[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4416-S4443]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      AGRICULTURAL RISK PROTECTION ACT OF 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on the bill (H.R. 2559) to amend the Federal Crop Insurance 
Act to strengthen the safety net for agricultural producers by 
providing greater

[[Page S4417]]

access to more affordable risk management tools and improved protection 
from production and income loss, to improve the efficiency and 
integrity of the Federal crop insurance programs and for other purposes 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill H.R. 
     2559, to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act have agreed to 
     recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this 
     report, signed by all of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report. (The conference 
report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of May 24, 
2000.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as a parliamentary inquiry, my 
understanding is that unanimous consent has been reached that this 
Senator controls 1 hour of debate, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, 
Mr. Harkin, 1 hour of debate, and the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, controls 1 hour of debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield to myself such time as I may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Agricultural Risk 
Protection Act of 2000. I am very pleased this legislation is before 
the Senate today for final consideration after a great deal of work by 
Senators of both parties and both sides of this Capitol. I am here to 
testify that there is proud bipartisan support for this legislation, 
highlighted by the fact that all members of the conference committee 
for this legislation signed the conference report after our meeting 
yesterday.
  This conference report contains several titles. Title I pertains to 
crop insurance important to so many agriculture producers throughout 
the country. The fiscal year 2001 budget resolution provided $8 billion 
over 5 years for crop insurance legislation. This conference report 
increases premium subsidies to make crop insurance more affordable. The 
bill also tightens program integrity provisions to limit abuse. It also 
helps producers of non-insured crops, predominantly specialty crops, by 
making the non-insured assistance program more readily available to 
them. Finally, the legislation encourages farmers to adopt a broad 
array of risk management activities beyond crop insurance alone.
  Title II of this conference report provides $7.14 billion in economic 
assistance to farmers as provided in the fiscal year 2001 budget 
resolution. Included in this conference report is $5.466 for a market 
loss payment for farmers in this fiscal year based on last year's AMTA 
payment rate. Five hundred million dollars is provided for oilseed 
producers. Funds are also provided for specialty crops including 
funding for purchases of crops that have experienced low prices in 1998 
or 1999 and loans for apple producers who are suffering economic and 
income loss. Finally, funding is provided for purchases of commodities 
for the school lunch program which benefits school children as well as 
farmers.
  Title III of the conference report contains the Biomass Research and 
Development Act, a bill which I originally introduced in the Senate 
last year. This legislation establishes a focused, integrated, and 
innovation-driven research effort to develop technologies for the 
production of biobased industrial products. The bill also authorizes a 
biomass research and development initiative to competitively award 
grants to carry out research and development of low cost and 
sustainable biobased industrial products.
  Title IV and V of the conference report consolidates and streamlines 
existing statutory authorities for plant protection and authorizes 
civil penalties for harming or interfering with animals used for USDA 
inspections. Senator Craig had originally introduced this legislation 
in the Senate.
  I thank Senator Harkin, the ranking minority member of the committee, 
and Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey for their hard work and that of 
their staff in finalizing the crop insurance legislation. All members 
of the conference committee and their staff are thanked for their 
important contributions to the process.
  Finally, I also want to thank Congressman Combest, the chair of the 
House Agriculture Committee, and Ranking Minority Member Stenholm and 
their staff for their hard work in the past few weeks on this 
legislation.
  I am pleased to report the House of Representatives took action on 
this conference report this morning and passed it unanimously. I am 
hopeful that we may have a result similar, if not exactly the same as 
that, this afternoon in this body.
  Let me simply add that this legislation is of enormous importance to 
American agriculture. I have tried to summarize as succinctly as 
possible these five titles. But the consequences of this bill are very 
substantial. The dollars involved I have outlined. But the confidence, 
the hope that comes to producers who have had great discouragement in 
terms of low prices, in terms of export markets that have been withheld 
due to economic conditions in Asia, biotechnology disputes now in 
Europe, very great problems in negotiating trade agreements, whether it 
be the Seattle scene or the Washington scene more recently--this has 
been a very tough time.
  The Chair comes from the State adjacent to my own, a State which, 
like Indiana, must export half of the soybeans we produce and about a 
third of the corn we produce. There can be no prosperity in American 
agriculture without vigorous negotiations to knock down these trade 
barriers and to open up prospects for our farmers to realize the 
benefits of having the best--the best in terms of quality, the best in 
terms of price.
  These economic circumstances do not pertain if there are barriers to 
exports. But in this interim period, it is appropriate that Congress 
has understood these unusual international problems and understood we 
are in transition to more market-oriented farming. The crop insurance 
title in particular recognizes the possibility of farmers becoming much 
better marketers, much better business people, which all of us will 
have to become if we are, in fact, to succeed over the coming 
generation.
  I know many Senators will want to speak on this issue. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Who yields time to the Senator from North Dakota?
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield myself time off the leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, as a member of the conference on the 
disaster bill and the crop insurance bill, I am pleased to give strong 
support to the conference report.
  First, I thank the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, 
Senator Lugar, for his leadership, his patience, and his very gracious 
treatment of all of our colleagues. All of us understand this 
particular bill was not Senator Lugar's first preference. Once again, 
he responded to the concerns of colleagues on the Senate Agriculture 
Committee and in the larger body and did so in a most gracious way. For 
that, I thank Senator Lugar. He has once again demonstrated the way we 
ought to do business in the Senate. He has certainly set a high 
standard.
  I also thank our ranking member, Senator Harkin, who has been 
indefatigable in advancing the cause of American agricultural 
producers. Senator Harkin has been a forceful advocate. Time after 
time, he has stood in the breach and insisted we do what is right by 
farmers and ranchers all across the country. I thank Senator Harkin for 
his exceptional leadership. We would not be here today without him.
  I also thank Senator Kerrey and Senator Roberts who were the primary 
sponsors of the legislation before us. Without their steadfastness 
right to the bitter end, we would not be here today. We faced a threat 
as late as last night when it was proposed we put the bankruptcy bill 
on this legislation. All of us know what that would have meant. That 
would have meant endless delay. That would have meant sinking into a 
bog of controversy that extends not only to the bankruptcy bill, but 
unrelated issues attached to it. Special thanks to those who stood firm 
and

[[Page S4418]]

said, no, this needs to be a bill that deals with the critical problems 
facing farmers and ranchers in the United States.
  I also thank my close friend and colleague, Senator Grassley, who, as 
a member of the Budget Committee, worked with me to secure the $8.2 
million in the budget that makes possible crop insurance reform.
  Finally, I recognize the work of the House committee chairman, 
Congressman Combest, for conducting what was a very fair and open 
conference committee. That is the way a conference committee should 
function. It was give and take, it was a debate, it was discussion, and 
at the end, it was a coming together around legislation that is, I 
think, outstanding. I again single out the House committee chairman, 
Congressman Combest, for his leadership.
  We have developed, I believe, the right bill at the right time with 
the required budget support. In one bill, we have managed to bring 
together emergency farm relief for the families who are faced with the 
lowest prices, in real terms, in 50 years and a reform of the crop 
insurance system to make it more affordable at every level.
  In addition to that, we are righting a wrong done to Durum farmers a 
year ago. This bill provides emergency relief in the form of 100-
percent AMTA supplemental payments. For wheat farmers, that means 
instead of getting 64 cents a bushel, as they did last year in an AMTA 
payment, they will get 64 cents in addition to the regular AMTA 
payment, which this year will be 57 cents. So they will get an AMTA 
supplement--this is on wheat now--of 64 cents a bushel that is 
equivalent to last year's AMTA payment, married to the AMTA payment we 
will be getting this year.
  In addition, we have a crop insurance reform bill that is a dramatic 
improvement. When I go home and have meetings all across North Dakota, 
one of the most agricultural States in the Nation, what I am told, and 
told repeatedly, is that crop insurance is not working. It does not 
work because we do not have the right levels of support at the levels 
of coverage that farmers are buying, and they have a very serious 
problem if they have multiple years of disaster.
  Oddly enough, the way the formulas work, when farmers have multiple 
years of disaster, the base that calculates the support they receive is 
diminished--it is reduced, and it is reduced dramatically. The irony 
is, at the very time farmers need help the most, we have a formula that 
gives them the least help. It makes no sense. We have adjusted that in 
this legislation.

  I know there are those who are critical of using the AMTA payments as 
a basis for the economic disaster assistance. I understand that. AMTA 
payments are not countercyclical. That is, they are not designed to 
help those commodities that are the exact ones that are being hurt by 
this downturn.
  In addition, AMTA payments are not based on current production. AMTA 
payments, as a result, can go to producers and landowners who may no 
longer be producing the crop on which their payment is based or who are 
no longer growing a crop of any kind. Those are legitimate criticisms. 
Most of us recognize that.
  The question is, Do we make the perfect the enemy of the very good? I 
say to my colleagues, could we have done better? Yes, we could. We 
could have adopted a countercyclical program. But I say to my 
colleagues, at some point we have to make a decision: Are we going to 
delay support for producers who are in very deep economic trouble, 
faced with a circumstance in which USDA informs us, absent our action, 
farm income will drop $8 billion this year; or do we act?
  I urge my colleagues to join us in acting. Let's not delay. Let's not 
wait. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the very good. The fact 
is, this package is going to make the difference for tens of thousands 
of farm families all across America between economic survival and 
economic death. That is the reality. That is what motivates the urgency 
of our action.
  I am very proud of the package that is before us. Many people labored 
hours and hours to produce this result. I salute not only the Members 
who worked hard and provided the leadership, but I thank the staffs on 
both sides who exhibited a dedication to public service because they 
did not work just 9 to 5. I know there are some people who think the 
Senate is kind of an easygoing place and people work leisurely hours. 
That is not the truth.
  The truth is people here work very hard. No one works harder than the 
staffs. The staffs in this circumstance have given us a perfect example 
of how to function to produce a result. They worked together 
harmoniously--well, not always harmoniously. Sometimes there was 
friction, sometimes there were real differences of opinion, but they 
kept at it, and they produced a result, and it is a result that is good 
for the country. They worked very long hours, many times late into the 
night, through the weekends repeatedly, to help achieve this result. I 
salute them today on both sides of the aisle because this was a 
bipartisan product. That happens, unfortunately, not as frequently as 
it should happen in this Chamber. I can tell you, this package is a 
product of coming together in a bipartisan effort. I salute all those 
who helped produce it.
  In addition to the disaster package we have, in addition to the crop 
insurance reform which is wide sweeping and incredibly important to 
America's farmers and ranchers, this bill also includes provisions that 
effectively resolve a lawsuit brought by an unfair action by USDA 
regarding the 1999 durum crop revenue coverage level in contracts that 
were offered in various parts of the country. This means that both 
parties to that lawsuit--farmers and USDA--have a reason to settle that 
lawsuit, with every policyholder who received a claim getting 
additional per-bushel assistance.
  More importantly, the bill language makes it clear that actions on 
the part of USDA that change the conditions of crop insurance policies 
retroactively are not acceptable for any commodity.
  Whatever were they thinking of, to put out a contract--however flawed 
that contract might be--to have farmers sign up to it, and then to 
withdraw it? These contracts are contracts. That means there is a two-
way bargain. You cannot have a circumstance in which the Federal 
Government puts out a contract, gets people to sign up to it, and then 
changes its mind and withdraws it. That is not fair. That is not right. 
In this legislation, we have sent that clear signal.
  I close by suggesting to my colleagues that we now have a moment in 
time that we can act together in the best interests of the farmers and 
ranchers of America. I urge my colleagues to support this conference 
report. I again say how proud I am to have been a part of this 
conference that functioned the way a conference should in a bipartisan 
effort to produce a result that is good for America.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I note that Senator Harkin was going to 
come out on the floor. I will try to be relatively brief. I did not 
want to precede him. Let me just take a few moments, and then I will 
reserve the remainder of my time for later on. I know my colleague from 
Idaho wants to speak as well.
  Mr. President, I am speaking on my hour right now, though I will not 
take up all the time, and I will reserve the remainder of my time.
  At the beginning, Mr. President, before I thank some of my colleagues 
for their work and then be honest in some of my criticism, I will very 
briefly, with the indulgence of my colleagues, just point out on the 
floor of the Senate that yesterday--all of us have to deal with this in 
our States--Sheila and I received some unexpected news that has 
devastating consequences for the people of part of Minnesota--an area I 
love, the Minnesota Iron Range. The steel company LTV announced it is 
going to close the taconite plant in Hoyt Lakes. They employ 1,400 
people, I say to my colleague from Idaho. For Hoyt Lakes, Aurora, and 
other communities in the Iron Range, this is just devastating news.
  It just makes me sick to my stomach because these workers are friends 
and their family members are part of our family. I have always been 
honest that the Iron Range in Minnesota is a second home for me. It is 
all so unexpected.

[[Page S4419]]

  Jerry Fallos, who is the president of the steelworkers local, got a 
call yesterday at 6 a.m. in the morning. The company said: We want to 
meet with you. He had absolutely no inkling there was any trouble. LTV 
said: We are closing the Erie plant.
  I know that the steelworkers are asking for an accounting of the 
closing. They are pledging to do whatever they can to keep it open. In 
whatever way I can help as a Senator, I certainly intend to do it.
  By way of concluding these remarks and getting on to the conference 
report, I want to say this.
  Tomorrow, I am going to leave early to go home and meet with county 
commissioners, workers, union representatives, company people, small 
businesspeople, and all the rest. I know we will be talking about how 
to get assistance to people and how to have more economic development 
and the need to figure out yet other ways to diversify the local 
economy. But the one thing I want to mention, because the Iron Range is 
so special, is that sometimes I do not think we focus enough on 
community.
  I think this should bring Democrats and Republicans together --a 
place where people live, where people go to church or synagogue or 
mosque, or wherever people raise their families, where people know one 
another, people love one another, and people support one another.
  I truly do believe sometimes these capital investment decisions in 
this new global economy, that get made over martinis, halfway across 
the world, can have devastating consequences for the people in our 
communities. I think we need to put more of a premium on community, 
especially on our smaller communities. I hate it when we are put in the 
position of picking up the pieces as a result of the communities being 
devastated by policies that are needless and should not be supported in 
the first place.
  Again, we have seen a torrent of dumped steel imports coming into our 
country that has made our industry vulnerable. We now have 1,400 
people--much less their families and communities--who are very much at 
risk.

