[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1563-S1571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                RISK MANAGEMENT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to Calendar No. 464, S. 2251, the crop insurance bill, and that 
it be considered under the following agreement: First, an amendment to 
be offered by the managers, limited to 10 minutes and not subject to 
second-degree amendments, and no budget points of order be in order 
prior to the disposition of the managers' amendment, and for the 
purposes of complying with section 204 of H. Con. Res. 68, the bill, as 
amended by the managers' amendment, be considered as the committee 
reported bill.
  Parenthetically, the amendment offered by the distinguished Senators 
from New York and New Jersey would be a part of that managers' 
amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I first thank the Senator on behalf of myself and the 
Senators from New Jersey, Rhode Island, all of us, as well as the other 
members of the committee. This is an extremely important amendment to 
all of us. I ask the Senator, will the Senate in the conference do 
everything it can to keep the language and the amount of money we have 
agreed to?
  Mr. LUGAR. I am sure the Senate will argue the merits of the 
Senators' suggestions as well as the rest of the managers' amendment, 
and whatever else transpires, with vigor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator, again, for understanding our 
particular problems with agriculture in the Northeast. As the Senator 
may remember, last fall when disaster struck, we were unable to protect 
our farmers. Being allowed to be included in the crop insurance program 
for specialty crops such as fruits and vegetables is extremely 
important. We are very appreciative of those efforts that were made.
  I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I am certain he 
understands many of us believe that the long, slow erosion of the 
agricultural community in the Northeast must come to an end. Those who 
are engaged in specialty crops and other products in New York, New 
Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and other States have 
suffered very badly in recent years.
  I think the agreement we have come to is of some real note. That is, 
this isn't simply an agricultural crop insurance program; it is now a 
national program. For the first time in my experience, we have reached 
across the Nation's borders, coast to coast, and designed a program 
that can work for every State. This is a very important moment for the 
State of New Jersey and preserving those farms that remain. I am 
grateful and very much appreciate his commitment to fight vigorously in 
conference so that the Senate provisions prevail. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New York and the 
Senator from New Jersey for their great efforts. I thank the chairman. 
As my colleague so well expressed, there is a tendency to not realize 
or understand that the Northeast part of the United States has a 
significant farming industry. We learned that the hard way, in some 
respects, last fall when we discovered our farmers were in desperate 
straits because of drought, loss of crops, and environmental conditions 
that affected them. Today, we are recognizing their standing along with 
farmers throughout this country, and not only their need but their 
eligibility now for Federal assistance in times of need. I thank the 
chairman for his efforts, and I thank my colleagues for working so hard 
on this.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senators from New York, New Jersey, and Rhode 
Island for their leadership.
  Mr. President, can we lock in that part of it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator completed his unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. LUGAR. No. This is a portion of it. The request is the managers' 
amendment be offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me proceed.
  I further ask unanimous consent that a relevant amendment by the 
distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, with a time limit of 30 
minutes be entertained, and that a statement by Senator Kennedy of 
Massachusetts be permitted for not to exceed 30 minutes; that a sense-
of-the-Senate amendment be offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, and that one relevant amendment be offered by 
Senator Wellstone.
  May I inquire of the Senator if he would permit us to have a 30-
minute time limit for each of these two amendments?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, on the time, I have to decide on the 
second amendment. On the first amendment, it is not my wish to go on 
and on, but I would not agree to 30 minutes. There were 2,500 to 3,000 
farmers, and 500 came from Minnesota. I would like to commend them for 
the Rally for Rural America, and call on Congress to take some action 
to deal with the crisis in our rural communities. I don't think I can 
give justice to what they did in 30 minutes. Other Senators would like 
to speak as well. I would not agree to only 30 minutes.
  The second point I wish to make is that these are agriculture-related 
amendments. I wish to make sure that is acceptable to my colleague.
  Mr. LUGAR. The request that we made to the Chair is that they be 
relevant to the legislation before us.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will object to the whole agreement because these 
amendments are agriculture-related. I don't think they would 
necessarily be ruled relevant to crop insurance. I can do the sense-of-
the-Senate amendment within an hour, I think, basically recognizing and 
congratulating people for coming and talking about our commitment to 
take some action. I might not even do a second amendment. Certainly, 
they are agriculture-related. There isn't anybody in the world who 
would say that the sense-of-the-Senate is not agriculture-related, 
dealing with the price crisis. But I thought that would be acceptable. 
If it technically has to be relevant to crop insurance, that would be 
out of order. If it is out of order, I will not agree.
  Mr. LUGAR. I have to respond to the Senator, on behalf of our leader, 
Senator Lott, that it needs to be relevant to the legislation. The 
Chair might be asked to rule on that or might not be asked to rule on 
that. I understand the Senator, and I am attempting to be 
accommodative. The importance of what he has to say is obvious. But if 
the Senator could achieve both of his objectives within an hour of 
time, perhaps we could proceed on that basis.

