[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 163 (Wednesday, November 17, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14667-S14669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that, under the 
previous order, the Senator from North Carolina will speak for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 5 minutes, and 
the Senator from North Carolina has 5 minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Will the Senator withhold for a unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 80, the continuing 
resolution, and that Senators Kohl and Edwards be recognized for up to 
5 minutes each, and at the conclusion of their remarks, the resolution 
be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, in addition 
to the 5 minutes, I be granted an additional 3 minutes.

[[Page S14668]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina is recognized for 8 minutes.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I have spoken before on the floor about 
the devastation created by Hurricane Floyd in my State of North 
Carolina. Let me update and speak briefly on that subject, particularly 
since we are in the process of a continuing resolution right now.
  Everybody knows, because they have seen the pictures on television, 
what happened to my families in North Carolina as a result of Hurricane 
Floyd. We have two huge issues that have to be addressed before this 
Congress adjourns. One is housing. We have people in eastern North 
Carolina who don't have homes and have no prospect of having homes any 
time in the foreseeable future. We have to address this housing 
situation in North Carolina before we adjourn.
  Second is our farmers. Our farmers were already in desperate straits 
long before Hurricane Floyd came through, and they have been totally 
devastated as a result of Hurricane Floyd. We have to address the needs 
of our farmers in eastern North Carolina before we leave Washington and 
before the Congress adjourns.
  Let me say, first, that we have, in the last 24 hours, made progress 
on both fronts. First, on the issue of housing, we have, at least in 
principle, reached agreement that FEMA will have an additional $215 
million of authority--money already appropriated--for housing buyouts. 
Based on the information we presently have, that should get us well 
into next year in the process of participating in the housing buyouts 
and helping all of our folks who desperately need help. That is good 
progress, a move in the right direction. There is more work that needs 
to be done. But at least in terms of getting us through the winter, I 
think we have probably done what we need to do in terms of housing.
  On the issue of our farmers and agriculture, there is at least in 
principle an agreement for approximately $554 million of additional 
agricultural relief.
  My concern has been and continues to be whether that money, No. 1, 
will go to North Carolina and North Carolina's farmers; and, No. 2, 
whether it addresses the very specific needs that our farmers have.
  We are now in the process of working with everyone involved in these 
budget negotiations to ensure that both of those problems are 
addressed:
  No. 1, to make sure that a substantial chunk of that money goes to 
North Carolina, and that additional money, to the extent it is needed 
for very specific purposes, can be appropriated and allocated to North 
Carolina's farmers to deal with the devastation created by Hurricane 
Floyd;
  No. 2, to make sure at least a portion of the money that has already 
been appropriated goes to address the very specific needs our farmers 
have.
  It is absolutely critical that before the Senate adjourns and before 
this Congress adjourns and leaves Washington these two problems be 
addressed.
  I said it before; I will say it again. Our government serves no 
purpose if we are not available to meet the needs of our citizens who 
have been devastated by disasters--in this case, Hurricane Floyd. These 
are people who have worked their entire lives--in the case of our 
farmers, they have farmed the land for generations. They have paid 
their taxes. They have been good citizens. They have always lived up to 
their end of the bargain.
  What they say to us now is: What is their government-- because this 
is their government--going to do to deal with their needs in this time 
of greatest need in the wake of Hurricane Floyd and disasters created 
by Hurricane Floyd?