  As a Senator, I am going to do everything I can to help these people.
  In some ways this is like the farm crisis.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleague from Idaho how long he intends to 
take?
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague.
  I would speak probably no more than about 5 or 6 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I did not want to precede Senator 
Harkin, who is the ranking member on this committee. I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Harkin be able to speak, after which Senator Craig 
would be recognized for 5 minutes, and then I be recognized to follow 
Senator Craig. Would that be all right? I would be pleased to do that. 
I ask unanimous consent that that be the order. I say to my friend from 
Iowa, I did not intend to precede him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank Senator Wellstone for his 
consideration. I do appreciate that very much.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon, as most of us do, 
to speak about the crop insurance conference report that is now before 
us and to thank those conferees--the chairman of the full committee, 
Senator Lugar, Senator Roberts, and others on our side, certainly, who 
were engaged, as they should be, to produce this conference report, and 
thank them for the hard work they have rendered in bringing about crop 
insurance reform.
  It is a challenging process at best. They have done an excellent job 
in balancing the interests we have in agriculture, and to have crop 
insurance that reflects the diversity of agriculture itself.
  With the passage of the farm bill, Congress--we--promised crop 
insurance that would work. I am pleased to see that we now are living 
up to that promise by passing sweeping legislation to bring some 
normalcy back to our Nation's farm economy and to expand the risk 
management tools available to our farmers and ranchers.
  The crop insurance conference report addresses several concerns 
farmers from my State and I have about the current Crop Insurance 
Program. The conference report provides increased subsidies for greater 
buy-up of crop insurance, funding for research and development of 
specialty crop insurance, and the removal of the NAP area trigger, just 
to name a few of the improvements.
  This legislation is a very balanced approach, containing meaningful 
and sweeping reforms that all of us would admit are long overdue.
  As we all know, the agricultural economy has been in a dramatic slump 
for the last good number of years. USDA reports that overall conditions 
in the economy in early 2000 are largely a replay of last year. 
Agriculture is a part of the world economy, and farmers across the 
board are facing very difficult times.
  For the past 2 years, though, we here in Congress have tried to 
respond to the agricultural crisis by providing over $15 billion in 
emergency economic aid. I do not stand back from that. I think it was 
appropriate and necessary to keep our agriculture economy out of 
bankruptcy.
  The need this year is not much different than last. I am pleased that 
there is $7.1 billion in economic farm aid in this conference report. 
This funding includes $5.5 billion additional AMTA payments, or market 
loss payments; $200 million for specialty crops; $500 million for 
oilseed payments; $11 million for wool and mohair maintenance; loans 
for producers who were affected by the AgriBioTech bankruptcy that 
impacted my State and other States dramatically, including Oregon, 
Washington, Montana, some 30-plus States that were involved in both 
grass clover and alfalfa seeds.
  I have worked for and supported the funding because I believe it is 
what our farmers need to stay in business in the short term. We must 
help them deal with this if we can; and I think we are. USDA reports 
that global economies are now improving. Of course, we know that many 
of our products sell openly in the world market. As that economy 
improves, so does the demand for agricultural commodities from this 
country and the improvement of price.

  The conference report also includes the Plant Protection Act, a bill 
I have been working on for nearly 2 years. What is it? It is a weeds 
program. That is what it is all about. I think those of us who are 
familiar with agriculture recognize that we have not been good at 
dealing with weeds. Those of us who live near large tracts of public 
land recognize that our public land neighbors have been less than good 
stewards of their land by allowing major increases in noxious weed 
populations on our public lands. This is a major step in the direction 
of improving that. It follows the President's initiative that was taken 
a couple of years ago with the legislation Senator Akaka and I have 
worked on for some time. I hope we can meet the other needs that 
Senator Akaka has, and I will work with him in the agricultural 
appropriations that will follow to see if we can make that happen.
  This legislation will organize and expand the function of the Animal 
and Plant Health Inspection Service. APHIS currently gets its authority 
from 10 different statutes, some of which are outmoded and conflicting 
and complicated. As a result, it simply has not provided us with the 
kind of consistency we need to deal with commercializing technologies 
and the use of biocontrols in the area of weeds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for no more than 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. This bill has broad support from the American Nursery and 
Landscape Association, National Association of State Departments of 
Agriculture, the National Christmas Tree Association, the National 
Potato Council, and many others that for a long time have recognized 
the need to reform this area of the law.
  Again, I commend the conferees on both sides of the aisle for the 
hard work they have undertaken in producing this conference report in a 
way that will produce reform in crop insurance that I think is now 
functional, workable, and becomes the kind of risk

[[Page S4420]]

management tool we promised American agriculture some years ago. With 
that is the supplemental program for emergency purposes that will go a 
long way toward stabilizing the agricultural economy as we move through 
this year and into next.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Senator Roberts is here. He worked so 
hard on the crop insurance bill, which is a fine piece of legislation. 
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Roberts be recognized for about 15 
minutes, and afterwards I follow him, and then Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2559, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000.
  As has been indicated by my colleagues, this legislation provides 
what we believe are very dramatic reforms to the Crop Insurance 
Program. It also marks the final product of a legislative initiative 
Senator Bob Kerrey and I began working on nearly 2 years ago. Senator 
Kerrey and I decided to undertake this task at the same time Congress 
was passing the first of several large agriculture assistance packages 
in 1998. The problems we experienced in 1998 and again in 1999 exposed 
many of the holes in the current Crop Insurance Program. We agreed that 
changes needed to be made and that we must work together in a 
bipartisan manner to achieve program improvements. In fact, this is one 
of the reforms that was promised as an integral part of the 1996 farm 
bill. Obviously, those reforms did not take place, but here we are, 
finally, in an effort to achieve those reforms.
  Senator Kerrey and I did not just set out to write a bill based upon 
what we thought needed to be done. Rather, we wanted input from those 
who were most directly affected by this program. We asked virtually 
every producer, every farm organization, every commodity group, every 
crop insurance company, every insurance agent group in the country for 
input on this legislation. We traveled throughout the country. We held, 
literally, hundreds of hours of listening sessions here in Washington 
to get the input both from the organizations and the producers.
  The responses were overwhelmingly clear: Major changes were needed in 
regard to the Crop Insurance Program. These groups recommended more 
affordable crop insurance policies at higher levels of coverage, 
equalization of the subsidy on something called revenue insurance, 
provisions to deal with multiple years of disaster, a better program 
for new and beginning farmers, changes in the product approval process, 
and, finally, the removal of the regulatory roadblocks that had stifled 
new product development.

  Senator Kerrey and I took these recommendations very seriously, and 
this legislation achieves each of these goals. The process has not been 
easy. We began our meetings on this issue in September of 1998. We 
introduced our first legislation, S. 529, the Crop Insurance for the 
21st Century Act, last February. We then introduced a second bill, S. 
1580, the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act, in September. In 
March, the Agriculture Committee and the Senate approved the crop 
insurance legislation that was based largely upon our original bill. 
Since passage of the Senate bill, we have spent nearly 7 full weeks in 
conference with the House. There have been many surprises, many bumps 
in the road, to say the least, sometimes arising at the last minute. I 
believe those unexpected bumps, however, were appropriate because they 
helped remind us of the often unexpected, unpredictable risks that our 
farmers and ranchers face on a daily basis, the same risks that this 
legislation works to help them manage.
  The task was difficult and the hours were often long, but in the end 
we achieved a bipartisan bill that was supported by all 18 members of 
the conference committee between the House and the Senate. That is no 
small achievement.
  Exactly what does this bill do? It makes it easier for producers to 
purchase the higher levels of coverage by increasing the premium write-
downs and reducing the farmer's out-of-pocket expenses. By allowing the 
producer to produce these higher levels of coverage, I believe we will 
reduce the need for future disaster bills, those disaster bills that 
are always a disaster to pass, a disaster to implement, and always seem 
to come during even-numbered years. The legislation makes the revenue 
insurance policies that have become enormously popular for producers 
more affordable as well. This is risk management. These are risk 
management tools that, hopefully, will lessen the reliance on disaster 
bills and all of the expenditures that those entail, usually under 
emergency legislation.
  The legislation also provides adjustments to something called the 
average production history, the APH, for those farmers who have 
experienced a year or years of significant crop losses and disaster. It 
provides for a new assigned yield system that will benefit new and 
beginning farmers.
  The legislation also restructures the board of directors to provide 
more producer and insurance expertise. The product approval and the 
research development processes are greatly improved. This will result 
in the development of new and improved products that will provide our 
producers with the additional risk management tools they need.
  We have also strengthened the fraud and abuse penalties in the 
program. Farmers and ranchers should pay attention to this; critics of 
the farm program should pay attention to this. Under this legislation, 
the producers and insurance representatives who would abuse the program 
face fines of up to $10,000 and possible disbarment from all USDA 
programs for up to 5 years. Those who would try to destroy the 
integrity of the program are going to be punished, and they are going 
to be punished big time.
  I also comment on several provisions that do not necessarily affect 
my State and producers but which I know are very important to other 
Members in this body.
  In recent years, there have been many complaints that specialty crop 
producers and certain areas of the country have been ``underserved'' by 
the Crop Insurance Program. This legislation takes major steps to 
address these concerns.
  First, it provides nearly $500 million over 5 years for changes to 
make something called the Noninsured Assistance Program, or NAP. NAP 
will work better for these producers. It requires the RMA to undertake 
studies and report to Congress on ways to better serve these areas. And 
more than $200 million is provided for expanded research and education 
to develop new and better risk management products for these producers.
  Mr. President, in addition to the important crop insurance reforms 
included in this package, we have also provided $7.1 billion in 
agriculture assistance for farmers and ranchers who have not enjoyed 
the booming economic times experienced by the rest of the U.S. economy. 
Approximately $5.5 billion of this amount will go out as market loss 
payments, through the AMTA payment mechanism established in the 1996 
farm bill.
  Now, while I understand some of my colleagues believe this is not the 
best way to distribute these funds, it is the quickest guaranteed 
manner by which the USDA can make these payments. I remind my 
colleagues who wanted to develop a new payment formula that in the past 
2 years it has taken the Department of Agriculture at least 9 months to 
make these payments through the disaster and assistance programs that 
were not paid to producers through the AMTA payment mechanism.
  I also point out that after a lot of real criticism regarding the 
AMTA process, the department or the administration came forward with a 
plan, only to be roundly criticized by virtually every farm 
organization and commodity group. So I think this is the way to do it. 
These are emergency payments.
  As long as we don't have our export markets back, as long as farmers 
are not experiencing the kind of farm income at the country elevator, 
and market prices are depressed, I think this is appropriate, and 
doubtless this will help. We are doing it early. We are doing it early 
in the spring. It is in the budget. No Social Security money. No 
emergency money. The farmers, ranchers, and the lenders can sit down, 
and

[[Page S4421]]

under consistency and predictability, know what they are getting this 
fall.
  I am also pleased that $15 million is included for carbon 
sequestration research. The preliminary research indicates that 
agriculture can and will play an important and positive role in the 
debate regarding global climate change, and this funding is an 
important downpayment on this research. Senator Kerrey and I worked 
hard to include this research money. It will enable farmers, again, to 
play a positive role in taking carbon out of the atmosphere and to 
mitigate the global climate change problems we have.
  I could continue to discuss the merits of this legislation, but I 
will cease and desist. However, I do have a few closing comments.
  First, this legislation has been a personal priority of mine for many 
years. It was nearly 20 years ago that my predecessor in the House of 
Representatives, Congressman Keith Sebelius, cast the deciding vote to 
create the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Since that time, I have been 
committed to strengthening this program and making it work for our 
producers. We promised this in the 1996 farm bill. In addition, an 
improved Crop Insurance Program has been an underlying promise ever 
since that bill has been passed. It was a promise I personally made, 
and today I consider it a promise, hopefully, fulfilled.

  It has been a pleasure to work with my colleague from Nebraska on 
this issue. Senator Kerrey is retiring from the Senate when this 
session ends, and I know passage of this bill before leaving the Senate 
has been one of his top priorities. We could not have done the job, the 
committee could not have done the job, the staff could not have done 
the job, we would not have had this bill without the support, 
leadership, advice, counsel, and hard work of Senator Kerrey. 
Furthermore, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, 
Senator Lugar, for his assistance in working with us to get a strong 
bill out of the conference between the House and Senate. Without his 
leadership as well, obviously, we would not have this package.
  Finally, I thank the staff of the Senate Agriculture Committee. The 
Senate legislative counsel and the Congressional Budget Office spent 
considerable time on this legislation. As a matter of fact, maybe even 
too much time. It has been a Herculean effort, and all Members and 
staff involved deserve to be commended. I would be remiss if I did not 
mention specifically Bev Paul, who works for Senator Kerrey; Mike 
Seifert, who works for me; and Keith Luse, the distinguished and able 
staff director of the Senate Agriculture Committee. They basically did 
the work and reported to us, and we reported to them to go back to work 
and they finally produced a bill. They persevered.
  I close by stating that this is a good and fair bill. For the first 
time, it is a truly national crop insurance bill that serves all 
regions of the country. I remind my colleagues that it is a bipartisan 
bill, supported by all 18 members of the conference committee. It 
represents a real investment in our farmers and ranchers and the 
agriculture sector of our economy. I am proud of our efforts on this 
legislation.
  I thank my colleagues for their support. I urge its quick passage. It 
is my understanding that it passed by unanimous consent in the other 
body, which has a lot of difficulty deciding when to adjourn, let alone 
passing things by unanimous consent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to 
speak of my profound disappointment regarding the way in which the 
Senate is conducting its business. I am outraged that these payments 
have been attached to a conference report without any consideration in 
the full Senate.
  Mr. President, without any public debate and with no hearings in the 
Agriculture Committee some of our colleagues have attached $7.1 billion 
to this conference report, and have unilaterally decided to continue 
the failed farm policy of the 1996 farm bill.
  First of all, I want to be very clear that I am pleased there was 
some recognition in Congress that the Freedom to Farm bill, or as I 
call it the Freedom to Fail bill, has not provided an adequate safety 
net to our nation's family farmers. Furthermore, I am pleased that the 
Budget Committee recognized that after spending over $16 billion the 
last 2 years on emergencies, family farmers were in need of an economic 
safety net.
  But I believe this emergency assistance package only relieves the 
apparent symptoms of the economic crisis in agriculture. This 
assistance will help some farmers to continue their operations for the 
immediate future, but this direct cash infusion cannot sustain farmers 
for the long term.
  I am deeply concerned about simply attaching this money to a 
conference report without any debate or possibility of amendments. And 
as a Senator from Minnesota, with thousands of family farmers in my 
state who are suffering economic convulsion, I am completely opposed to 
continuing this disastrous farm policy passed 4 years ago.
  Mr. President, this is very much an extension of the debate we began 
last week--it's a debate about our right to be legislators. It is about 
being able to offer amendments to improve legislation--that is what the 
people of Minnesota elected me to do. The people of Minnesota and the 
thousands of Minnesota family farmers certainly didn't elect me to be 
silent, and accept the status quo in Washington, DC.
  At times Senate procedure can seem a bit arcane to many people--let 
me explain what has happened with this legislation. We are now 
considering the crop insurance conference report--this is great. The 
legislation passed 95-5, and I voted for the bill. The crop insurance 
bill passed by the Senate will, in fact, make crop insurance much more 
affordable for thousands of family farmers who have experienced years 
of crop losses--like the Red River Valley in Minnesota. I will do 
everything in my power to pass this important piece of legislation--I 
have no objection there.
  However, what has been done behind closed doors in a conference 
committee, with absolutely no public scrutiny, is completely different. 
What the conferees have done is to attach $7.1 billion in emergency 
farmer relief payments to the crop insurance bill. They have not asked 
the full Senate. They have not consulted with the House of 
Representatives.
  And conference reports are privileged which means that Senators 
cannot offer any amendment. Nor can Senators engage in extended debate. 
In essence, we as Senators have been left with no options to alter the 
conference report in any way.
  Mr. President, as a Senator from Minnesota this is one of the most 
egregious maneuvers I have witnessed in the Senate. And the one thing 
that greatly concerns me about this road we seem to be heading down is 
that back home in Minnesota I meet with people, and they really believe 
that I will make a difference in their lives--that I can in fact help 
them.
  However if, as a Senator, I cannot at least offer amendments, to what 
is probably the most important agriculture bill, I am shut out. In fact 
all Senators are shut out. I don't claim to agree with everyone, and I 
welcome having debates about what is the best way to spend $7 billion, 
but the Senate must have those debates.