[[Page S1564]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to achieve the objective within an 
hour of time. I can do that. I am not trying to hold up the bill. I 
think I can do that. I am not going to agree if I am going to be ruled 
out of order. Maybe we can proceed on that basis.
  Mr. LUGAR. I pledge to the Senator not to raise a point of order. To 
reiterate, I ask unanimous consent that we have a Kohl amendment with a 
limit of 30 minutes; a Kennedy statement with a limit of 30 minutes; 
and the Senator from Minnesota, with a total of 1 hour for either a 
statement or an amendment, or a motion, as the case may be.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. This would be for a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. If 
it could be in the agreement that there could be 1 hour and there would 
not be objection to it----
  Mr. LUGAR. All right. Three elements: the sense of the Senate for 1 
hour, the Kohl amendment for 30 minutes, and the Kennedy statement for 
30 minutes.
  Mr. President, these would be the only permissible amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, further, I ask unanimous consent that these 
amendments have equal division of time and be considered in the usual 
form, and that no motions to commit or recommit the bill be in order, 
and following disposition of the above amendments, or the yielding back 
of time, the bill be advanced to third reading.
  I further ask consent that following third reading of the bill, the 
Senate proceed to the House companion bill, H.R. 2559, and all after 
the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 2551, as amended, if 
amended, be inserted, the bill be advanced to third reading, and 
passage occur, all without any intervening action or debate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
shall not, let me thank all Senators for their cooperation and for 
their willingness to work with the leadership to accommodate the many 
concerns that have existed on both sides.
  Let me say briefly, however, for the record, this is yet another 
example of the minority again cooperating with the majority and denying 
ourselves the right to offer nonrelevant amendments first, that is 
nonagricultural amendments, or any other amendments that are 
nonrelevant, and limiting ourselves to relevant amendments to this 
particular bill. We are doing it as a result of the urgency that I 
think everyone understands about this matter, and we are doing it in an 
effort to try to accelerate consideration of this bill and also 
ultimately come to a conclusion. It is an abrogation of the rights of 
all Senators to again be asked that they preclude the consideration of 
any nonrelevant amendments.
  We will do it again in this case. But I think that, at some point, 
the Senate has to be the Senate, where Senators have the right to offer 
amendments regardless of subject matter. Again, in this case, I 
appreciate the cooperation of everybody. I hope we don't continue in 
the Senate what I think is a dangerous pattern--that we limit Senators 
in such a narrow way, as we are doing in this case. We are doing it for 
good reason, but I hope we can find ways in which to allow Senators to 
express themselves and be full participants in debate on other matters 
and other vehicles.
  I certainly don't object. I commend the chairman for getting this 
agreement.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, before I ask for the ruling, let me ask the 
leave of my colleagues and that Senator Jeffords be recognized for 30 
minutes on an amendment on our side. I have just been advised that the 
Senator may have an amendment.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask if the amendment is relevant.
  Mr. LUGAR. The amendment would be relevant.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, finally I ask unanimous consent that 
following passage of the bill, the Senate insist on its amendments and 
request a conference with the House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am advised by the distinguished minority 
leader that, of course, I will be in a position to name conferees on 
our side, and he also will be in a position to do so.
  My hope would be, as I am certain it is his, that we could proceed to 
conference with the House as rapidly as possible.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I thank the distinguished minority leader and all Senators who have 
helped us in this.
  We are now prepared to offer the managers' amendment;
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2251) to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to 
     improve crop insurance coverage, to provide agricultural 
     producers with choices to manage risk, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                           Amendment No. 2887

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send the managers' amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] for himself, Mr. 
     Harkin, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Kerrey, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2887.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I know of no debate on the managers' 
amendment. I ask the Chair to pose the question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2887) was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  The bill is now open for the amendments that have been designated in 
the unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to strongly endorse the crop 
insurance bill that is before us. It is a product of a bipartisan 
effort.
  I especially want to congratulate my colleague, Senator Kerrey of 
Nebraska, who has labored hard and long in order to produce this 
result. Senator Roberts of Kansas is a cosponsor. We are all indebted 
to them for their leadership on this issue because this bill brings a 
new measure of stability to rural America. From the Northeast, to the 
great heartland, to the South, this bill is going to make a difference 
in the lives of farmers who we know are too hard pressed.
  For those who are listening, crop prices are the lowest they have 
been in 50 years. We have just had a rally on the Mall that went on for 
2 days with thousands of participants from all over America with 
farmers telling us they simply have to have help or they are going to 
go under in unprecedented numbers. That is the message that has been 
delivered.
  Our first response is the crop insurance reform bill--to say we are 
ready to help and this Congress is prepared to respond.
  I also want to thank my colleague, Senator Grassley, a member of the 
Budget Committee and the Agriculture Committee, who joined me on the 
Budget Committee to reserve the funds so that this bill could go 
forward. We achieved $6 billion in funding last year for crop insurance 
reform. That is what this bill provides. This bill reforms crop 
insurance by making coverage more affordable, by fixing an unintended 
consequence of our effort to reform crop insurance in 1994 that 
unfairly lowered coverage for producers facing unexpected circumstances 
with repeated natural disasters.
  It requires USDA to implement new quality adjustment procedures. It 
eases qualification for noninsured crop disaster assistance. It 
provides for the development of improved specialty crop policies and 
brings livestock into the crop insurance system.

[[Page S1565]]