  We have a responsibility to these people. We need to make sure their 
needs at least have been addressed through the winter. When we come 
back in the spring--we will be back in the spring, I assure my 
colleagues--we will be talking to our colleagues again about what 
additional needs we have because we will have additional long-term 
needs. This problem is not going to be solved in a month. It is not 
going to be solved in 3 months. This will take a period of years. When 
Congress comes back in the spring, there will be many additional needs 
that will have to be addressed.
  But at a bare minimum, we need to ensure this Congress does not 
adjourn and people do not go home until we have made sure we have at 
least addressed the housing needs which will get us through the 
winter--I think we have made real progress in that direction--and, 
second, that we have gotten our farmers back up on their feet so they 
can be back in business in the spring in order for them to continue 
their farming operation. Those two problems have to be addressed before 
we leave.
  Let me make clear what I have made clear before, which is my people 
are in trouble. They are hurting. They need help. Senator Helms and I 
have worked together very diligently to try to get them the help they 
need in this time of crisis.
  I want to make it clear once again that I intend to use whatever tool 
is available to me to ensure that my people get the help they need and 
the help they deserve.
  This Congress and this Senate cannot go home and cannot leave 
Washington until we ensure that our people in North Carolina have a 
home to go to.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to explain briefly why I have held 
all legislation--including appropriations bills. It revolves around the 
issue of dairy pricing policies and dairy compacts. One is a national 
milk pricing system. I will explain that first and explain my concerns 
about what is happening.
  There is a national milk pricing policy which has been in effect for 
about 60 years. It was set up in a way that said the further away you 
live from Wisconsin, if you are a dairy farmer, the more you get for 
your milk. The government set that policy up to encourage the formation 
of a national dairy industry because transportation--particularly 
refrigeration--was not available at that time. They said the further 
you live from Wisconsin, the more you get for your milk. That was 60 
years ago. That kind of policy no longer makes any sense.
  In lieu of and in consideration of that, the Secretary of Agriculture 
and the USDA have come up with a new pricing system which does not 
eliminate the differential. It simply reduces it. Ninety-seven percent 
of the farmers in our country voted for it. It was set to be 
implemented on October 1st.
  Now we find out that the Republicans are apparently intending to go 
back to the old pricing system. That is a disaster for our country. It 
certainly is a disaster for Midwestern farmers, and it doesn't reflect 
the reality of our present-day system.
  Again, farmers in the Midwest and from Wisconsin are not asking for 
any advantage. They simply want to have the same opportunities for 
marketing their product in a competitive way as dairy farmers all over 
the country. It seems to me that is a reasonable request.

  That is why we are so distressed at the impending outcome of what is 
going on in the House and will be here before the Senate very shortly.
  The other one is the Northeast Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy 
Compact seeks to set arbitrarily, without consideration for market 
activities, a price for their dairy farmers to sell their milk to 
processors. That price is generally higher than market prices. It makes 
it very difficult, if not impossible, for anybody else in other parts 
of the country to market their milk or their milk products in the 
Northeast Dairy Compact States--the New England States--because when 
the prices are arbitrarily decided, the processors are then obviously 
likely to buy their milk from the local farmer rather than to buy it 
from somebody in another State.
  In effect, it excludes the opportunity to market your product--in 
this case milk--in the New England States. That is not only a disaster 
for us in the Midwest; it clearly is terrible national economic policy.
  If it is allowed again to be renewed at this time--it expired in 
October--we would be endorsing a national policy which for the first 
time in the history of our country excludes products from being sold 
without interference in all 50 States. We have never done that before. 
The genius and the success of the

[[Page S14669]]