  And for Minnesota farmers time is not neutral. That was evident when 
nearly 4,000 family farmers from Minnesota, and all across the country, 
came to Washington, DC, to demand a change in the failed Freedom to 
Farm Act. People really believe when we meet with them that we can do 
something right now about the abysmally low prices, whether it is the 
livestock producers, or whether it is the corn growers, or dairy 
producers. With what is going on in farm country with crops, people are 
in such pain. They still come out to meetings because they still 
believe in us as their Senators, and by meeting with us and talking 
about what is happening to them, somehow since we are their Senators we 
can do something to help.
  But I am left with very few options. The majority has insisted on 
attaching a vital piece of legislation to a conference report without 
any public debate, or amendments. And that is to say nothing about the 
substance of the legislation they are attempting to ram through the 
Senate.

[[Page S4422]]

  However, I am glad that Minnesota will benefit from the emergency 
package. And, although I have significant reservations that AMTA is not 
the best mechanism to provide income assistance to producers, it will 
at least keep farmers going for another year. I preferred and pushed 
for a mechanism that targets and ties assistance to actual production.
  Mr. President for the first time since 1996 the majority has 
recognized that the Freedom to Fail does not provide an adequate safety 
net for our family farmers. Through including $7.1 billion in the FY 
2001 budget resolution for farm relief the Budget Committee has 
conceded that the Freedom to Farm Act has failed to provide an economic 
safety net for our nation's family farmers.
  We were presented with a tremendous opportunity to reverse the 
disastrous farm policy enacted in 1996, by targeting this money to our 
nation's small and medium sized producers who are truly in an economic 
crisis. But rather than examining serious policy alternatives that 
could reverse the current economic crisis in rural America, we have 
been presented with legislation that continues the Freedom to Fail 
bill.
  First of all, and I think this simply prudent public policy--and I 
say this is with greatest respect for the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee--I do believe the Agriculture Committee had a responsibility 
to our nation's family farmers to hold hearings on mechanisms to target 
the financial assistance to those small and medium farmers most in 
need. I firmly believe it is a grave mistake not to base these payments 
both on prices and production.
  Basically what the majority has done is to double these disastrous 
AMTA payments. And they have refused to deal with any of the problems 
of distribution equity.
  As we have seen over the last 2 years, emergency assistance packages 
only relieve the apparent symptoms of the economic crisis in 
agriculture. Assistance will help some farmers to continue their 
operations for the immediate future, but direct cash infusion cannot 
sustain farmers for the long term.
  There are a couple of problems with these AMTA payments. First of 
all, these payments are based on the old farm program's historic 
yields. Farmers such as traditional soybean farmers, who never had a 
program base in the old program, don't get any of these AMTA payments. 
That is one huge problem.
  In addition, it is possible for some people who might not even have 
planted a crop to receive them because the Freedom to Farm--or what I 
call the ``Freedom to Fail''--payments are completely unconnected to 
production or price. Furthermore, I predict, largely this money will be 
used to pay back banks and lenders from whom farmers needed to borrow 
money earlier this year just to get in their crops.

  Let's be clear--it is now evident that the majority of AMTA payments 
have not been distributed to family farmers, rather they have gone to 
the largest farmers and corporate agribusiness. Recently a 
comprehensive study was conducted on the federal farm payments from 
1996 through 1998 which shows that the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill (and 
subsequent legislation) has provided minimal financial assistance for 
the large majority of family farmers.
  The study found that the largest farming operations were generously 
compensated by Freedom to Farm, and many of the top payment recipients 
were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over the 3-year period 
studied. Large operators received these enormous payments, even as 
operators of smaller farms (with average annual sales of $50,000 or 
less) actually lost money.
  According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, these smaller farms 
realized an average net loss of $3,400 in income from their farming 
operations in 1996 alone.
  From 1996 through 1998 nearly 61 percent of all federal Freedom to 
Farm money approximately $13.8 billion in total went to the 144,000 
individuals, corporations and farm partnerships among the top 10 
percent of recipients.
  A recipient among the top 10 percent was paid an average of $95,875 
over the 3 years (`96-`98). These payments were on top of any profits 
earned from the sale of agricultural commodities, and do not include 
payments made under conservation, disaster or crop insurance programs.
  In contrast to the largest farmers, the vast majority of AMTA 
recipients have seen very little benefit from Freedom to Farm. Half of 
all farmers received less than $3,600 in total from 1996 through 1998, 
or an average of about $1,200 per year.
  Large corporate agribusiness already enjoy significant competitive 
advantages over smaller farming operations in availability of capital. 
According to USDA's Economic Research Service, farm operator households 
for farms with sales of $500,000 or more averaged $153,847 in farm 
income in 1996, while operators of farms with between $250,000 and 
$500,000 in sales averaged $53,265 in household farm income in the same 
year. And operators of farms with less than $50,000 in sales realized a 
net loss of income from their farm operations.
  The central question we need to ask ourselves is that if the largest 
U.S. agribusiness are inherently more efficient, as corporate America 
assures us they are, why do these efficient farms need Federal 
Government assistance, and why do they collect the majority of the 
assistance that is provided?
  Hundreds of thousands of small- and medium-sized operations receive 
meaningless amounts of AMTA assistance under Freedom to Farm programs. 
I believe, it is a great mistake not to target this money to producers 
based on actual production.
  That is the key issue. That is the key difference. In dealing with 
this price crisis, we ought to make sure that the payments are 
connected to production and price. So what the Republicans have is the 
wrong mechanism for addressing the price crisis. We must target the 
assistance to family farmers and tie direct assistance to production. 
Thousands of family farmers across the country could go out of business 
due to conditions that are beyond their control. In Minnesota, up to 30 
percent of our family farmers are threatened--that's thousands of farm 
families.
  Whatever you do by way of dealing with low prices, you have to make 
sure that payments are connected to production and price. Too many of 
the transition payments go to landowners, and not necessarily 
producers. I don't think that makes a lot of sense. Some, like soybean 
growers, won't be helped at all. We can do better, we must do better.
  We could at minimum target the assistance to those farmers who are in 
the  most need. We have an opportunity to make at the very least 
incremental changes to current farm policy. The policy objective of the 
ad-hoc aid is clouded by the apparent inability of Congress to pass aid 
packages targeting assistance to farmers most at risk.

  Some of the largest and most profitable farms in the country will 
benefit from this assistance if it is distributed in double AMTA 
payments and meanwhile there are no funds devoted to other needs in 
rural America.
  Mr. President I also want to talk about the whole problem of 
concentration of power. This is an unbelievable situation. What we have 
is a situation where our producers, such as our livestock and grain 
producers, when negotiating to sell, only have three or four 
processors. They have the ADM's, the Smithfield's, the ConAgra's, the 
IPB's, the Hormel's and the Cargill's. The point is, you have two, 
three, or four firms that control over 40 percent, over 50 percent, 
sometimes 70-80 percent of the market.
  Let me just run through some statistics that illustrate this point. 
In the past decade and a half, the top four pork packers have increased 
their market share from 36 percent to 57 percent.
  The top four beef packers have expanded their market share from 32 
percent to 80 percent.
  The top four flour millers have increased their market share from 40 
percent to 62 percent, while the market share of the top four soybean 
crushers has jumped from 54 percent to 80 percent.
  The top four sheep, poultry, wet corn, and dry corn processors now 
control 73 percent, 55 percent, 74 percent, and 57 percent of the 
market, respectively. By conventional measures, none of these markets 
is really competitive.
  Thousands of our livestock and grain producers are facing extinction, 
and

[[Page S4423]]

the packers are in hog heaven. The mergers continue, and we have all of 
these acquisitions. We need to put free enterprise back into the food 
industry.
  I have had a chance to review the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and 
the work of Estes Kefauver and others. We had two major public hearings 
in Minnesota and in Iowa last year with Joel Klein, who leads the 
Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, and Mike Dunn, head of 
the Packers and Stockyards Administration within the Department of 
Agriculture. And earlier this year we had thousands of family farmers 
in Washington to rally at the Capitol. In all the meetings I have been 
at over the last two years, producers are asking the same question: 
Why, with these laws on the books, isn't there some protection for us? 
We have all sorts of examples of monopoly. We want to know where is the 
protection for producers.
  It is critical to pass some stronger antitrust legislation. I know 
Senator Leahy and Senator Daschle have done a great job with their 
legislation. I am pleased to join with them in cosponsoring the Fair 
Competition Act of 2000.
  Mr. President, there is a frightening difference when the major 
agribusiness firms can raise billions on Wall Street while making 
record profits at the same time farmers and ranchers are faced with 
take-it-or-leave-it low prices. Even, the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, who I don't always agree with, testified on February 1, 
2000, that ``consolidation, and the subsequent concentration within the 
U.S. agricultural sector is having adverse economic impacts on U.S. 
family farmers.'' The administration recently testified that:

       High concentration, forward sales agreements, production 
     contracts, and vertical integration have raised major 
     concerns about competition and trade practices in livestock 
     and procurement by meat packers and poultry processors. . . . 
     The four leading packers' share of steer and heifer slaughter 
     increased from 36 percent in 1980 to 81 percent in 1998.

  This concentration of power in the hands of a few increases the 
likelihood that farmers or ranchers will be the victim of unfair or 
deceptive practices. The Fair Competition Act will give USDA the 
authority to help address those practices. Firms and corporations, no 
matter how large, which engage in unfair, deceptive, or unjustly 
discriminatory practices, or which give undue preferences, or make 
false statements regarding transactions, will be stopped by this bill.
  The bill also focuses on mergers of agribusinesses and on 
agribusiness acquisitions. Over the last quarter century there have 
been a major increase in the horizontal, vertical and sectoral 
concentration of agribusinesses and in industries serving agriculture. 
At some breaking point, the concentration of agribusinesses in any 
region will mean that farmers or ranchers are adversely affected by an 
imbalance of negotiating power and a lack of viable market 
alternatives. The bill gives the Secretary the authority to identify 
circumstances where a proposed merger will result in unfair or 
deceptive practices that adversely affect farmers or ranchers and to 
take a strong action against such a merger.
  In addition, under the bill the Secretary shall make findings about 
whether a proposed merger or acquisition could ``be detrimental to the 
present or future viability of family farms or ranches or rural 
communities in the areas affected by the merger or acquisition.''
  If the Secretary determines that such adverse effects are likely, the 
Secretary would propose remedies, such as divestiture of asserts or 
other corrective action, designed to protect family farms and ranches, 
and the affected local communities. Failure to comply with those 
remedies could result in significant civil money penalties.
  This authority is similar to that conferred by Congress on the 
Surface Transportation Board which takes into account the ``public 
interest'' with respect to proposed mergers of railroads. That Board 
examines the potential effects on the public, on employees and on 
competition and ``the impact of any transaction on the quality of the 
human environment and the conservation of energy resources.'' (49 CFR 
1180.1) To carry out its duties, ``the Board has broad authority to 
impose conditions on consolidations * * *''
  Similarly, the Federal Communications Commission exercises a major 
role over the telecommunications or broadcasting industry mergers when 
it examines whether transferring licenses to the merged entity is ``in 
the public interest.''
  This bill thus aims at preventing the detrimental effects of such 
increased concentration on farmers and ranchers, and rural communities, 
just as the Surface Transportation Board has imposed a moratorium on 
railroad mergers to ensure that railroad mergers are in the ``public 
interest.''
  We need to pass this legislation now, and I think there is going to 
be a considerable amount of support for this. The reason I think there 
is going to be a lot of support is that I think many of my colleagues 
have been back in their States, and for those of us who come from rural 
States, from agricultural States, you can't meet with people and not 
know we have to take some kind of action.
  This ought to be a bipartisan issue. I think this is one issue on 
which all the farm organizations agree. We must have some antitrust 
action. We must have some bargaining power for the producers. We must 
put free enterprise back into the food industry.
  But this conference report moves us further away from making any real 
change in farm policy. I would like to remind my colleagues that $7.1 
billion for assistance for producers was allocated, but a significant 
portion of the funds in this bill have been dedicated to programs and 
projects, as worthy as they may be, that;
  1. Do not provide assistance to family farmers or ranchers in the 
near term.
  2. Are more appropriate issues for the appropriations committee to 
handle.
  3. Distribute money to universities and agribusiness.
  I would simply like to identify for my colleagues where some of this 
$7.1 billion, allocated for assistance for producers, will actually be 
going.
  $20 million for the Market Access Program--a program that assists 
business trade associations and cooperatives for marketing development. 
How does that help the average family farmer deal with paying for 
health care for his family?
  $3 million will be directed to Georgetown University and North 
Carolina State University for research regarding the extraction and 
purification of proteins from genetically altered tobacco. I ask my 
colleagues, could not have $3 million be better spent on direct income 
assistance to the thousands of small family farms who are in danger of 
losing their farms this year?
  $30 million for training and technical assistance relating to the 
management of water and waste disposal in Alaska. As a Senator from 
Minnesota, I am quite sure that small dairy producers, or soybean 
producers in my state who are facing the biggest agricultural 
depression in more than a generation, would appreciate the assistance 
$30 million could provide--it would allow many families to at least 
stay in farming this year.
  Mr. President, the plain fact is that this short term assistance is 
simply a band-aid. I understand the majority does not want to have any 
public discussion on the farm bill they enacted. That is clearly 
evident by the way in which they have moved this legislation to the 
Senate floor, with no debate or examination.
  The point is that farmers in this country want to know, they deserve 
to know, whether they have a future beyond 1 year. They can't cash flow 
on these prices, whether it be for wheat, for corn, for cotton, for 
rice, or whether it be for livestock producers. They simply cannot cash 
flow--they cannot make it. They can work for 20 hours per day and be 
the best managers in the world, and they still wouldn't make it.
  But rather than open and make changes to the farm bill and avoid 
these lump assistance infusions, the majority defends the status quo in 
farm policy. Yet, how much longer can we mask reality of failing 
agricultural policy? Short-term fixes are more expensive than carefully 
planned long-term programs. For the past 3 consecutive years, Congress 
has passed supplemental appropriations bill. Direct farm payments for 
1999 were approximately $16 billion, making last year the highest 
record for direct farm payments in U.S. history.