  This bill also provides a pilot program to test an alternative risk 
management approach.
  With respect to the question of multiple years of disaster, let me 
explain, in brief, the problem.
  In areas of the country that have experienced multiple years of 
disasters, under the current crop insurance law, the formula under 
which they recover damages is dramatically altered by repeated years of 
disaster. This legislation offered by our colleagues, Senator Kerrey, 
Senator Roberts, and a number of other of us on a bipartisan basis, 
addresses that problem. I am grateful for it.
  My State has been affected by multiple years of disaster. I pray that 
our time of suffering is over. But other States may have a similar 
experience. They shouldn't have to suffer unduly. Crop insurance should 
work for them. That reform is included in this bill. We can be proud of 
it.
  I want to respond, if I can, to an editorial that was in the 
Washington Post this morning. That editorial, which makes the assertion 
that crop insurance promotes production on marginal acres, or so-called 
``environmentally sensitive lands,'' requires a response.
  I believe the facts do not support that claim. I believe the 
Washington Post in their editorial is precisely wrong about the effect 
of crop insurance. The fact is meaningful crop insurance did not exist 
until 1994. Has crop acreage increased in that period? Let us review 
the record because I think the facts speak in direct contradiction to 
the fundamental assertion in the Washington Post editorial.
  This chart shows the number of acres being planted in this country 
from 1996 to 1999. One can see the blue bar. Those are the acres 
farmed. You can see the acreage hasn't expanded. The acreage has been 
reduced under an expanding crop insurance program.
  The fundamental assertion by the editorial writers in the Washington 
Post is wrong. They may assert, well, it is not fair to look at just 
acres planted and acres taken out of production. You have to look at 
insured acres.
  Let's do that. This chart, again, is from 1996 through 1999. Again, 
the acres that are insured are the blue bars. You can see that we are 
down from 1996. We have not had an increase. The acres insured are 
down.
  One has to ask this question: If farmers are taking acreage out of 
production, are they taking out their most productive acres? Is that 
what they would do? I don't think so. I think just the opposite would 
occur.
  As farmers take acres out of production, they would take out their 
most marginal acres. They would take out those acres that are most 
environmentally sensitive. That is the record.
  I wish our friends who write editorials down at the Washington Post 
knew a little more about agriculture because I frequently find them in 
error, but they are never in doubt.
  I say to my friends that they need to get out in the heartland of 
America. They need to get out of Washington. They need to get outside 
the beltway to find out what is really going on in agricultural America 
because over and over, as I read their editorials, they have almost no 
relationship to the reality of what the people I represent are 
experiencing.
  We had a breakthrough today in terms of an agreement with our 
colleagues from the Northeast. The fact is they had an unfair result in 
the disaster bill of last year. I acknowledge that. I regret that 
occurred. I can say my own State has been dealt with generously in 
disaster programs. We had a horrible disaster in 1997. We had the worst 
winter storm in 50 years, the most massive flood in 500 years, and the 
largest mass evacuation of American cities since the civil war. This 
Congress responded generously to the needs of the people I represent. I 
will be forever in the debt of my colleagues.
  When similar disasters hit the Northeast last year, they were not 
dealt with as generously. I think we must all acknowledge that. 
Hopefully, this is a step toward recognizing the very real economic 
hurt that occurred there.
  I conclude by thanking the chairman and the ranking member of our 
committee. Especially, I direct my comments to the chairman. This is 
not a bill he favored. He had an alternative approach. But he 
graciously allowed Members to debate and discuss in the committee. He 
was eminently fair in the consideration of this bill in the committee. 
When his side did not prevail, he was a gentleman, and he has come out 
on the floor of this Senate to help pass the final product of a 
democratic process.
  I thank the chairman very much for his fairness and also his 
patience. His patience is quite remarkable as we fight and joust about 
issues that matter an awful lot to Senators as individuals representing 
different parts of the country, many from States in very deep financial 
trouble.
  Let me finish by again thanking my colleagues, Senator Roberts of 
Kansas and Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, for truly outstanding leadership 
in bringing this reform bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to 
support it. I think it is something of which they can be proud.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, first I thank my good friend and 
colleague for his very kind comments, and I associate myself with his 
remarks, most especially with regard to the editorial that appeared in 
the Washington Post. I think he set the record straight.
  I indicated in my earlier remarks there were some provisions of this 
bill I would like to outline, and I would like to do so at present as a 
coauthor of the legislation. I said at that particular time we spent a 
great deal of time--by ``we,'' I mean Senator Kerrey, I, and our 
staff--sitting down with producers and our farmers and ranchers and 
virtually every interest group that has a remote interest in this bill.
  They told us to do the following things:
  One, to make a higher level of coverage more affordable;
  Two, to provide an equal subsidy for both yield and revenue insurance 
products;
  Three, to develop steps to address the problems associated with a 
lack of production history for beginning farmers and concerns that an 
adequate policy does not exist to address the multiple years of 
disasters.
  They also told us to try to create new and expanded crop insurance 
policies for specialty crops and improvements in the Noninsured 
Assistance Program which covers many of the specialty crops.
  They warned of some increased emphasis in specialty crop policy 
research and development;
  Major changes in the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation board of 
directors, certainly with more farmer input;
  To streamline and to remove the roadblocks and the product approval 
process;
  And to take significant steps to address fraud and abuse in the 
program.
  As I indicated earlier when I went through this list, I think we have 
done that. I believe, and it is my hope, that the bill now before the 
Senate does accomplish those goals.
  Let me go over specifically what is included in this bill. We made 
higher levels of coverage more affordable so we will, hopefully, avoid 
calls for disaster assistance in the future. In my earlier remarks, I 
tried to emphasize to Senators that once we have national comprehensive 
risk management available to producers, hopefully we will not get into 
the expenditures we have had in the past with annual disaster bills.
  We made the adjustments to the APH to address multiple years of 
disaster.
  We made significant changes to the Noninsured Assistance Program, 
including the elimination of the area trigger. Now that is a rather 
complex description of a problem that is of tremendous concern to the 
specialty crop producer. That was the No. 1 complaint we heard from 
producers who use this program.
  We provided $150 million in pilot program funding to create pilots to 
develop new policies, especially for specialty crops.
  We provided $20 million per year in new funding to provide research 
grants to develop new risk management strategies for specialty crops.
  We changed the membership at the corporation's board of directors to 
include, as I mentioned before: Four farmers from geographic regions to 
be selected by the Secretary of Agriculture, one member active in the 
crop insurance industry, one member with reinsurance expertise, and 
then the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign

[[Page S1566]]

Agricultural Services, the Under Secretary for Rural Development, and 
the chief economist at the Department of Agriculture.
  We have streamlined the product approval process and set deadlines by 
which decisions must be made on new policies that are submitted for 
approval. We allow companies to charge minimal fees to other companies 
selling their products in order to allow the recovery of research and 
development costs. This should also encourage expanded policy 
development which is a very important goal of the bill.

  I also thank my colleagues from the Northeast in reaching an 
accommodation to address their concerns. We have had a considerable 
discussion here. They have released their hold on the bill. However, I 
will have printed in the Record the provisions for specialty crops with 
which we worked so long and hard.
  I pay special credit to Mr. Santorum, the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania. Senator Santorum obviously came to us after the 
conference bill was passed during the last session of Congress and 
said: Look, this is not adequate.
  He didn't say that; he said it in a little stronger language. He 
said: If we are truly going to have a national program, we have to 
address the concerns of the Northeast.
  We heard Senator Santorum. We paid a great deal of attention to 
specialty crop producers, not only in Pennsylvania but all throughout 
the Northeast. We put together, as I certainly tried to indicate in my 
previous remarks, a plan where we really reached out. I thank Senator 
Santorum for all of his advice, his counsel, his expertise, and that of 
his staff. This particular provision for specialty crops would not have 
happened had we not had his input, advice, and counsel.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these 
provisions, with the understanding that Senator Santorum should receive 
full credit.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Provisions for Specialty Crops


                  noninsured assistance program (nap)

       Removes the NAP area trigger, the number one complaint of 
     specialty crop producers.
       Allows different varieties of the same crop to be combined 
     as one.
       Reduces the 35 percent prevented planting requirement to 15 
     percent.
       Establishes a mechanism by which producers growing a new 
     crop can get coverage.


