gregg
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________