[[Page S4424]]

  We need to stop using ad-hoc assistance as a substitute for farm 
policy. We need to reopen and rewrite a farm bill with a strong 
sustainable policy. Namely, we need a farm policy that empowers farmers 
not only to merely survive, but to prosper.
  And that was what the Rally for Rural America was all about. We had, 
from all over the country, around 4,000 people--most 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. They came to our Nation's Capital to try to have a 
conversation with America, to make sure people in the country know 
about the economic convulsion that is happening in rural America.
  And Congress appropriately responded with a commitment to reform 
rural policies to: alleviate the agricultural price crisis; ensure 
competitive markets; invest in rural education and health care; protect 
our Nation's resources for future generations; and ensure a safe and 
secure food supply.
  I ask my colleagues, what became of that commitment to the thousands 
of family farmers who came to Washington, DC--I ask where is the 
followup? Is the followup passing $7 billion in AMTA payments that has 
never even been discussed in the Agriculture Committee? Is it in 
providing huge payments to corporate farms and agribusinesses, while 
leaving little for the ordinary family farmer? Or is it in ignoring the 
root problems in the 1996 Freedom to Fail Act. I don't think so.

  For 2000, net farm income is forecast to decline for the 4th straight 
year, by 17 percent. Low prices scale across the board for almost all 
major crops. USDA projects that 2000 crop corn prices will be the 
lowest since the mid 1980's. That's 26 percent below the average of 
1993-1997. Soybeans are projected to be at their lowest levels since 
1986. Yet, I do not need to list all the statistics. I have been on the 
Senate floor, and Senators know, economists and specialists know and 
most importantly those who farm the land do not need to hear statistics 
to know times are tough.
  Whatever our explanation for the very low commodity prices on the 
global market, federal farm policy needs to be there to offer some 
safety net to help people stay in business when this happens. We need a 
farm bill that establishes an equitable safety net. We need a farm bill 
that provides a level of financial security during periods of market 
disruption and commodity price instability. A safety net should include 
a counter cyclical price and income assistance directed to producers. 
One simple idea of providing a safety net is lifting caps on the loan 
rates.
  In addition, long-term policy must be developed to enhance 
competitiveness and transparency throughout agriculture domestically 
and globally. We know these figures well. I and others have recited 
these numbers time and time again on the Senate floor. We know 
concentration in the agriculture economy has been accelerating at a 
rapid pace.
  In the past decade and a half, the top four pork packers have 
increased their market share from 36 to 57 percent, the top four beef 
packers have expanded their market share from 32 to 80 percent, and the 
top four flour millers have increased their market share from 40 to 62 
percent.
  We must halt this trend of consolidation. Congress must pass the Fair 
Competition Act to restore competitive markets in agriculture and give 
farmers more equal bargaining power against corporate business.
  It is greatly disturbing that a handful of firms dominate the 
processing of every major commodity. Many of them are vertically 
integrated. This growing trend in concentration, low prices and 
anticompetitive practices are driving family-based farmers out of 
business. Farmers are going bankrupt or giving up, and few are taking 
their places. More and more farm families are having to rely on other 
jobs to stay afloat. In fact, reports indicate that off-farm income now 
constitutes as much as 90 percent of all household income received by 
the average farm operator.
  There is a gross disparity of economic power that has shifted a 
growing share of farm income to agribusiness. We need to reverse that 
trend and focus on equalizing the bargaining power between farmers and 
the global agribusinesses.
  According to economic literature, markets are no longer competitive 
if the top four firms control over 40 percent of the market. Yet, Excel 
and IBP control 60 percent of the beef packing industry and Kellogs and 
General Mills have 63 percent of the market share for cereal.
  Policy makers wrote the 1996 farm bill and we can rewrite it. The 
corporate culture's powerful influence has penetrated to humankind's 
greatest common denominator, food. We cannot allow our lives to become 
beholden to corporate America. We must provide an agricultural policy 
that preserves the family farm and protects the food industry from an 
oligopoly of corporate agribusinesses. We must fight for these critical 
policy changes.
  We have some differences here in the Senate. They are honestly held 
differences. All of us care about agriculture. All of us know what the 
economic and personal pain is out there in the countryside. But with no 
opportunity to consider and debate a fair and equitable distribution 
plan, and a bill that short changes the American family farmer by 
diverting money away from equitable income assistance, the majority in 
Congress has failed America's family farmers.
  Mr. President, I say to Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey: Good 
work. Thank you for your commitment and the work on the crop insurance 
conference report. This report is extremely important. To farmers, this 
is going to make a big difference. I also thank Senator Lugar. Senator 
Conrad spoke of his graciousness, and I think he is always that way. 
Because of the crop insurance reform, I will vote for this conference 
report.
  My dissent has to do with, again, the way we are conducting our 
business. The crop insurance reform is very important. But this is a 
crop insurance conference report. When the Budget Committee said, look, 
we are going to have $7 billion to deal with the farm crisis, what the 
Budget Committee was saying and what the Senate was saying is, rather 
than just doing emergency appropriations, let's have some deliberation 
and some policy evaluation and figure out how to get that money to 
people in the most equitable manner.
  My dissent, I say to my colleagues out of respect, is that I believe 
we should have had debate about this. I believe that the Senate 
Agriculture Authorization Committee should have had hearings. I don't 
think it is appropriate that the $7 billion in AMTA payments--
essentially doubling the AMTA payments--was put into this conference 
report. I don't think it was appropriate. I heard my colleague--two 
Senators spoke. Senator Conrad said there are legitimate concerns, but 
I think this is the quickest way to get assistance out to people. 
Senator Roberts said the same thing, roughly speaking.
  The point is that we did have some time when we could have had some 
hearings and when we could have had some debate on this. I do not 
believe we should have just automatically taken the $7 billion and said 
it is going to be AMTA payments, that's it. We put it into a conference 
report, which doesn't enable any of us to come out here and have much 
debate about it, and it certainly doesn't enable us to testify, doesn't 
enable us to have amendments and to act the way I think we should act 
in the Senate on such important matters.
  Mr. President, we had this farm rally here maybe 2 months ago. 
Several thousand farmers came. It was pouring rain and it was cold. 
They came a long way. Many came by bus because, for them, they are 
trying to survive. I have no illusions. We are not going to write a new 
farm bill. The Freedom to Farm bill is really the ``freedom to fail'' 
bill. I have said that many times over. But it does seem to me that if 
we are not going to write a new farm bill--at least not until after the 
election--we ought to do the very best we can in getting the payments 
to people in such a way that people who need the assistance the most 
are the ones who get the lion's share of the benefits. Right now, with 
these AMTA payments, we have a subsidy in inverse relationship to need.

  What we have here--with no opportunity for real debate, with no 
opportunity for amendments--is $7 billion put into a conference report 
on crop insurance in the form of more AMTA payments providing subsidy 
to farmers

[[Page S4425]]

in inverse relationship to need, with the vast majority of the benefits 
going to the very largest agricultural operations. This is a disastrous 
distribution formula. I think it violates the very principle of equity 
and fairness.
  Problem:
  First of all, the AMTA payments are based upon the old farm programs' 
historic yields.
  We don't have an opportunity to have an amendment on this? We don't 
have an opportunity to say that this is unfair to farmers, such as 
soybean farmers who never had a program base in the program and don't 
receive any AMTA payments? There is no benefit for them? We don't have 
an opportunity to discuss this, to have an amendment to try to improve 
this?
   Second, since this was connected to the ``freedom to fail'' bill--
what I call the ``freedom to fail'' bill--the payments aren't connected 
to production. Many of these payments go to these large landowners who 
aren't necessarily even producers. I want the assistance to go to the 
producers. I want it to have some relationship to price and to farm 
income.
  Let me simply quote some of the findings from the Environmental 
Working Group.
  The largest farm operations in the country are generously compensated 
with these payments. They are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars 
over a 3-year period of AMTA payments going to large farm operations, 
and the midsized farm operations and the smaller farm operations are 
not getting the benefits they need to survive.
  Environmental Working Group:
  From 1996 to 1998, 61 percent of all Freedom to Farm money AMTA 
payments--approximately $13.8 billion--went to 144,000 individuals, 
corporations, and farm partnerships among the top 10 percent. The top 
10 percent, the large farm operations, and the least in need of 
assistance, get over 60 percent of the AMTA payments. It doesn't make 
any sense. Recipients in the top 10 percent, those large farm 
operations, are doing well. They get an average of $95,000 over this 
period of time. Half the farmers in the country get less than $3,600, 
and many of the farmers in my State get less than that.
  While you have these large farm operations, that do not even need the 
assistance, getting well over the majority of all the money--the top 10 
percent--the struggling, midsized family farmers in the State of 
Minnesota are lucky if they get $3,000 a year. These are the farms that 
are going to go under. The USDA says we are going to see a 17-percent 
drop in farm income this year.
  Why in the world, when you have these transition payments--AMTA 
payments--going to the largest landowners who aren't even necessarily 
producers, based upon a program base going back years, providing the 
majority of the benefits to the large operators, not helping those 
farmers who are most in need and who may not survive--why do we have $7 
billion put into this conference report which doesn't have anything to 
do with crop insurance reform, which means we don't really get to 
debate it?

  That is why we are doing it. I don't think that is Senator Lugar's 
style. He is probably one of the fairest Senators, I believe, in the 
Senate. But I have to keep saying this. It pains me to say this on the 
floor because I think so much of him as an individual. But this 
shouldn't be in this conference report. We should have had hearings. We 
should have had an opportunity to come out here with amendments.
  I would love to have had an amendment saying it is going to go to 
producers, and not just landowners. I would love to have had an 
amendment that said we need to target more to the midsized producers. I 
would love to have had an amendment that said it shouldn't be based 
upon the old program base--no opportunity. I would like to have had an 
amendment that called for equity payments that said raise the loan 
rate--we could have done it for fiscal year 2001--to the same level it 
is for soybeans, in which case corn would be $2.11 and wheat would be 
$3.10. That would make a huge difference. We could have done that.
  We could have had, and we should have had, an opportunity to have not 
only a 1-hour speech or 2-hour speech in reaction to a conference 
report, but we should have had hearings. We should have had 
deliberation. We should have been able to do some serious policy 
evaluation. And we should have had the opportunity to come out here on 
the floor and/or in committee with amendments that would have made sure 
that until we write a new farm bill and get rid of this miserable 
failure--this ``freedom to fail'' bill--we would have been allocating 
the $7 billion of assistance with most of it going to those farmers 
most in need--not to the top 10 percent, the largest farm operations, 
those that are doing the very best right now in farm income, getting 
over 60 percent of the benefits.
  The crop insurance reform package that Senators Roberts and Kerry 
worked on is superb. I am all for it. I am going to vote for this 
because of that. But I think it is just reprehensible that we continue 
now along this line of taking really important policy questions and 
burying them in conference reports. I don't know what the $7 billion of 
assistance is doing in this report.
  I just want to conclude--because I promised my colleagues I would be 
brief, and then I will reserve the remainder of my time--by making one 
other point, which is, I hope we have the opportunity on the floor of 
the Senate to have debate about farm policy. I hope we can have a 
debate and a vote on the Fair Competition Act.
  It is breathtaking, the extent to which these large conglomerates 
have muscled their way to the dinner table, exercising their raw 
economic and political power over producers, over consumers, and, I 
would argue, over taxpayers. What we need is some competition in the 
food industry. What we need is to put some free enterprise back into 
the free enterprise system. What we need is some antitrust action.
  I am going to try to do everything I can as a Senator--and I know 
other Senators will be supportive--to get this Fair Competition Act 
passed, which gives USDA, if they are willing to use it, some real 
authority, which really gets tough in terms of dealing with some of 
this horizontal integration that is taking place, which goes after 
anticompetitive practices, which really creates a level playing field 
for our producers, and which doesn't exist right now.

  It is just absolutely unbelievable to me that while the family 
farmers in my State struggle to survive, a lot of these huge packers 
are making record profits. While family farmers in my State are 
struggling to survive, a lot of these big exporters and huge grain 
companies are doing just fine. While the family farmers in my State 
struggle to survive, the farm/retail spread grows wider and wider--the 
difference between what farmers get by way of price and what consumers 
pay at the grocery store, the supermarket.
  I have two objections to what is going on on the floor of the Senate 
right now.
  Objection No. 1: This is a great crop insurance conference report, 
but this $7 billion of payments should not have been put into this 
report. We should be allocating this assistance and getting it to the 
farmers most in need. We should have had the opportunity for debate and 
the opportunity for amendment.
  I think it is a terrible way for us to continue to conduct our 
business. I hope we don't continue this pattern of more and more 
important public policy questions that crucially define the quality, or 
lack of quality, of the lives of the people we represent--in this 
particular case, family farmers, being put into an unrelated conference 
report. That is wrong.
  The second point I make is: It is time for us to really get serious 
about the policy change in this area, and in particular I focus on 
dealing directly with the price crisis, and also the call for strong 
antitrust action.
  I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I concur with what the Senator from 
Minnesota said. I defy anyone to explain in any rational context 
whatsoever, any kind of rational terms, why we make payments to farmers 
based on what they did 20 years ago. There is absolutely no rational 
basis for that. I will talk about that in my comments a little bit 
later.