                      additional items of interest

       Allows pilots to be conducted on state, regional, and 
     national basis.
       Allows nursery and greenhouse crops to be eligible for risk 
     management activities pilot.
       Allows grants to be made on a competitive basis for the 
     research and development of specialty crops.
       Provides $20 million per year for partnerships to be 
     developed with appropriate public and private entities to 
     develop risk management and marketing options for specialty 
     crops.
       Sales closing date for obtaining coverage for a specialty 
     crop cannot expire before the end of the 120 day period 
     beginning on the date of the final release of materials from 
     RMA.
       Corporation and specialty crops coordinator are to conduct 
     studies regarding the feasibility of developing new policies 
     for specialty crops.
       Section requiring study to determine steps that can be 
     taken to provide adequate coverage and improve participation 
     in states with participation percentages well below the 
     national average.
       Drastically improve the product approval process so that 
     new policy proposals do not languish for months at RMA 
     waiting for approval.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this legislation also establishes 
monetary penalties. If we are worried about fraud and abuse, we have 
penalties up to $10,000 and potential disbarment from the program and 
all USDA programs for any producer, any agent, any loss adjuster, or 
approved insurance provider who is found to have defrauded the program.
  These provisions in terms of fraud and abuse are strong; they are 
clear. Those who attempt to defraud the program and taxpayers will be 
punished.
  Every year, our producers put the seed in the ground and they believe 
if the good Lord is willing and the creeks don't rise or we don't have 
a drought, they will produce a crop. When the events do occur, they 
must have the tools to manage these risks.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed 
by 23 different farm and commodity organizations, agricultural lending 
organizations, and organizations associated with the insurance industry 
who support the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   March 20, 2000.
     Hon. Pat Roberts,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Roberts: As organizations representing farm, 
     lending, and insurance industries, we are writing to strongly 
     urge that the Senate pass the recently reported Senate 
     Agriculture Committee crop insurance risk management bill. 
     The reported bill has strong bipartisan support and includes 
     the risk management ideas of many senators representing 
     farmers with differing risk management needs.
       Through hard work, farm-state representatives on the House 
     and Senate Budget Committees persuaded Congress to include $6 
     billion in funding for risk management in the current 
     Congressional budget resolution. The House of Representatives 
     passed H.R. 2559 on September 29, 1999 by voice vote. The 
     Senate needs to pass a crop insurance risk management bill 
     before the next budget resolution is written or those funds 
     will be unused.
       For several years the agriculture community has been 
     promised and desperately needs an improved crop insurance 
     risk management program. We endorse prompt consideration and 
     passage of the crop insurance bill and oppose efforts to make 
     major changes or slow its consideration.
           Sincerely,

     American Association of Crop Insurers
     American Bankers Association
     American Farm Bureau Federation
     American Feed Industry Association
     American Nursery and Landscape Association
     American Soybean Association
     Crop Insurance Research Bureau
     Farm Credit Council
     Independent Community Bankers Association
     Independent Insurance Agents of America
     National Association of Crop Insurance Agents
     National Association of Wheat Growers
     National Barley Growers Association
     National Corn Growers Association
     National Farmers Union
     National Grain Sorghum Producers
     National Pork Producers Council
     National Sunflower Association
     National Association of Professional Insurance Agents
     Rural Community Insurance Services
     Society of American Florists
     U.S. Canola Association.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Our lending organizations and all of the groups and 
commodity organizations have spoken loudly. They have all continually 
expressed the need to improve the risk management tools available to 
our producers. I believe this legislation does accomplish this goal. I 
am proud of this bill. It is a strong bill. It is a fair bill. It 
improves the program for both the taxpayers and our farmers and 
ranchers. It shows us that despite all of the differences we sometimes 
have on both sides of the aisle, as some of my colleagues have already 
said, we can listen to our constituents; we can take their ideas; we 
can work in a bipartisan manner to improve the programs available to 
America's farmers and ranchers.
  After hundreds of hours of discussion and deliberations, I believe we 
have achieved the strongest bill possible. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation in behalf of their constituents.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 2888

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding the Rally for 
                  Rural America and the rural crisis)

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2888.

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

       On page 92, strike lines 7 through 13 and insert the 
     following:

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RALLY FOR RURAL AMERICA AND 
                   RURAL CRISIS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) on March 20-21, 2000, thousands of rural citizens, 
     working families, and those representing the environmental 
     and religious

[[Page S1567]]

     communities traveled to Washington, D.C., to participate in 
     the Rally for Rural America;
       (2) a broad coalition of over 30 farm, environmental, and 
     labor organizations that are concerned that rural America has 
     been left behind during this time of prosperity participated 
     in organizing the Rally for Rural America;
       (3) although the majority of America has reaped the 
     benefits of the strong economy, rural Americans are facing 
     their toughest times in recent memory;
       (4) the record low prices on farms and ranches of the 
     United States have rippled throughout rural America causing 
     rural communities to face numerous challenges, including--
       (A) a depressed farm economy;
       (B) an escalation of mergers and acquisitions;
       (C) a loss of businesses and jobs on rural main street;
       (D) erosion of health care and education;
       (E) a decline in infrastructure;
       (F) a reduction of capital investments; and
       (G) a loss of independent family farmers;
       (5) the Rally for Rural America urged Congress to reform 
     the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
     (Public Law 104-127) to formulate rural policies in a manner 
     that will alleviate the agricultural price crisis, ensure 
     fair and open markets, and encourage fair trade;
       (6) thousands of rural citizens have advocated farm 
     policies that include--
       (A) a strong safety net for all agricultural producers;
       (B) competitive markets;
       (C) an investment in rural education and health care;
       (D) protection of natural resources for the next 
     generation;
       (E) a safe and secure food supply;
       (F) revitalization of our farm families and rural 
     communities; and
       (G) fair and equitable implementation of government 
     programs;
       (7) because agricultural commodity prices are so far below 
     the costs of production, eventually family farmers will no 
     longer be able to pay their bills or provide for their 
     families;
       (8) anti-competitive practices and concentration are a 
     cause of concern for American agriculture;
       (9) rural America needs a fair and well reasoned farm 
     policy, not unpredictable and inequitable disaster payments;
       (10) disaster payments do not provide for real, meaningful 
     change; and
       (11) the economic conditions and pressures in rural America 
     require real change.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the participants in the Rally for Rural America are 
     commended and their pleas have been heard; and
       (2) Congress should respond with a clear and strong message 
     to the participants and rural families that Congress is 
     committed to giving the crisis in agriculture, and all of 
     rural America, its full attention by reforming rural policies 
     in a manner that will--
       (A) alleviate the agricultural price crisis;
       (B) ensure competitive markets;
       (C) invest in rural education and health care;
       (D) protect our natural resources for future generations; 
     and
       (E) ensure a safe and secure food supply for all.