American system is based on our ability--no matter where we live in 
this country--to manufacture and sell products and services anywhere 
else in this country without restrictions.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact says, no; we are not going to do that 
anymore.
  If we allow the Northeast to do that, then for what reason would we 
not allow other sections of the country to set up their own milk 
cartels, and for that matter, cartels on other products? If we allow it 
for the Northeast Dairy Compact, then I say unequivocally there is no 
justification for not allowing it elsewhere, not only on milk but on 
other products.
  I ask my fellow Senators: Is this the way to run a country 
economically? Would any of us think we would endorse that kind of 
policy where States and regions can decide for themselves not to allow 
other products into those States or regions?
  It doesn't make any sense. It is not the way we built the country.
  We should not renew, therefore, the Northeast Dairy Compact at this 
time.
  It was born 3 years ago in a back-room deal. There was no vote on the 
floor of the Senate. It was presented as part of a very large farm 
package. It was voted on in an affirmative way, but not by itself 
because it was part of a farm package 3 years ago. It is intended to be 
renewed again this year as part of a back-room deal without debate on 
the floor. It was debated twice all by itself. It lost on a straight 
up-and-down vote 3 or 4 years ago. The Northeast Dairy Compact lost on 
a cloture vote just several months ago.
  I am very concerned about both things: The milk marketing pricing 
system, and the Northeast Dairy Compact. I am concerned enough to have 
a hold on all other legislation.
  I hope very much that my fellow Senators can see the wisdom of my 
decision and support me in this effort not only to do what is right for 
Middle-Western dairy farmers but to do what is right for the people who 
live and work all over this country.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak for 10 minutes on the subject of the dairy issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank my senior colleague, Senator 
Kohl, for his efforts to fight for Wisconsin dairy farmers. We have 
worked long and hard together on this. We are determined to see this 
through.
  For 60 years, dairy farmers across America have been steadily driven 
out of business and disadvantaged by the current Federal dairy policy. 
It is hard to believe this, but in 1950 Wisconsin had over 143,000 
dairy farms; after nearly 50 years of the current dairy policy, 
Wisconsin is left with only 23,000 dairy farms. Let me repeat that: 
from 143,000 to 23,000 during this time period.
  Why would anyone seek to revive a dairy policy that has destroyed 
over 110,000 dairy farms in a single State? That is more than five out 
of six farms in the last half century. This devastation has not been 
limited to Wisconsin. Since 1950, America has lost over 3 million dairy 
farms, and this trend is accelerating. Since 1958, America has lost 
over half of its dairy producers.
  Day after day, season after season, we are losing dairy farms at an 
alarming rate. While the operations disappear, we are seeing the 
emergence of larger dairy farms. The trend toward large dairy 
operations is mirrored in States throughout the Nation. The economic 
losses associated with the reduction of small farms goes well beyond 
the impact of individual farm families who have been forced off the 
land. It is much broader than that.
  The loss of these farms has devastated rural communities where small, 
family-owned dairy farms are the key to economic stability.
  As Senator Kohl has alluded to during the consideration of the 1996 
farm bill, Congress did seek to make changes in the unjust Federal 
pricing system by phasing out the milk price support program and to 
finally reduce the inequities between the regions.
  Unfortunately, that is not what happened at all. It didn't work. 
Because of the back-door politicking during the eleventh hour of the 
conference committee, America's dairy farmers were stuck with the 
devastatingly harmful Northeast Dairy Compact. Although it is painful 
and difficult for everyone, we in the Upper Midwest cannot stand for 
that or any change that further disadvantages our dairy farms--the ones 
who are left, not the tens of thousands who are gone but the less than 
25,000 who remain. We are determined to keep them in business.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact accentuates the current system's equities 
by authorizing six Northeastern States to establish a minimum price for 
fluid milk, higher even than those established under the Federal milk 
marketing order, which are already pretty high and, frankly, much 
higher than our folks get. The compact not only allows the six States 
to set artificially high prices for producers but permits them to block 
the entry of lower-priced milk from competing States. Further 
distorting the market are subsidies given to processors in these six 
States to export their higher-priced milk to noncompact States.
  Despite what some argue, the Northeastern Dairy Compact has not even 
helped small Northeastern farmers. Since the Northeast first 
implemented the compact in 1997, small dairy farms in the Northeast, 
which are supposed to have been helped, have gone out of business at a 
rate of 41 percent higher than they had in the previous 2 years. It is 
not even working for the limited purposes it was supposed to serve.
  Compacts often amount to a transfer of wealth to large farms by 
affording large farms a per farm subsidy that is actually 20 times 
greater than the meager subsidy given to small farmers.
  As my senior colleague has indicated, we need to support the moderate 
reforms of the USDA and reject the harmful dairy rider and let our 
dairy farmers get a fair price for their milk. I know as we go through 
the coming days this may mean substantial delays. We all want to go 
home to our States as early as possible. However, Senator Kohl and I 
are determined to do our best to fight for the remaining Wisconsin 
dairy farmers. Some of those steps may be necessary in order to achieve 
that goal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the joint resolution 
is considered read the third time and passed, and the motion to 
reconsider is laid upon the table.
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 80) was considered read the third 
time and passed.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________