[[Page S4426]]

  I understand there is a unanimous consent request we are operating 
under, is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is time allocated for three Senators: 
Senator Lugar, Senator Harkin, and Senator Wellstone.
  Mr. HARKIN. We are not under any kind of a speaking order unanimous 
consent, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The last order was for the Senator from Iowa 
to be recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will yield the floor and let my 
colleagues make their statements. I vitiate that unanimous consent and 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield time.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 48 minutes and the 
Senator from Minnesota has 41 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 10 minutes 
following the presentation of the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whose time?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in support of this crop insurance 
conference report.
  As my colleagues from the Agriculture Committee are well aware, this 
legislation has been a work in progress for a good long time.
  The final package we reached with the House and that we bring to the 
floor today is a very good bill. Farmers in my home state of Nebraska 
are going to be very pleased with it, as are farmers of all types of 
crops all across the Nation.
  The major provisions of this bill reflect just what we heard when 
Senator Roberts and I asked farm and lending groups what they wanted in 
this legislation, nearly one and a half years ago.
  At that time, they asked for more affordable coverage, equity for 
revenue insurance, more new and innovative policies from the private 
sector and a better program for specialty crops.
  This bill includes all of those provisions.
  Although we've provided additional subsidies to buy crop insurance 
for the past two years, this bill makes them permanent law.
  And we go one step further by increasing subsidies even higher at the 
very highest levels of coverage--a provision that would have been 
especially helpful to farmers this year, as a broad stretch of the 
Midwest and South face severe drought.
  The final bill moves the Risk Management Agency in what I strongly 
feel is the right direction, toward being a regulator instead of 
competitor. We place new product development fully in the hands of the 
private sector, whether it be insurance companies, trade associations, 
or universities.
  It includes authority that will finally help provide independent 
advice to the FCIC Board of Directors and create an equal review 
process for all new policy submissions.
  The bill includes and builds upon ideas forwarded by our colleagues 
from Florida, Senators Graham and Mack, regarding new policy 
development for specialty crops.
  It includes an important provision first advocated by our Ag 
Committee colleagues, Senators Baucus and Craig, to remove the area 
yield trigger requirement from the Non-Insured Assistance Program.
  There are dozens of other equally important provisions in this bill 
that benefit each and every region of the country. While I am aware 
that the row-crop producing parts of the country will gain the most 
immediate benefits because of their long-standing participation in the 
crop insurance program, the potential for the program to work just as 
well along the coasts and in the south is given great weight under this 
legislation.
  Not every provision benefits every region; a few are specific only to 
one region or commodity. That is how we finally ended up with a bill 
with national appeal, and I am very proud of that effort.
  Let me say just a few words about the additional 2000 and 2001 
spending added to the crop insurance bill.
  I am pleased that the Budget Committee included additional ag 
spending in the budget resolution this year, much as they did crop 
insurance funding last year, and of course Senators Conrad and Grassley 
are responsible for that and I thank them.
  My concerns--and the concerns of many Nebraskans--are well-known: 
distributing additional payments through the Freedom to Farm mechanism 
is unfair to many and the cause of a number of the problems rural 
communities are facing.
  These payments, based on planting decisions made in the 1970s and 
1980s, disadvantage younger farmers and those who have traditionally 
rotated crops or tried to diversify--exactly contrary to what Freedom 
to Farm was supposed to accomplish.
  Some payments go to producers and landowners who are no longer 
producing the crop upon which their additional payment is based. Even 
worse, under this approach payments go to people who no longer farm at 
all.
  The complaint I hear most frequently is about the crops included in 
these payments versus those that are not. Freedom to Farm is destroying 
the alfalfa processing industry in Nebraska. As prices for other 
commodities have collapsed, more and more farmers are growing alfalfa--
a non-program crop. Yet they continue to benefit from these payments, 
even while long-time alfalfa producers receive nothing.
  Adding additional payments for oilseeds--even while most oilseed 
producers already receive Freedom to Farm payments and enjoy an 
artificially high support price--makes even less sense.
  Despite the great expectations surrounding this farm program, I 
contend that it creates greater market distortions than those supposed 
``failed'' farm programs of the past.
  And meantime, we spend billions of dollars each year to keep it in 
place, while our rural communities are dying.
  Also attached to this bill is additional spending for 2001.
  This package represents a good-faith effort by Chairman Lugar and 
Chairman Combest to put together a package acceptable to the majority, 
and I do not envy their work.
  Although there are provisions in the package I do not support, there 
are many that I do.
  I commend them for structuring a package with national appeal and for 
giving consideration to a broad group of commodities and interests.
  Finally, let me offer my sincere thanks to a number of people for 
their work on this bill. Chairman Lugar and his staff have worked very 
hard on this legislation and made a tremendous effort to advance the 
often-diverse opinions of members of the Ag Committee.
  Thanks also to our ranking member, Senator Harkin, and to his staff, 
as well as to our minority leader, Senator Daschle, and his staff. They 
made this legislation possible.
  The coalition that joined Senator Roberts and me on this legislation 
way back in March of 1999 and worked together throughout deserves 
special recognition: Senators Harkin, Conrad, Daschle, Baucus, Johnson, 
Santorum, Roberts, Grassley, and Craig. Special mention must go to 
staff for each of these members, for working together tirelessly and in 
a completely bipartisan fashion.
  Let me also thank the Senate Legislative Counsel, especially Gary 
Endicott, for his work throughout this process, including too many 
nights and weekends.
  And finally, my deepest thanks to Senator Roberts and to Mike Seyfert 
of his staff for their perseverance and good humor for the last 
eighteen months. Their commitment to making this legislation 
bipartisan--right up to the closing hours--is a tribute to Kansas and 
the Senate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments about 
the conference report that is before us today. As I do, I want to 
compliment some folks for a lot of hard work: My colleague, Senator 
Conrad, especially, who has played such an integral role in

[[Page S4427]]

this; Senator Harkin, Senator Lugar, Senator Grassley, Senator Roberts, 
to just mention a few--for a whole series of folks in different areas 
have played significant roles in trying to bring this to the floor of 
the Senate.
  Frankly, while there are some things I would have done differently in 
constructing this legislation--particularly the emergency aid--I am 
going to vote for it. I think this is a good day for family farmers in 
my State and the country.
  We have a fellow in North Dakota named Arlo Schmidt. Arlo is an 
auctioneer. He told me one day about an auction sale he had conducted 
awhile back. What happened during that sale describes so well the 
passion and the hurt that exists in farm country when grain prices 
collapse and family farmers lose their hopes and their dreams. This 
auction sale had occurred on a family farm, owned by a family who was 
not able to make it. They had gone broke because prices collapsed. It 
was not their fault. A whole series of things conspired to say to this 
family they could not farm anymore. They were losing their hopes, their 
dreams, and their future that day.
  At the end of the auction sale, a young boy who lived on that farm--
he was 10 or 11 years old or so--came up to the auctioneer. The young 
boy was very angry with him, so angry, that he said to the auctioneer: 
You sold my dad's tractor.
  Arlo said he put his hand on the boy's shoulder to try to console him 
a little bit, but the boy looked up at him through some tears and 
angrily said: I wanted to drive that tractor when I got big.
  The young boy wasn't accepting any of that comfort from the 
auctioneer. He wanted to drive that tractor when he got big.
  That boy felt like a lot of families feel, living on a family farm. 
The farm was much more than a business. It was a way of life.
  Family farmers cannot make a living when grain prices collapse. The 
underpinning basis of Freedom to Farm was, let's not care about price 
supports or safety nets; let's operate in the open market, the free 
market. Well, there wasn't an open market when Congress passed it; and 
there's not one now.
  It seems to me, after about 3 years of applying tourniquets, somebody 
ought to ask the question: Isn't there some serious bleeding going on 
here? We have brought to the floor--including this bill--emergency help 
three times in 3 years. All of this emergency help is to try to take 
the place of the safety net that does not exist in Freedom to Farm.
  It seems to me it would be wise for us now--after we pass this bill--
to learn from our mistakes. If we have to do this every single year, 
let's do it in a thoughtful way and the right way. Let's repeal Freedom 
to Farm and replace it with a safety net that works for family farmers, 
a safety net that says to that family who has those hopes and dreams: 
if you work hard and you do a good job we will give you an opportunity 
to make it, even during tough times.
  This legislation has a lot of things in it. No. 1, it improves the 
Crop Insurance Program. I salute that effort by my colleagues. Many of 
us have had input, although I did not play the major role on this. The 
fact is, this improvement is a collaboration of Republicans and 
Democrats that is significant. This legislation increases premium 
subsidies to help family farmers buy up better levels of coverage; a 
better depth of coverage at less cost for family farmers.
  In North Dakota, it solves some peculiar problems. We have had 
problems year after year in which farmers have lost a substantial 
amount of their crop to wet cycles and, therefore, their production is 
decreased. Because of this, every single year their insurance coverage 
under crop insurance is decreased. They have been caught in a Catch-22 
from which they could not escape, and it did not make any sense. This 
bill addresses those issues. This is an important and significant piece 
of reform to the crop insurance bill.

  Let me also say this proposal before us today includes emergency 
economic assistance for family farmers. This assistance is what I 
talked about earlier. My colleague, Senator Wellstone, was absolutely 
correct on this subject. We ought not use doubling the AMTA payment, 
year after year after year, as a method of providing economic 
assistance to family farmers. It is not the most efficient and not the 
most effective way to deliver this assistance.
  I am going to vote for this bill. If I had written this legislation, 
I would have written it differently. This replicates what we have done 
the last 2 years. This is the third year in a row we have increased 
AMTA payments. This will send money to people who have not seen a farm 
for a couple of years; have not gassed up a tractor in the spring to 
plow a straight furrow for awhile. They are not farming now. They are 
going to get money under this bill, and it does not make any sense to 
me.
  What we ought to be doing is extending emergency help to family 
farmers living out there on the farm, and who are struggling to make a 
living. This help should be going to family farmers who are confronted 
with collapsed prices; all who have found that when you raise a bushel 
of grain for $4 a bushel and then have to sell it for $2.50, you are 
going to be in trouble. You cannot continue to make it that way. There 
ought to be a safety net for those folks, the folks who are really 
farming. Regrettably, the mechanism to distribute that emergency 
economic aid has been the double AMTA payment. I think we could have 
done much, much better than that.
  My hope is that following the passage of this conference report--and 
I will vote for it even though I disagree with the mechanism of the 
economic assistance package, and I do compliment those who helped bring 
this to the floor--my hope is that when this is done, we will all 
understand that if we have to do this year after year after year, it is 
time to learn from it. We really ought to be able to learn when 
something doesn't work. Let's just admit our farm policy doesn't work 
and change it.
  I started by talking about family farming. Some will say--they are 
careful about the circles they say it--but they say the family farm is 
just yesterday. This is all nostalgia about an economic unit that does 
not work anymore. This view is just wrongheaded. We have the kind of 
economy we intend to have. We can have the kind of economy we create in 
this country. We can decide we want big corporate agrifactories from 
California to Maine producing America's food, or we can decide to have 
a network of families working on farms producing America's food.
  Europe has made that decision. Go to Europe and visit the rural 
communities in the countryside. You will discover small towns are doing 
well. There is life, there is a heart, and there is pulse in small 
towns. Why? Because Europe has decided they want a network of family 
farmers producing their food.
  The result of this decision is a rural economy that is thriving and 
working. Europe has a safety net for family farmers they can rely on 
which gives them hope for the future. Regrettably, we have not had that 
same continuity in this country.
  On the other hand, we in this country have lurched back and forth 
from farm policy to farm policy. Finally, we fell off the cliff with 
Freedom to Farm, saying we have this new idea--not a very good idea, 
incidentally--but a new idea called Freedom to Farm. Now, after 3 years 
of tourniquets, having had to pass three successive economic assistance 
packages to make up for the deficiency, we all ought to understand that 
we have to change the underlying farm bill.

  This legislation includes a substantial amount of resources at a time 
when those resources will be critically important to our family 
farmers. I have said, and I will say it again--I think repetition is 
probably important, at least to make this point--while I think there is 
a better way to move these resources to rural America, it is critical 
at this point, given the collapsed grain prices, to send these 
resources out now. This help will give farmers some hope.
  Our family farmers are not some anachronism that does not fit in 
today's economy. As I said, there are some who think it is like the 
little diner that got left behind when the interstate came in--it is 
nostalgia to think about, but not really a significant part of our 
future economy.
  People who think that way, in my judgment, are fundamentally wrong.

[[Page S4428]]

 Go to rural America and learn from where the seedbed of family values 
comes. Understand the value of rural values in this country and the 
rolling of those values from family farms to small towns to big cities, 
and what it has done to nourish and refresh the values of our country. 
Then tell me somehow families living on America's farms don't count and 
don't matter.
  The fact is, they face economic challenges almost no one else faces. 
A small family unit trying to run a farm puts a seed in the ground and 
has no idea whether that seed will grow. It might get too much rain; it 
might not. Maybe this seed won't get enough rain. It might hail; it 
might not. Maybe insects will come. Maybe not. Maybe crop disease will 
destroy it. Maybe not.
  If they survive all those uncertainties, maybe they will get it off 
in time to go to an elevator and discover they have lost $1.50 a bushel 
for every bushel they raised. They get hit with this loss after all 
their months of work, starting with the tractor in the spring to plow 
the furrows to plant the seeds all the way to the combining in the fall 
to get it in off the field and into the grain elevator.
  The lack of connection here is striking. So many hundreds of millions 
of people are hungry and our grain markets tell us the food produced by 
family farmers has no value. It is a striking paradox.

  In conclusion, I thank my friends, Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar, 
for whom I have great regard, for what they have done in this 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to come back, after we pass this 
legislation--and I shall gladly vote for it--to reform the fundamental 
farm program itself. If we do that, we will not then have to be 
continually passing emergency economic assistance packages, as we are 
doing today with the crop insurance reform bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I commend the conferees for their efforts to finalize 
the crop insurance report. The crop insurance proposal before us today 
is the culmination of literally years of hard work by numerous Senators 
and Congressmen. As you may remember, I have been a supporter of S. 
2251, the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act, and I am extremely 
happy to see that the work on that legislation has finally been dove-
tailed into the work of the House of Representatives. You will also 
note that the report includes over $7 billion in supplemental 
appropriations to help farmers and ranchers cope with the current farm 
crisis.
  Some will note that this is the third year in a row Congress has 
provided a large supplemental appropriation to help America's farmers. 
However, those of you that have traveled to our rural communities know 
that every dime we can send to these areas is vitally needed. 
Agriculture is facing one of the most dire times that I can remember. 
Families are losing farms, ranches, and the livelihood that makes up 
their own family histories. A way of life is at risk, and in Montana, 
that way of life is what makes my state what it has become. Without 
these monetary adjustments to make up for failing markets, entire 
communities would dry up and blow away. In Montana, our economy is 
already reeling, and agriculture is our number one industry.
  Without adequate agricultural support, the investments we have made 
in economic development to diversify our economy will be threatened. 
Agricultural production is the foundation that we must build upon. 
Agriculture is what keeps products moving across the shelves, 
restaurants open, and food on the table. Without that, it will be 
almost impossible to keep towns vibrant enough to attract new 
investment and new technologies.
  Some critics are pointing out that this is the third year in a row 
that we have supplied rural America with supplemental appropriations. I 
agree that this pattern is costly, but I must point out that the 
promises given to rural America have not been carried out. We were 
promised strong foreign market penetration and a workable market that 
would get our fair share of the dollar back to producers. This has not 
happened. Look at any trade deal that has been negotiated in the last 
few years and you will see that our agriculture industry is almost 
always left with little protection, and actually very little support 
from our trade representatives. The result is an onslaught of foreign 
competition within our own markets, and not nearly enough of our 
product making it out of the country. Unfortunately, the administration 
and current world market trends have not allowed current farm policy to 
work in the manner that was anticipated at the time of its 
implementation. I continue to support the principles of our current 
farm policy but am deeply disappointed that we have not found a way to 
address the inaction of the administration in opening foreign markets. 
It will be necessary for Congress to look for ways to allow our current 
farm policy to continue and provide for the times of depressed markets 
such as we are facing currently.
  The current farm policy has not created the trade imbalance and 
subsequent market collapse, but it has not been flexible enough to 
protect our consumers. The combination of failed trade policies, and an 
unresponsive farm policy has resulted in the need for direct supports 
being sent to our producers. This year may be even more vital than 
previous years. We are facing  drought across the West. Livestock is 
already being moved for lack of water and irrigation has started 
earlier than in recent memory. Markets and mother nature have combined 
forces and Congress must respond with a strong message to rural America 
that we will be there to help, both this year and in the future.