           TITLE V--EFFECTIVE DATES; TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY

     SEC. 501. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (c)(2) and section 502(a), this Act and the amendments made 
     by this Act take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       On page 93, line 10, strike ``SEC. 402.'' and insert ``SEC. 
     502.''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues, 
the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Nebraska, and I also thank 
the Senator from Indiana, for this legislation. I think this is a 
terribly important piece of legislation. I think this is good 
legislation. So I say to my colleague from Kansas, I thank him for his 
excellent piece of legislation.
  Both Senator Kerrey and I thank the chairman for having this 
legislation on the floor. It is substantive and important, and I thank 
him for his work.
  Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Minnesota. I know we are going through a very difficult 
time in farm country. This is something we have tried to do for almost 
20 years, and I think it is the strongest bill possible, and I thank 
him very much for his comments.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his work.
  Mr. President, I want to go through this amendment. This is a sense-
of-the-Congress resolution on the Rally for Rural America, the rally 
about the rural crisis that just took place in Washington, DC. Let me 
simply talk about what happened.
  Starting Sunday night, we started out with a wonderful prayer 
service, an ecumenical service. It was nourishing. The church was 
packed here in the city just a few blocks away from the Senate. There 
were some beautiful words that were uttered, but in particular I 
remember one of the ministers. She said, ``We have taken the culture 
out of agriculture.'' I thought a lot about that. I think that is the 
reason why so many people came to the Nation's Capital, because for 
many of our family farmers this could very well be their last bus ride 
here.
  We had from around the country, I don't want to exaggerate because 
that does not do justice to people, but I guess somewhere around 2,500, 
3,000 people, many of them family farmers. From the State of Minnesota, 
we had close to 500 people here, most of them family farmers. I point 
out to my colleagues, this was an unusual gathering. This was a 
historic gathering. This is probably the most family farmers who have 
come to the Nation's Capital, I would say, in the last 20 or 25 years, 
at least from the State of Minnesota.
  I want my colleagues to also know that most of these farmers came by 
bus. They did not come by jet. They didn't have the money to come by 
jet. They came by bus. Many of them are elderly. A good number of them 
came with their grandchildren. They came to Washington, DC, for two 
reasons.
  First of all, they came to the Nation's Capital to try to have a 
conversation with America, to make sure people in the country know what 
is happening. I think one of the challenges for us is that, with all 
the news about the booming stock market and the booming economy, the 
vast majority of people in the country have not a clue what is 
happening to family farmers. I do not think they have a clue. This is a 
good country and we have a lot of good people in our country. We have 
good people in the Senate and the House. I hope, and I think the 
farmers really hope, this gathering in the Nation's Capital will bring 
out the goodness in us.
  Right now what we have, and I am not even going to talk about all the 
statistics, record low income. We have record low prices. We have, as I 
said yesterday, many broken dreams and broken lives and broken 
families. I am talking about people who were good managers of the land. 
I am talking about people who work 19 hours a day. But the fact is--and 
I say this to my colleagues--time is not on the side of many family 
farmers in my State and many other States. They are simply going to go 
under. We are going to lose many of our producers. We could lose as 
many as another 2,000 family farmers in Minnesota this year.
  People came to the Nation's Capital to say: We call upon you to 
respond to the needs, circumstances and concerns of our lives. What 
this sense of the Congress says is that the participants in the Rally 
for Rural America are commended and that their pleas have been heard.

  I think people should be commended for coming from such a long 
distance away and sacrificing so much to be here. They would not have 
come here, except they are hoping we can make some changes that will 
help them and their families, not only family farmers but our rural 
communities.
  The Congress should respond with a clear and strong message to the 
participants, rural families, that Congress is committed to giving the 
crisis in agriculture and all America its full attention by reforming 
rural policies in a manner that will: No. 1, alleviate the agricultural 
price crisis; No. 2, ensure competitive markets; No. 3, invest in rural 
education and health care; No. 4, protect our Nation's resources for 
future generations; and, No. 5, ensure a safe and secure food supply.
  I say to my colleagues, I worded this in such a way that leaves 
plenty of room for different interpretations as to how to accomplish 
these goals. We do not all agree. I understand that.
  The Senator from Indiana, the chairman of the committee, is someone--
I have said it to my own family members, I have said it to people in 
Minnesota--for whom I have the most respect. It is the truth. I say it; 
I mean it. I would not say it to my own children if I did not mean it. 
We do not agree on the Freedom to Farm bill, which I call the Freedom 
to Fail bill. But this sense-of-the-Congress resolution is broad in its 
interpretation. It is

[[Page S1568]]

just an effort on my part, as a Senator from Minnesota, to say to all 
the people who came: I acknowledge the fact that you came. It is not as 
if you come here and we do not go to work to try to do something. This 
bill is an effort to try to respond.
  But it is but only one piece. For my own part, I believe we must 
respond to the price crisis. People cannot--they will not --be able to 
survive right now unless there is some income stabilization, unless 
there is some safety net, unless there is some way they can have some 
leverage to get a decent price in the marketplace. That is the missing 
piece of Freedom to Farm or Freedom to Fail. Flexibility is good. But 
that has not worked, and I see it every day in every community that I 
am in. I do not want to just keep visiting with people and listening to 
good people and caring about good people without trying to get the 
Senate on record that we are going to take some action. That is part of 
what this resolution is about.
  We can have the debate about what kind of changes we could make that 
would provide some real help for family farmers, that would enable 
family farmers to get a decent price, that would provide some income 
for families, what kind of steps we could take that will put some free 
enterprise back into the food industry and deal with all the 
concentration of power.
  For my own part, I do think there is a very strong correlation 
between three and four firms dominating 60 to 70 percent of the market, 
and family farmers not getting a decent price. I find it puzzling. I 
find it more than puzzling. I find it to be an outrage that so many of 
our producers are facing extinction but the packers and the big grain 
companies are doing well--in some cases receiving record profits. The 
gap, the farm/retail spread grows wider and wider, and the gap between 
what people pay at the grocery store and what the farmers get for what 
they produce grows wider and wider.
  I am saying we have to have more competitive markets. I am saying we 
want to make a commitment to sustainable agriculture.
  I did not say in this resolution, although I think it is terribly 
important and I know Senator Conrad would be the first one to talk 
about this, that we need to have a fair trade policy. More than 
anything else, I come to the floor of the Senate wanting to acknowledge 
the presence of close to 3,000 farmers and people from rural America. 
They were here yesterday in the pouring rain under a tent on the 
Capitol mall. People came to speak out for themselves. They came to 
meet with Representatives and Senators. They did not come because they 
have some party strategy. They did not come because they had a 
particular partisan orientation. They are thinking about their own 
families and their own communities.
  I wish to say on the floor of the Senate, because I am lucky enough 
to get a chance to speak on the floor of the Senate and these farmers 
cannot speak on the floor of the Senate, there is an economic 
convulsion taking place in agriculture today.
  Many wonderful people are being spit out of the economy. Too many 
lives are being shattered. The health and the vitality of our 
communities in rural North Dakota or Minnesota or any of the other 
heartland States is not based upon the number of acres farmed or the 
number of animals someone owns, but the number of family farmers who 
live in these communities.
  Whether we are talking about dairy farmers or corn growers or wheat 
growers or livestock producers, it is an absolutely intolerable 
situation--a situation from which we cannot turn our gaze away.
  For me to summarize, the findings talk about thousands of rural 
citizens and families and the religious communities coming to 
Washington to participate in the rally. The religious communities' 
voice was wonderful.
  The findings talk about a broad coalition of over 30 farm, 
environmental, and labor organizations that are concerned that rural 
America has been left behind during this time of prosperity that 
participated in organizing the Rally for Rural America. I thank the 
AFL-CIO for being here. I thank Bernie Brommer, the president of the 
Minnesota AFL-CIO, for being here. I thank Jerry Macaffey from AFSCME 
for speaking at the rally. I congratulate them for being here. The 
amendment makes the point that although the majority of America is 
reaping the benefits of a strong economy, rural America is facing the 
toughest times.
  The findings in this amendment talk about the record low prices on 
the farms and the ranches, and the way in which they have rippled 
throughout rural America, causing rural communities to face all kinds 
of challenges: A depressed farm economy, an escalation of the mergers 
and the acquisitions, a loss of businesses and jobs on Main Street, an 
erosion of health care and education, a decline in infrastructure, and 
a loss of independent family farmers.
  The purpose for this resolution: ``To express the sense of Congress 
regarding the Rally for Rural America and the rural crisis'' is to 
thank people for being here and to talk about and make it clear that we 
will, in fact, respond with a clear and strong message to the 
participants, that we are committed to dealing with this crisis, that 
we are committed to giving it our full attention, in a manner that will 
alleviate the agricultural price crisis, that will ensure competitive 
markets, that will lead to an investment in rural education and health 
care, protect our natural resources, and ensure a safe and secure food 
supply.
  If, in fact, we continue to lose our producers, and if, in fact, we 
go the trend of an increasingly corporatized, industrialized 
agriculture, it will be a transition that our country will deeply 
regret.
  I think this is very important for America. I tell you, my heart and 
soul goes out to the people who were here. I hope there will be good 
support for this sense-of-the-Senate amendment to this very good piece 
of legislation.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking the Senator from 
Kansas, Mr. Roberts; Senator Kerrey from Nebraska; my colleague, 
Senator Conrad from North Dakota, and others, for their excellent work 
in bringing this legislation to the floor of the Senate. It is my 
intention to support this legislation.
  I also say that I think the sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by 
the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, is certainly thoughtful and 
worthy of support, as well.
  I, too, join him in saying to my colleague, Senator Lugar, that I 
have always believed he is a major contributor to most every public 
debate in this Senate, especially on foreign policy, and a range of 
other things. But it is true, we disagree on farm policy from time to 
time. We recently had an exchange of letters about that disagreement. 
But that does not, in any way, diminish my respect for him as a leader 
and a legislator.
  My fervent hope is at some point I could reach over and reach out to 
Senator Lugar and convince him that we need to--tomorrow or Thursday--
start a series of hearings and change the farm bill. But I do not 
expect that will be the case. He will certainly explain his position on 
these issues in an articulate way soon.
  But let me describe some of my feelings about where we are. Let me 
start with this: I say to my friend from Minnesota, this morning for 
breakfast I had something called Cream of Wheat. I do not know how many 
servings of Cream of Wheat are served in America every morning or every 
year but a lot of them.
  Cream of Wheat, if you want to know the origin of it, just for fun--I 
notice the Presiding Officer is hanging on my every word here--came 
from Grand Forks, ND, in the year 1893. A little old mill called the 
Diamond Mills was not doing very well. They had a scientist who was 
sort of moving around and trying to figure out what he could do with 
various parts of the grain. He used what are called the middlings of 
wheat, and he concocted what he called a ``breakfast porridge.''
  So a man named Tom Amidon from Grand Forks, ND, in 1893, concocted 
what he called ``breakfast porridge'' with the middlings from wheat, 
and it is what is called Cream of Wheat. It is what I ate for breakfast 
this morning.
  Cream of Wheat comes from the wheat fields in North Dakota and other 
places in the country. A farmer gases a tractor, buys the seed, plants 
the seed, and does all the work to produce this

[[Page S1569]]

wheat. Then it is ground up. Among that grinding you get some 
middlings. Somebody produces breakfast food with those middlings.
  Cream of Wheat does not come from Grand Forks, ND, I must say with 
disappointment. Cream of Wheat is owned by Nabisco Company. It happens 
to be produced in my colleague's home State of Minnesota. The 
middlings, the wheat, the Cream of Wheat, the jobs, do not belong to 
the folks that gas the tractor and plant the seed and harvest the 
grain. No, that is not the way it works in agriculture.
  Our farmers go out and plant a crop--corn, wheat, barley--and then 
someone comes along and buys it. They take a look at that kernel and 
say: You know what we ought to do. We ought to puff that up and then 
put it in a bright-colored box, and we will take that wheat and call it 
puffed wheat. Guess what that costs. Go to the grocery store and buy 
puffed wheat, puffed rice. They puff it; they shred it; they crisp it; 
they manipulate it in a hundred different ways and send it to 
the grocery store shelf in bright-colored boxes.