  I thank the conferees for heading some of my requests and helping out 
those farmers hurt by the bankruptcy of AgriBiotech. The ABT language 
is vital to producers who have been negatively impacted by a bankruptcy 
that was no fault of their own. Additionally, our wool producers have 
been given a shot in the arm to help make sure their industry remains 
viable. These are just a few examples, but I can assure you that this 
Montanan extends our thanks for these helping hands.
  The underlying legislation that is carrying this supplemental package 
is equally important, and is part of the necessary message that 
Congress is willing to support agriculture in the future. It is a 
proposal that offers much-needed changes in the area of risk management 
for farmers and ranchers. Managing risk in agriculture has become 
perhaps the most important aspect of the business. Agricultural 
producers who are able to effectively manage risk are able to sustain 
and increase profit and operate more effectively in business cycles. An 
effective crop insurance program will provide our producers new 
possibilities for economic stability in the future. It will provide 
another foothold in our attempts to help agriculture out the current 
hole that it is in, and it will provide a vital tool to help prevent 
future depressions in the agriculture industry.
  The Federal Government must help facilitate a program to unite the 
producer and the private insurance company. The control must be put in 
the hands of the agricultural producer, and coverage must be high 
enough to warrant enrolling in the program. Although no producer can 
completely control risk, an effective management plan will reduce the 
negative effects of unavoidable risks. Today's family farmer must have 
adequate options, or one bad year could mean the difference between 
keeping the family farm or having to leave agriculture.
  This bill addresses the inadequacies of the current crop insurance 
program. The problems and inconsistencies with the current program make 
it both unaffordable and confusing to agricultural producers. Costly 
premiums with low coverage percentages are the biggest problem. In 
years of depressed market prices, crop insurance, though badly needed, 
is simply unaffordable for farmers.
  This bill inverts the current subsidy formula, in order to provide 
the highest levels of subsidies to producers at the highest levels of 
buy-up coverage, and thus alleviate the problem of unaffordable 
premiums. It also allows for the revenue policies to be fully 
subsidized.
  Another important provision in this bill is a pilot program to reward 
producers for risk management activities. It will allow producers to 
elect to receive a risk management payment or a

[[Page S4429]]

crop insurance subsidy. The risk management payments will be given to 
those producers that utilize any two of several activities, including 
using futures or options, utilizing cash forwards, attending a risk 
management class, using agricultural trade options or FFARRM accounts 
or reducing farm financial risk. Quite simply, it rewards a producer 
for utilizing management tools that will help protect his, and the 
government's, exposure in the current agriculture market.
  This bill also takes into account the lack of production histories 
for beginning farmers or those who have added land or recently utilized 
crop rotation. This will make it possible for producers to get a foot 
in the door and receive affordable crop insurance.
  This bill is an important tool to reform the current crop insurance 
program into a risk management program, designed to help the producer 
in the long-term. It is vital to find a solution to provide a way for 
farmers to stay in agriculture. They must be able to continue to 
produce and distribute the world's safest food supply at a profitable 
margin.
  Mr. President, I am extremely happy that the conferees have finally 
completed their work on this important proposal. It is vital to Montana 
and the rest of our Nation's rural agriculture communities.
  Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Kerrey of 
Nebraska, Senator Roberts of Kansas, and the Ag Committee--I do not 
serve on the Ag Committee--for completing this legislation.
  This legislation, by the way, was promised 2 or 3 years ago. They 
have labored a long time with the Crop Insurance Program which is 
probably the best package that has ever been produced by Congress and 
given to the American agricultural community to manage their risks. 
This is a tool to manage their risks.
  Also, my colleagues will note this report also includes $7 billion in 
supplemental appropriations to help farmers and ranchers cope with the 
current farm situation.
  Think about that a bit. This is landmark legislation because we are 
not even to Memorial Day, we are not even into the meat of the growing 
season, and we have already made preparation to deal with the situation 
that exists in agricultural today.
  We have been stripped from some of our markets, and our prices 
continue to be very low. On the other hand, the American consumer is 
still supplied with the most wholesome food in the world.
  This Congress has fulfilled its promise to have this money ready to 
go for our Nation's ag producers.
  Without these monetary adjustments to make up for failing markets, 
entire communities will dry up. They are experiencing more financial 
stress than ever before, probably even through the Great Depression. 
Without this support, the investments we have made in economic 
development to diversity our economy will be threatened. This also 
sends a strong message to the financial community and the farm 
community that we are serious about the support of that industry and 
will not just let it dry up on the vine.
  I congratulate the people who worked so hard. This conference was not 
an easy conference. It was not an easy package to put together. Next 
year, we will be debating what is good for a farm program, and we know 
there will be some changes made. Right now, the signal to our producers 
on the land is direct and it is very sharp.
  We have had some unfortunate things happen in the State of Montana. 
We depend heavily on the Pacific rim for exports. Three years ago, the 
economics of the Pacific rim collapsed: Indonesia, Malaysia, the 
Philippines, South Korea, Thailand. Some of those economies are just 
starting to come back.
  Just yesterday, we signed an agreement with the Taiwanese--they will 
be visiting the State of Montana--on buying wheat from my State. We 
have also put in the act that the Department of Agriculture has tools 
to use to fight the competition on the international markets. They have 
chosen not to do that. There is enough blame to go around for a farm 
economy that is hurting. Nonetheless, this is a positive bipartisan 
step in the right direction.
  The producers of our country should take a look at this package. 
There is a lot of flexibility here. Not only do we talk with multiperil 
things that can happen in a crop-year, but we are also talking about 
revenue, and we have never done that before. We have a complete 
package, a package that offers a tool for risk management for our ag 
producers on the land.
  Again, I compliment the Agriculture Committee on both sides of the 
aisle for their work on this legislation. It is very important to the 
farm States of this country.
  I thank the Senator from Iowa for allowing me a little time. I 
congratulate him and thank him for his leadership on this issue and 
everybody who had a part in putting this together.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself on my time such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the Senator from Montana for his strong support and input 
into this bill, as he said over a couple of years, trying to make sure 
we get a crop insurance bill that helps farmers manage risks. I 
appreciate his input and his kind words. Hopefully, we will adopt this 
conference reports this afternoon and farmers in Montana and Iowa, and 
all points in between, will at least have some assurance they can help 
manage their own risks.
  Mr. BURNS. There are a lot of points.
  Mr. HARKIN. There are a lot of points in there, that is true.
  Mr. President, I express my support for the conference report to the 
Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000 which we conferenced yesterday.
  I thank Senator Lugar, our chairman, for his hard work and 
persistence, as I said, over a couple of years in crafting the crop 
insurance title in this conference report which will provide 
significant benefits to farmers across the country.
  This accomplishment is bipartisan, one of which we can be proud. I 
thank Senator Lugar again for his persistent and strong leadership. I 
thank both Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey who really were the 
impetus for these changes in the Crop Insurance Program. I know the two 
of them worked long and hard to put together this bill. In the 
beginning stages, they worked with us on both sides of the aisle to 
meet the needs of various parts of our country. I especially thank 
Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey.
  In this regard, Mr. President, this is probably the last agriculture 
bill we will have this year. There may be some bits and pieces that 
come along later. I think it is safe to say this may be the last, and 
probably will be the last, major ag bill this year.
  In that regard, I pay my respects and thank our departing colleague, 
Senator Kerrey from Nebraska. He has been an invaluable member of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee for all of these years. He has always 
given great input and great insight into our deliberations and 
discussions on all facets of American agriculture. He has been an 
invaluable member of our committee. I know I will miss him greatly on 
our side of the aisle.
  He has always worked in a bipartisan fashion to help move 
legislation. I take this time to thank my friend and colleague from 
across the Missouri River and to wish him well in the future and again 
thank him for his work in getting this legislation through. It is a 
fitting tribute to his work through the years in the Senate. His 
fingerprints are on this crop insurance bill we are passing today.
  The point of the bill is to help farmers obtain better crop 
insurance; that is, to help them buy up their coverage. The final 
structure of the premium subsidy schedule provides higher discounts at 
both lower and higher levels of buy-up coverage. The improvements at 
the highest levels, 80 and 100 and 85 and 100, will benefit Iowa 
farmers who typically face low risk of loss.
  The bill also provides equivalent subsidies to farmers buying revenue 
insurance policies such as CRC, which is the crop revenue coverage, a 
product which is very popular with Iowa farmers. This change spurred 
development of new insurance policies and products.
  In addition, the bill will offer reimbursement to private developers 
of new plans of insurance. Again, that will be good for our farmers.
  Another major provision maintained was the elimination of the area 
loss

[[Page S4430]]

trigger for the program for noninsured crops, such as hay and forage 
crops or horticulture fruits and vegetables.
  This change is important to Members in the West and Northeast, one 
which we fought very hard to maintain in conference.
  The bill will also protect farmers by allowing them to maintain their 
insurable yields, despite significant crop loss, by limiting how much 
of a loss affects future insurance coverage.
  This feature could be very helpful to Iowa farmers, especially those 
facing potential drought this summer. At some point today we will be 
talking a little bit more about that drought. But this will also be 
very helpful, again, to other farmers, too, in the Dakotas and other 
places where they have had some very severe losses for 1 or 2 years in 
a row, which, if not balanced out, could unduly affect their rates and 
their coverage in future years. So we protected those farmers in those 
areas in those circumstances.
  I also want to note some other positive provisions in this bill, in 
the economic assistance package.
  First, there is $50 million for conservation, $10 million for the 
Farmland Protection Act, and $40 million for EQIP.
  I am disappointed, however, that an amendment that I had offered in 
the Senate, and which was adopted by the Senate, that would have linked 
conservation compliance to the provisions of crop insurance, was 
rejected by the House conferees.
  In every other Government farm programs, there is a provision that 
mandates that a farmer has to follow conservation compliance to be 
eligible for those programs. We had it for crop insurance until 1996. 
It was taken out. I and others desired to put that back in this crop 
insurance bill.
  As I said, it was adopted on the Senate side, but the House conferees 
refused to go along with that. And in the interests of getting the crop 
insurance bill through, we acceded to the unanimous consent request to 
go ahead and remove that provision. I am hopeful to come back with that 
again at some point in the future on some other piece of agricultural 
legislation.
  But other than that, there is $50 million for conservation. That is 
good.
  Secondly, there is $15 million in this bill to assist farmer-owned 
cooperatives, and other farmer-owned ventures, to help develop the 
value-added crops and processing for our farmers.
  Third, there is $7 million in this bill to further fund vaccines for 
pseudo-rabbies eradication program for hogs. It is very important in 
our area of the country.
  Fourth, in the nutrition assistance programs, there is $110 million 
for school lunch commodity purchases. Again, we have a lot of surplus 
crops out there, a lot of surplus commodities. I think it is 
beneficial, both for the health of our children, and the school lunch 
program, the school breakfast program, and the summer feeding program, 
that we purchase these commodities and get them out to our young kids.
  Also, we have reformed the Child and Adult Care Food Program to guard 
more against fraud which has come up repeatedly.
  Also, there is a provision in this bill--that is also a small 
provision--but I think it is going to be very important, which is going 
to permit us to get more children into health insurance for low-income 
families.
  Right now, under the provisions in this bill, if you qualify for 
reduced-price school lunches, or free school lunches, a provision in 
the bill will then say the people in the school have to inform your 
families that since you qualify for free or reduced lunches, you will 
probably qualify for things such as the CHIP program, to make sure, 
through Medicaid, your children are in a health insurance program. That 
is another way of reaching low-income families to make sure that their 
children are indeed covered by health care. That is another good 
provision in this bill.
  Lastly, there is a biomass research and development title in this 
bill that Senator Lugar has worked on for a long time. He is a real 
champion of it. I have been a cosponsor of it, but it is Senator Lugar 
who has pushed this bill to help make more fuel and industrial raw 
materials from biomass. And this bill is part of this. Again, another 
good provision of this bill is the biomass research and development 
bill that has been championed by Senator Lugar.

  So there is much that is good in this bill. That is why I will 
support it. That is why I was reluctant in the conference committee to 
take any more time than we did yesterday, in just a few hours, to get 
this bill through.
  But I am compelled to speak for a little bit about what is in this 
bill that I think is detrimental to our family farm structure in 
America and to ensuring that we have a diversified and widely spread 
system of agriculture.
  The $7.1 billion in emergency assistance that is included in this 
report, I believe, is misapplied, misdirected, and in many cases will 
be misspent.
  It is clear that our farmers are going to need aid. There is no doubt 
about that. But how this final package looks, I think, does not really 
meet those needs. This is the third year in a row that we have had 
additional AMTA payments--payments to farmers based on emergency help 
in the farm economy. The farm economy is still in shambles. For 3 years 
in a row, it has been in shambles. Every year, we come back and do the 
same thing year, after year after year, after year. Someone once 
defined ``insanity'' as doing the same thing over and over and 
expecting a different result. Every year we keep doing the same thing 
over and over, and we expect some different result; and we do not get a 
different result. The only result we get is fewer and fewer family 
farmers, more stress in rural areas, and more and more of our money 
going to the larger concerns who are driving out our family farms.
  But I want to recite for the Record where this money is going, these 
billions of dollars that we are taking from taxpayers and putting out 
there.
  During the first 3 years of our Freedom to Farm bill--1996 to 1998--
the top 10 percent of payment recipients, or about 150,000 individuals, 
got 61 percent of the payments. Ten percent of the recipients got 61 
percent of the money. Their annual payments from AMTA, the supplemental 
AMTAs, we passed every year, and the loan deficiency payments averaged 
$95,000. That is for the top 10 percent.
  The other 90 percent averaged only $7,000 in payments.
  I have a chart that illustrates this. It shows the average Government 
payments by farm size in 1997. The average was $7,378 for all farms. 
But those farms that had sales greater than $1 million averaged 
$33,699. For those farms that had sales of $250,000 to $500,000, they 
averaged $16,524--and on down.
  As you can see, the bigger you are, the more you got. And I daresay, 
it is usually those bigger farmers that were better able to protect 
themselves with insurance and other methods, who may not have needed 
that kind of assistance.
  It is the farmers down here in the lower end that needed the 
assistance and the help. But they were left stranded.
  On a State-by-State basis, the lopsided nature is even more striking. 
I will talk about Iowa, too, but the top 10 percent of recipients in 
Mississippi received 83 percent of the payments. In Alabama, the top 10 
percent received 81 percent of the payments. In my own State of Iowa, 
lest anyone think that I am singling out other States other than my 
own, the top 12 percent, in terms of income, received 50 percent of the 
payments in my State of Iowa.
  I do not think that is fair. The inequities of the current system 
have been exacerbated during the current economic crisis in 
agriculture.
  The last 2 years have shown that when prices are low, regular AMTA 
payments do nothing to keep an ad hoc disaster package under control. 
More importantly, they are not an effective mechanism in targeting aid 
to those who need it.
  We have had the AMTA payments. We come along every year, and we have 
a disaster program. They are a very poor method of response to our 
current farm crisis.
  While it is important to get needed aid out to producers, it is 
imperative that we get it out to help mostly family farmers who are 
really hurting, not to help the bigger farms bury the smaller ones.

  The data indicates just the opposite is happening. The lion's share 
of this additional aid will go to the largest

[[Page S4431]]

producers, while small producers receive almost nothing. Under the 
current scheme, a recipient at the high end of the spectrum may qualify 
for as much as $240,000 in AMTA payments this fiscal year. Under the 
current law, a person ``may be eligible'' to receive the payment 
maximum of $40,000 for each round of AMTA payments, the original 
payment plus the supplemental payment we have in this bill. That adds 
up, of course. Then they already received the supplemental payment that 
is in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill. So that is $120,000. If 
they structure their operations to fit under the three-entity rule, 
each person can receive payments from three entities. That, in effect, 
doubles that $120,000 up to $240,000. And that is not the end of it. As 
much as $300,000 in loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains 
can go to that farmer. One farmer in this country this year can get up 
to $540,000 of taxpayers' money. I don't believe that is right; I don't 
believe that is fair.
  I was going to offer a provision in the conference committee. I 
didn't. The reason I didn't is that I thought it was important to get 
the crop insurance bill through. As I said in the conference committee 
yesterday, we should have a crop insurance bill before us.
  The budget resolution that was passed here, that allowed us to have 
additional spending this year for supplemental payments to farmers, 
provided for the authorizing committee to authorize it by June 29, 
which means we had until the end of June to have a debate in our 
committee to talk about the policy implications of what we have been 
doing the last couple years and whether or not we want this policy 
structure to continue.
  Do we want to really continue to put our AMTA payments out like this?
  Well, we did not have that debate, so here we are confronted with 
this on a crop insurance bill, which should not be. This should be a 
separate bill from the Agriculture Committee on the floor where we 
could debate this.
  Maybe it would be the will of the majority of the Senate to continue 
to give large payments to large farmers, to continue the three-entity 
rule to allow some farmers to get hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
That could have been the outcome. But at least we should have been 
debating it. It should be here in a manner in which it would be 
debatable and amendable. We don't have that.
  I was going to offer an amendment to limit to $100,000 the most 
anyone could get through the AMTA system. I heard all kinds of talk 
from different people saying this would be terrible. That would have 
affected five-tenths of 1 percent of all the recipients; 6,700 farmers 
would have been affected by that if we would have capped it at 
$100,000.
  I have always thought I was here to fight for the vast majority of 
the family farmers who are out there, not just the top one-half of 1 
percent who, by and large, have the economic wherewithal to protect 
themselves. Many of our smaller farmers simply don't. Again, the data 
indicates that it is those at the top of the spectrum who are getting 
the most money.
  I have another chart. This chart illustrates how we are going in the 
wrong direction. As we continue down this pathway of AMTA payments, 
supplemental AMTA payments, loan deficiency payments built on each 
other year after year, without addressing the underlying provisions of 
the Freedom to Farm bill, what is happening is we are creating a bigger 
gap between the big farmers and the smaller farmers in our country. 
This chart illustrates that.
  As one can see by Government payments here on the left side, $20,000, 
$40,000, $60,000, $80,000, $100,000, and producers who receive those 
payments, if they look at this block, they will see that those 
producers who received about $50,000 or more in payments in the last 3 
years almost doubled the amount of money they were getting from the 
Government--almost doubled it.

  Look here at our smaller, family-sized farmers, who only got maybe 
$2,000 or $3,000 in payments. They just went up a very small amount. 
These doubled in size, doubled in payment; these hardly went up at all. 
What kind of policy are we pursuing here?
  I am not talking about farmers just getting big on their own and 
making more money. If these big farmers are more efficient and can do a 
better job and get this money in the marketplace, God bless them. We 
are talking about taxpayers' money going from here to these farmers. 
The big ones almost doubled in the amount of money they are getting 
from the Government; the smaller ones barely got any increase at all. I 
wish someone would explain to me how this is sound public policy.
  I have the figures right here. Recipients who averaged $50,000 or 
more in Government payments from 1996 to 1998 received $42,337 more in 
1998 than in 1996. In contrast, if you were at the bottom of the 
payment spectrum, these little ones down here at the bottom, you 
averaged between $5,000 and $10,000 per year, which is the bulk of the 
farmers in my State; you received a mere $740 more in 1998 than you did 
in 1997.
  I will repeat that. In my State--just talking about my State; I don't 
want to pick on anybody else's State--in my own State of Iowa, if you 
received an average of $50,000 or more in Government agricultural 
payments from 1996 to 1998, in 1 year you got more than a $28,000 
increase, from 1997 to 1998. You got $42,000 more over the 2 years. 
That is if you were at the top of the heap. If you were at the bottom 
and you only got $5,000 to $10,000 in Government payments, you got $740 
more.
  Someone please tell me how this is good public policy, that we give 
Government money out like this to the biggest, those who can protect 
themselves. Do you know what they are doing with that money? They are 
buying more land. They are getting bigger, because our smaller farmers 
are going out of production and the bigger farmers are buying their 
land.
  Again, if this were a free market approach, I would say fine, but it 
is Government payments going out to large farmers who are providing for 
the extinction of our family farmers--Government policies, right now, 
allowing these bigger farmers to get these massive Government payments, 
squeezing the smaller producers, and the bigger producers are buying up 
the land and getting bigger and bigger and bigger. It isn't because of 
any free market approach, it is because of governmental policies. 
Again, the disparities are not just size related, they are based on 
planting history.
  When I opened my remarks earlier today, I said someone please explain 
to me how it is good public policy that we pay farmers AMTA payments, 
Government payments, this year based on what they did 20 years ago. 
That is right. I try to explain this to people, and I get blank stares. 
It is a fact. If you have two farmers out there, one who has a 20-year 
history of planting and the other who maybe only has a 5-year history 
of planting, the one who has the 20-year history of planting may be 
planting nothing this year, but guess what, you are going to get money.
  Yet if you were a farmer out there planting for the last 3, 4, or 5 
years, you don't have that 20-year history, you won't get anything. 
Again, please explain to me how this is good policy. It is not tied to 
what farmers are producing today. It is tied to what they produced 20 
years ago.
  Two farmers in Iowa, with half their production in corn and half 
their production in soybeans, can be paid markedly different levels 
because of past planting history. When you figure the AMTA payment 
level, the farmer with a 50-percent corn base and a 50-percent soybean 
base will be paid half as much in AMTA payments as the farmer who has a 
100-percent corn base. What sense does this make? It makes no sense. 
Farmers all over my State recognize that.
  Now, as if all I have said isn't bad enough, the prospects for 
drought this year will even cause this program to be worse than it is. 
If a drought of the proportions that is predicted actually occurs, the 
disparity between the haves and the have-nots will grow even more. Why 
is that? Because let's say we have a drought--and it looks as if we are 
going to have pretty severe droughts in some parts of the country and 
other parts of the country will not--that means that the price, say, of 
corn is going to go up. But you, who are in a drought area, may only 
get a certain portion--you may get an AMTA payment, but you won't get 
anything out of the market because you won't have

[[Page S4432]]

a crop. If, however, you are in an area where you haven't had a 
drought, you are going to get high prices for your crop and an AMTA 
payment. Those who have no crop to sell will have their incomes 
plummet; they will get no adjustment in their AMTA payment to address 
those losses. They will get absolutely no more than the farmer who has 
a huge crop because they were not in the drought area. Again, these 
payments will exacerbate again this disparity between the large farmers 
and the small farmers in America. Again, I think that is bad public 
policy.
  Now, maybe if we have a big drought, we will come rushing in here 
with some kind of a disaster package. But, again, I wonder who is going 
to get the benefits of that. So throughout all of this, the mantra has 
been that there is no other viable mechanism, that AMTA payments are 
our best means of getting aid to our producers. Well, if this is the 
best we can do, I would hate to see what the worst is.
  There is a better way. I believe both sides should come together to 
figure out a better way of getting payments out to farmers. This idea 
of giving more and more to the biggest is not right, not good for our 
country; it is not good public policy. I have urged the Senate to have 
a frank and open discussion about the failures of the current system 
and on ways to improve it. We have not been afforded that opportunity 
in a meaningful way.
  As I said, this is in no way disparaging of my friend and the 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I know he was more than willing 
to have this discussion and this debate. But the powers that be 
insisted that we have this AMTA payment provision on the crop insurance 
bill. So here we are with it, without any provision for our authorizing 
committee to discuss and debate, and perhaps modify. As I said, I don't 
know if the will of the majority would have been there to do that, but 
at least we could have had an open and frank discussion about whether 
or not we wanted to go in that direction. Hopefully, we will have that 
opportunity in the future.
  So, again, I hope we will have this type of debate. I think our 
farmers and our taxpayers deserve that type of debate. In the meantime, 
I have no problems with the underlying bill. It is a good bill. The 
crop insurance bill is a good bill. It is going to go a long way toward 
helping our farmers manage the risk. As I said, there are other good 
provisions attached onto it. I am just sorry we had to attach on the 
payment provisions to this bill without having the committee do its 
job.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to briefly express my support for 
the crop insurance reform package that is being considered today, and 
the additional emergency assistance that was appended to the bill.
  This crop insurance reform is critically needed in the heartland of 
America. As the sponsor of the first crop insurance reform legislation 
introduced in the 105th and 106th Congress, I have worked hard on crop 
insurance reform and on keeping this issue at the forefront of 
congressional priorities, so it is gratifying to finally see this 
measure completed by conferees and the Congress.
  I worked with a committee of Minnesotans representing producers, 
lenders, agriculture economists, and other stakeholders to build a 
consensus on solutions to the current discontentment in rural America 
with the federal crop insurance program. I am pleased that the final 
bill contains the expansion of pilot programs I worked for, expansion 
of the dairy options pilot program that I cosponsored, and higher 
premium subsidies at the higher levels of coverage that was the 
critical portion of my original legislation.
  The premium subsidies will be crucial to help farmers manage their 
risk, and possibly reduce the need for ad hoc disaster assistance. Many 
producers believe that the current crop insurance program is too costly 
to take part in, and this reform measure should increase participation 
and thus spread risk more widely.
  I am also pleased that the crop insurance package includes an 
additional $7.1 billion in emergency aid to producers, which includes 
AMTA payments and oilseed producer assistance payments. This will 
hopefully give rural economies and farm families the financial boost 
they need until commodity prices start to rise again. While I have 
concerns about AMTA, this is the best way to quickly distribute these 
funds to farmers. I agree AMTA should be revisited in the next farm 
bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this report is a good example of how the 
Senate--when we sit down and work together--can craft sound 
legislation.
  New England and Mid-Atlantic farmers who do not usually participate 
in crop insurance will greatly benefit from this effort. There is 
funding to help preserve farmland, protect the environment and to give 
farmers better tools to manage risk.
  In addition, farmers who have suffered through two years of low 
prices will get some relief as USDA purchases $200 million worth of 
apples, cranberries, potatoes, melons, and the like. There will also be 
major purchases of specialty crops for the school lunch program--this 
will benefit farmers and school lunch programs.
  In the beginning, there were a lot of strong differences of opinion 
on how to reform crop insurance and provide assistance to farmers. In 
fact, we had a 10-8 split in the Agriculture Committee on how to 
structure this reform.
  But Republicans and Democrats worked together and got the job done. 
Sure, it's more work but that is why we are here.
  I was very upset yesterday when I learned--after we ended our 
conference negotiations and worked out all the final deals, and after 
we terminated the conference and had signed the conference report--that 
the unfinished bankruptcy bill was going to be thrown into the crop 
insurance conference report.
  That is an example of how the Senate should not operate. It would be 
hard to imagine a more serious breach of trust.
  I was prepared to discuss the world history of crop insurance from 
1860 through the year 2000, which could have put me to sleep while I 
was talking. In the end, it appears that cooler heads prevailed and 
decided they would rather pass crop insurance than listen to me speak.
  I appreciate the role of Senators Lugar and Roberts to get us back on 
track on crop insurance.
  For my part, I will continue to work with Senators Grassley, 
Sessions, Daschle, Hatch, Torricelli, and others on both sides of the 
aisle to craft a fair balanced and bipartisan bankruptcy bill. If we 
could do this for crop insurance, we can do it in bankruptcy--if there 
is the will to get it done.
  While there are aspects of the crop insurance compromise that I do 
not like, there clearly was a significant attempt to design a package 
that benefits all areas of the nation and a wide range of commodities--
including specialty crops. This is a very good bill.
  I appreciate this national focus because a narrowly focused crop 
insurance bill would not have been helpful to New England and the Mid-
Atlantic States. I was pleased to work with many of my colleagues from 
that region--both Democrats and Republicans--to formulate a package 
that would also benefit our regions.
  I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Lugar and his ranking member 
Senator Harkin in working out a good compromise. Also, Senators Roberts 
and Kerrey deserve a great deal of thanks for all their work on this 
issue.
  I want to point out one general concern.
  Because of the simultaneous work on Agriculture appropriations some 
provisions critical to New England and the Mid-Atlantic States, and to 
many other states, have been omitted from this package--because the 
plan is to include them in appropriations.
  It is crucial to me--and Republicans and Democrats in both Houses--
that dairy farmers not be left out of Agriculture appropriations bill 
since this report does not provide them with direct financial 
assistance. I am counting on some assurances I have received to keep 
the dairy funding in the appropriations bill. I will be working closely 
with my appropriations colleagues Senator Cochran and his ranking 
member, Senator Kohl, on this matter.
  Also, I understand that the House appropriations bill includes $100 
million for apple farmers who have been hard-hit by low yields or low 
quality after two years of unavoidable weather extremes, from floods to 
drought. Helping

[[Page S4433]]

these farmers is extremely important to New England, Mid-Atlantic 
States, Washington State, California, and other areas.
  As I pointed out during the conference, farmland protection programs 
work very well to help preserve farmland as farmland. There is so much 
need for funding, that our modest program in Vermont could instantly 
use the full $10 million since there is such a need and desire for this 
program.
  Indeed, I had a major role in getting section 388 included in the 
1996 farm bill. Similarly, in the 1990 farm bill contained a related 
farmland preservation program which I drafted called ``Farms for the 
Future.''
  I was pleased that the conference would accept this latest farmland 
protection proposal found at section 211, the ``Conservation 
Assistance,'' provision. This provision will be of great help to the 
Vermont Housing and Conservation Board which has done a tremendous job 
helping preserve Vermont farms and the farming way of life by buying 
development easements on farmland property.