  The farmer gets a pittance for that grain because the farmer is told 
that grain does not have any value anymore. At the grocery store shelf 
it costs a fortune because now it has been puffed. So the puff is 
apparently more valuable than the grain that is produced out of the 
ground from the tireless work of a family farmer.
  That describes part of the problem in this system of ours. We had a 
couple thousand people come to town, as the Senator from Minnesota 
described. They are the ones who could afford to come. I am sure it was 
a struggle for many of them.
  Folks from my State--400 of them--got on buses, seven buses. I think 
they will have traveled close to 6 days--they are still on a bus, I am 
sure--traveling to Washington and back to North Dakota.
  The fellow from just west of Valley City would not have been among 
them because he stood up at a meeting I had some while ago, and his 
chin began to tremble, and he had tears in his eyes--a big, husky guy 
with a beard. He said his granddad farmed his farm; his dad farmed his 
farm; and he farmed it for 23 years. Then his chin began to tremble, 
and he said: But I can't do it anymore. I'm being forced off the farm.
  You could see that for him it was not about dollars and cents; it was 
the loss of a dream--a broken heart and broken dreams. I am sure he did 
not come out here because he is not farming anymore and could not 
afford it. He is probably struggling, after 23 years on a farm, trying 
to find something else to do--another job to try to make some income.
  He made a point, as so many farmers do, that he was a good farmer. He 
did not waste money. He did not go to town on weekend nights. He did 
not buy new clothes. He told the kids they could not afford a new pair 
of jeans for school because they did not have the money.
  He said: This isn't my fault. Collapsed prices are not my fault. Bad 
trade agreements are not my fault. Monopolies that press their boots 
down on the chests of family farmers are not my fault.
  He was right about that. He didn't cause these problems. Somewhere in 
the crevice between mathematics and virtue rests a blindness that 
somehow refuses to recognize value and values. We tend to think of all 
of this in the context of economics and numbers, not understanding, 
apparently, that family farmers produce something more than a crop.

  Yes, a farmer produces wheat in the fields of North Dakota. That 
family living on a farm also produces a social product that most 
economists and most others believe has no value whatsoever in our 
country, a social product called community, called family values, 
called part of our culture that all of us understand, an environment 
that is good, a neighborhood that is free of crime, a lifestyle in 
which neighbors help one another.
  When Ernest had a heart attack at harvest time in my hometown, his 
neighbors took the crop off the field. Why? Because they were 
competitors? No, because they were neighbors. That is a social product, 
but economists say it has no value.
  The Europeans say it has value. In fact, in the trade negotiations 
between Europe and the United States, they say they want something 
called multifunctionality considered. Our trade people scratch their 
heads and say: What on Earth are you talking about, multifunctionality? 
The Europeans say: This is an important element of farming that you are 
missing when you just look at the hard numbers. What is missing is 
community, values, a certain culture we want to retain and sustain in 
our future. Our trade negotiators just can't understand that. They say: 
We don't understand that. This is all about dollars and cents. This is 
about markets.
  My point is, family farms produce more than just grain. They produce 
something very important for this country. It is a social product that 
this country ought to want to retain and keep.
  There are a series of things we must do to respond to the urgent 
needs of family farmers. We must repair a safety net that does not now 
provide the kind of assistance family farmers need when prices 
collapse. Family farmers can't make it across the valley when prices 
collapse without some kind of safety net to bridge that valley. That is 
No. 1.
  No. 2, we must have better trade agreements. Family farmers cannot 
compete with one arm tied behind their backs. It is not fair. The 
Canadian trade agreement wasn't fair to our family farmers. It sold out 
family farmers' interests. I regret to say that, but I can bring data 
to the floor released yesterday that demonstrates that was the case.
  NAFTA was unfair and GATT was unfair to our family farmers. I will be 
happy to come and speak at great length about that, but I won't today.
  We must have a better safety net, better trade policies, and action 
against monopolies. Farmers ought not to have to market upstream when 
they are selling fat steers into a circumstance where just several 
companies control 80 percent of the steer slaughter. The same is true 
in every direction a farmer looks. If you want to put the grain on a 
railroad someplace, guess what. You will put your grain on a railroad 
that is a monopoly in most cases. The railroad will say to you: Here is 
what we charge. If you don't like it, tough luck.
  Just as an example, if you have a carload of wheat in Bismarck, ND, 
and you will ship to Minneapolis, you will be charged $2,300 to ship it 
from Bismarck to Minneapolis. Ship the same carload of wheat from 
Minneapolis to Chicago, about the same distance, and you are charged 
$1,000. Why are North Dakota farmers charged more than double to ship a 
carload of wheat about the same distance? Because there is no 
competition in North Dakota on that line. Between Minneapolis and 
Chicago, there is. That is called monopoly pricing, and it is unfair to 
family farmers.

  The fourth thing we need to do is fix crop insurance. That is what 
this does. That is why I am here supporting it. I know that is a long 
introduction to get to my support. I will be very brief to say that I 
think this legislation has a lot to commend itself to the Senate. This 
is a good piece of legislation--perfect, no, but good.
  Here is what it does. It makes crop insurance more affordable at buy-
up coverage levels that are most useful to farmers. It addresses the 
problem of multiyear losses, which has been a very difficult problem 
for North Dakota farmers, and their impact on insurance coverages. It 
makes an important financial commitment to crop insurance expansion, 
research and development, education and outreach--issues that are 
particularly important to specialty crop communities. It authorizes a 
pilot program for livestock. It improves the Noninsured Crop Disaster 
Assistance Program.
  This is a good bill. I know my colleagues have struggled mightily to 
produce this legislation. This bill comes to the floor with bipartisan 
support, Republicans and Democrats supporting it. I am pleased to 
support it and to commend all those who have helped bring this to the 
floor and who will support it in the Senate. It is but one step in a 
series of steps we must take to try to give family farmers some help.
  Those 400 North Dakotans who are on 7 buses now on the highways going 
back to North Dakota could well have

[[Page S1570]]

been elsewhere this week. In most cases, in ordinary years, they would 
have been in the machine shed and they would have been working on their 
tractor, working on their farm equipment, repairing, replacing, 
renovating, greasing, changing the oil, getting all ready for spring. 
That is what farmers do. Farmers only can farm if they have hope. In 
most cases, these families live out on the farmsteads because they love 
that way of life.
  The only way any of us could understand this is if we were to take 
our income each year. We have a salary in the Senate; we know what we 
are going to get each month. Wouldn't it be interesting if all Members 
of the Senate could let their income rest on certain things that are 
outside their control and have no certainty of income. Perhaps let your 
income rest on the question of whether it rains enough or too much, 
whether insects come to the Midwest, whether crop disease surfaces, 
whether there is a hail cloud that shows up or a funnel cloud that 
shows up in late August before harvest. If perhaps if we had that risk 
of income, we would be able to understand better, as all Members of the 
Senate, what family farmers face.
  It is a very unusual, risky proposition that family farmers face 
every single year, with many elements in the determination of what kind 
of income they get that are completely outside of their control. That 
is why this is different. The enterprise of farming is different. 
Thomas Jefferson said it in words I cannot nearly match. But family 
farming is different. It is critically important to the future of this 
country. It is much more than just economics, finance, or math. It is a 
social product produced on our family farms in this country that 
contributes mightily to the character of this country as well. That is 
why this is an important piece of legislation. I hope it is but a first 
small step in a journey we can make together to improve the 
opportunities for family farmers in our country.

  I think the amendment offered by my colleague from Minnesota, which 
is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment commending those who came to 
Washington, DC, this week, is an appropriate amendment. I hope the 
Senate will agree to that amendment as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
  I do want to point out that there are two parts to this sense-of-the-
Senate amendment. One part is to thank the farmers and others for being 
here. The second part is to put us on record and say we will respond 
and, in particular, we will respond to the price crisis. We are going 
to talk about how to ensure competitive markets. For my part, I think 
that means strong antitrust action. We are going to invest. We are 
going to understand that in the discussion about education and health 
care--these are rural issues as well--we are talking about sustainable 
agriculture. We will make a commitment to responding.
  This is only a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. However, I don't view 
it as just being symbolic. I think it would be great to have a strong 
vote. I want it to be a bipartisan vote. I would love to see us work on 
the additional pieces Senator Dorgan and I have talked about together, 
as Democrats and Republicans. I pray--I don't use that word very often 
on the floor of the Senate--that we will make some changes so our 
producers, our family farmers, will have a fighting chance to earn a 
decent living so they can give their children the care they know they 
need and deserve.
  This is thanking these farmers, but it is also putting the Senate on 
record that we, in fact, are going to respond. That is the second part. 
That is an important part.
  Yes, it is just a sense of the Senate, but I will be coming back over 
and over again talking about the sense of the Senate with my own ideas 
about how we can make a difference. Other Senators may have different 
ideas. I just want us to address it. I don't want us to put family 
farmers in Minnesota or North Dakota or Indiana, or anywhere, in 
parentheses or in brackets and act as though this isn't happening.
  I don't want us to turn our gaze away from them. I don't want there 
to be an inaction. That is the why of this.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield, I didn't realize I was 
speaking on Senator Wellstone's time. I ask the chairman if the Senator 
needs more time, I am sure he will be accommodating. I appreciate the 
generous opportunity.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I was very pleased to have the Senator speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me say that I appreciate very much the 
words of the Senator from Minnesota. I think his tribute to the farmers 
who came is certainly appropriate and very moving. The Senator has 
obviously worked to make certain that meeting was constructively 
successful. I assure the Senator that the voices in the meeting have 
been heard and, clearly, we were prepared to move on this legislation. 
But it is a part of the action that we must take to provide a stronger 
safety net. I feel that we will do so today. I am confident we will 
move this bill appropriately.
  Very clearly, there is much more we need to do. I say to the Senator 
from Minnesota and my colleague from North Dakota that I know from the 
income on my own farm last year that it was down. It was down the year 
before from the year before that. I suspect I am one of the few Members 
who keeps the books, who tries to settle with the family members. I 
understand prices and difficulties. I am looking at this from the 
standpoint of a 604-acre farm, and that is not untypical of many farms 
in my State and the Senator's State. Our problems are profound but not 
beyond solution. I look forward to working with the Senator.
  At this moment, I am prepared to say on our side we accept the 
amendment, and we certainly want to see it approved by acclamation. 
Before I make a further comment on that, may I take a moment to say 
that I am hopeful that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Kennedy, is approaching the floor, and likewise, the Senator from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, who have statements or amendments for which time 
has been provided, so we might proceed.
  I have received word from the majority leader that he proposes that 
any rollcall votes that might occur with reference to this legislation 
happen tomorrow morning. At some point, he will be offering a unanimous 
consent request or make an announcement that would be appropriate on 
that point. So I am hopeful we will have further debate soon. But for 
the moment I commend the Senator and I indicate support on our side. I 
hope his amendment will be taken by acclamation and with praise.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I may respond to my colleague for a 
moment, first of all, I thank him for the words. I will ask for the 
yeas and nays. I do want to have a vote on this amendment. My request 
will be if the majority leader wants to do it tomorrow--I was trying to 
come out and help facilitate this--I wonder whether or not we could at 
least have 2 minutes to summarize before the vote. I hope that will be 
the case.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask that the vote on the amendment be 
postponed until tomorrow. My understanding is that the majority leader 
will be prepared to add provisions for the debate the Senator has 
suggested--perhaps 2 minutes to a side--and I will offer assurance to 
the Senator that I will make that recommendation to the leader.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator's word is good enough for 
me.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have been advised that in our colloquy 
obtaining unanimous consent we indicated that additional language from

[[Page S1571]]

Senators Leahy, Torricelli, Schumer, Rockefeller, Reed, and Kennedy 
would be made part of the managers' amendment. Apparently, some further 
editorial work needs to be done to incorporate that language in the 
managers' amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we have an 
opportunity and the right to add the language that fulfills the 
obligation we made.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. This will tidy up the housekeeping regarding the managers' 
amendment.
  I mention for the record, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, the managers' amendment before us brings the crop insurance 
bill into compliance with the budget resolution in that spending in the 
bill is below $6 billion.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatch pertaining to the introduction of S. 2270 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________