  I was proud to fight to include funding for such a great agency--the 
Vermont Housing and Conservation Board of Vermont. Providing funding to 
them as soon as possible will enable them to free up money which could 
be used to preserve additional farmland in Vermont.
  I appreciate the willingness of the other Members to include this 
provision and am anxious to allow the Board to greatly enhance its 
service to farm families in Vermont.
  Section 211(b) is also a very important provision for many regions of 
the country. It allows the Secretary through the CCC to provide 
financial assistance to farmers for a very wide range of activities 
such as addressing threats to soil, or water, or related natural 
resources.
  In the alternative, it permits funds to be used to help farmers 
comply with environmental laws or to be used for ``beneficial, cost-
effective changes'' to a variety of different efforts or uses needed to 
conserve or improve soil, or water, or related natural resources.
  This gives the Secretary a broad range of land preservation and 
conservation alternatives for funding under that subsection.
  There is language in this report for a temporary suspension of 
authority to combine USDA field offices. I am concerned that in small-
population states, such as Vermont, cuts in federal staff have been so 
significant that the offices do not function effectively. During this 
temporary suspension the Secretary should also suspend staffing cuts.
  These staff cuts, particularly in the Farm Services Agency, should be 
halted in very small states so we can figure out what minimal numbers 
we need to properly run these offices. Indeed, in a small state like 
Vermont it only makes sense to allow them to hire the staff they need 
such that USDA can, during the suspension, properly determine which 
offices should be closed.
  I want to briefly mention a special crop provision, section 203, 
which provides $200 million to the Secretary to purchase specialty 
crops ``that have experienced low prices during the 1998 and 1999 crop 
years . . .'' We expect the Secretary to very aggressively use this 
authority to purchase apples, cranberries, potatoes, and the other 
commodities listed. This provision is very important to New England, 
Mid-Atlantic states and to other areas.
  I want to thank my colleagues on the crop insurance conference for 
all their efforts to craft a strong compromise report. I appreciate all 
the hard work of Chairman Lugar and his great sense of fairness. As 
usual, his staff did an excellent job. Keith Luse, his chief of staff, 
helped carefully balance many competing interests.
  His chief counsel, Dave Johnson, was extremely helpful and provided 
outstanding guidance throughout this complicated process. Andy Morton, 
the chief economist, and Michael Knipe, the lead counsel, provided 
sound analysis and helpful assistance.
  Senators Kerrey and Roberts played a very major role in this effort 
and I appreciate their contributions. Mike Seyfert of Senator Roberts' 
staff demonstrated great expertise on these complicated issues. Hunt 
Shipman, with Senator Cochran, and Scott Carlson, with Senator Conrad, 
were very instrumental during this effort.
  Bev Paul, with Senator Kerrey, was creative and energetic throughout 
the staff negotiations and of great help in crafting the final 
compromises. While not a conferee, the Democratic leader, Senator 
Daschle, and his staff, Zabrae Valentine, were very helpful regarding 
this effort.
  As always, the ranking member of the committee, Senator Harkin, was a 
strong spokesman for farmers and ranchers. His staff, Mark Halverson 
and Stephanie Mercier, provided help to all of us.
  The House staff also did a great job and I salute them. The chairman, 
Mr. Combest, as have past chairmen, was very ably represented by his 
Chief of Staff, Bill O'Conner. Jeff Harrison, the majority legal 
counsel, did a terrific job drafting and explaining very complex legal 
language.
  It is always a pleasure to work with Congressman Stenholm, the 
ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee. His staff, including 
Vernie Hubert, Chip Conley, and John Riley, displayed a thorough 
understanding of the issues and are a great resource for the Members.
  My own staffer on these matters, Ed Barron, as usual did a tremendous 
job, put in endless hours and helped me work out a good package. Also, 
Melody Burkins, who joined my staff recently, did a terrific job.
  I have praised the work of Gary Endicott, of Senate Legislative 
Counsel, many times and do so again today. David Grahn with the Office 
of General Counsel of USDA has once again greatly assisted the Congress 
in providing expert technical drafting advice.
  Ken Ackerman, head of the Risk Management Agency, also provided 
expert technical advice to the Congress on this bill.
  Let me bring your attention to another aspect of this report, the 
Plant Protection Act that has been incorporated into this legislation. 
This modernization of existing laws provides tools and resources for 
animal and plant health inspection services for the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service of USDA so that they can better do their job.
  This legislation will not only help protect agricultural plants in 
the United States from pests and disease but will also assist APHIS in 
dealing with invasive species. The Plant Protection Board has indicated 
that passage of this Act is their number one recommendation for 
safeguarding American plants. I want to thank Under Secretary Mike Dunn 
for his leadership on this important matter.
  Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. I come before you 
today to speak in support of the conference report of the Agriculture 
Risk Protection Act of 2000 which we are voting on today.
  First, I believe that this conference report is the beginning of a 
new era of cooperation between traditional row crop states and 
speciality crop states. During our development of this legislation, I 
have worked closely with my colleagues Senators Mack, Lugar, Kerrey, 
and Roberts to address the unique needs of speciality crop producers. 
This new cooperation speaks well of our ability in the next Congress to 
cooperatively review the impacts of the 1996 farm bill on American 
agriculture. I believe that, based on this cooperative effort, we will 
be successful in ensuring that all American agriculture, not just row 
crop producers or speciality crop producers, but all of agriculture 
reaps the benefits from those reforms.
  Let me say a few words about agriculture in the state of Florida. The 
image that many of us hold of the state is one of white sand beaches, 
coral reefs alive with hundreds of tropical fish, or Disney World. 
While accurate, this image is not complete.
  Florida has 40,000 commercial farmers. In 1997, Florida farmers 
utilized a little more than 10 million of the state's nearly 35 million 
acres to produce more than 25 billion pounds of food and more than 2 
million tons of livestock feed. Florida ranks number nine nationally in 
the value of its farm products and number two in the value of its 
vegetable crops.
  Florida agriculture is not only valuable, but diverse. We rank number 
two nationally in horticulture production with annual sales of over $1 
billion. Florida grows 77 percent of U.S. grapefruits and 47 percent of 
world supply of

[[Page S4434]]

grapefruit. The state produces 75 percent of the nation's oranges and 
20 percent worldwide.
  In 1997, Florida's farmers led the nation in the production of 18 
major agriculture commodities including: oranges and grapefruits, 
sugarcane, fresh tomatoes, bell peppers, sweet corn, ferns, fresh 
cucumbers, fresh snap beans, tangerines, tropical fish, temple oranges, 
fresh squash, radishes, gladioli, tangelos, eggplant, and houseplants.
  Florida livestock and product sales were $1.1 billion in 1997. We are 
the largest milk-producing state in the southeast. We rank 14th 
nationally in the production of eggs. Florida's horse industry has 
produced 39 national thoroughbred champions and 47 equine millionaires. 
Florida also has active peanut, cotton, potato, rice, sweet corn, and 
soybean industries.
  As these facts demonstrate, agriculture in Florida means many things 
to many people. However, all Floridians recognize that agriculture is a 
critical part of our economy. Each year, Florida agriculture ranges 
from the second to the third largest industry in the state on an income 
basis. It is this diverse industry that the Agriculture Risk Protection 
Act of 2000 will assist.
  On July 20, 1999, I joined my colleagues Senators Mack, Feinstein, 
and Boxer in introducing S. 1401, the Specialty Crop Insurance Act of 
1999. This legislation sought to reduce the dependence of the specialty 
crop industry an emergency spending and catastrophic loss insurance 
coverage by improving its access to quality crop insurance policies.
  Currently, crop insurance policies available for specialty crops do 
not cover the unique characteristics associated with the planting, 
growing, and harvesting of specialty crops. According to a GAO report 
on USDA's progress in expanding crop insurance coverage for specialty 
crops, even after an expansion in policies available to specialty corps 
planned through 2001, the existing crop insurance program will fail to 
cover approximately 300 specialty crops that make up 15 percent of the 
market share. In some cases, although crop insurance may exist for a 
specialty crop, it may not be available in all areas where the crop is 
grown. For example, the GAO report indicates that crop insurance for 
grapes is available in selected counties in Arkansas, California, 
Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and 
Washington but not in other growing areas located in Arizona, Georgia, 
North Carolina, and South Carolina.
  In an effort to increase producer participation in buy-up coverage, 
the Risk Management Agency last year undertook a pilot program to 
increase the premium subsidies at a total cost of $400 million. In 
1999, the Congress enacted this same program which was deemed a success 
on an emergency basis.
  This program was not a success for specialty crops. Of the 125,772 
producers who bought additional buy-up coverage after this subsidy was 
offered, 81 percent were producers of program crops. The highest 
increase in a single commodity was 31,191 additional policies sold to 
corn producers while the lowest increase was an additional 3 policies 
sold to pepper producers. Even when corrective action is taken to work 
on increasing buy-up coverage for all crops, the program that is 
designed does not have a dramatic effect on specialty crop 
participation. We need a different approach for this unique sector of 
U.S. agriculture.
  The original legislation that I introduced sought to promote the 
development and use of affordable crop insurance policies designed to 
meet the specific needs of producers of specialty crops. The 
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 will increase specialty crop 
producer participation in the Federal Crop Insurance Program, encourage 
higher levels of coverage than provided by catastrophic insurance, and 
enable better planning and marketing decisions to be made.
  I am pleased to say, Mr. President, that the crop insurance 
conference report we are considering today enacts the major provisions 
of my original bill. With the key support of Senators Kerrey and 
Roberts, who have focused their attention on the needs of speciality 
crop producers, we have forged a bi-partisan piece of legislation that 
addresses the needs of multiple regions of the country.
  In addressing speciality crops, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act 
of 2000 takes the following actions:
  First, to ensure that the Risk Management Agency utilizes private 
sector expertise in developing new crop insurance policies, it requires 
that portions of research and development funds in this bill and 
research and development funds for new crop insurance policies 
appropriated to RMA each year be focused on specialty crop product 
development. The legislation specifically authorizes $20-25 million per 
year for RMA to enter into public and private partnerships to develop 
specialty crop insurance policies.
  Second, it also establishes a process to review new product 
development and ensure that crop insurance products are available to 
all agricultural commodities, including specialty crops.
  Third, the Agriculture Protection Act of 2000 expands the 
authorization for the Risk Management Agency to conduct pilot programs 
to increase its flexibility in developing better products for specialty 
crop producers. Today, we are voting on legislation that will allow 
pilots to be conducted on a state, regional, and national basis for a 
period of four years or longer if desired by RMA. This legislation also 
specifies authority for the Risk Management Agency to conduct a pilot 
program for timber, a provision I originally introduced on April 22 of 
1999 in S. 868, the Forestry Initiative to Restore the Environment.
  Fourth, to encourage specialty crop producers to buy up to 50/100 
coverage once these new policies are developed, the report before us 
today increases the rate for 50/100 coverage, the initial buy-up level 
after catastrophic coverage to 67 percent. This will create an 
incentive for growers to purchase buy-up coverage and bring us closer 
to meeting our goal of reducing dependence on the CAT program.
  Fifth, to ensure that aid for farmers who have no crop insurance 
policies available to them actually receive aid in times of natural 
disasters, this report modifies the Non-insured Assistance Program 
(NAP) to eliminate the area trigger, making any grower whose crop is 
uninsurable and experiences a federally-declared disaster, eligible for 
these funds.
  I will not enumerate each of the provisions of this legislation, as 
almost each page contains a specific remedy for problems faced by 
specialty crop producers. I commend my colleagues for their efforts to 
ensure that crop insurance reform passed by the 106th Congress will 
take into account the needs of all agriculture producers. In 
particular, I thank Senators Mack, Kerrey, and Roberts for joining me 
in my efforts to ensure that the needs of production agriculture in 
Florida are met.
  I believe that the provisions in the Agriculture Risk Protection Act 
of 2000 will ensure that specialty crop producers have access to high 
quality insurance products designed to meet their needs.
  Turning away from crop insurance for a moment, I would like to 
mention a few key times in this package that are just as critical for 
specialty crop producers.
  First, this legislation includes $25 million for compensation to 
growers who have experienced losses due to plum pox virus, Pierce's 
disease, and citrus canker. To date, citrus canker has spread to over 
1600 acres of commercial citrus groves in Florida and is threatening 
the existence of the industry. The entire lime industry is on the verge 
of being eliminated. Already, over half of the 3000 acres in lime 
production have been destroyed or marked for destruction. Once an 
infected tree is discovered, federal regulation, designed to eradicate 
this disease, requires the destruction of all trees, healthy or 
diseased, within a 1,900-foot radius. Literally thousands of citrus 
trees, which require three to four years to reach maturity, have been 
burned to the ground during this year's growing season. These funds are 
a critical first step in the ability of our grower to recover from the 
devastation that this disease has caused in Florida.

  Second, this legislation includes a streamlined version of the Plant 
Protection Act. In 1988, I commissioned a study by the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture and the Animal and Plant

[[Page S4435]]

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to evaluate the viability of our 
nation's system of safeguarding America's plant resources from invasive 
plant pests. In today's global marketplace where international travel 
is commonplace, the importance of APHIS' role in ensuring that invasive 
pests and plants do not enter our borders in paramount. The passage of 
the Plant Protection Act was the number one recommendation of this 
report which included almost 300 individual recommended actions. Today, 
we are taking our first step toward a serious commitment to protecting 
American agriculture from the ravages of diseases like citrus canker or 
the Mediterranean fruit fly.
  Third, conference report includes over $70 million for key 
infrastructure improvements to the fruit and vegetable inspection 
system that was recently embroiled in controversy when eighty USDA 
inspectors were arrested for taking bribes to reduce the value of 
produce and allow receivers to negotiate lower prices with shippers. 
These funds will restore the integrity of this system.
  Again, I commend my colleagues for their fine work and perseverance 
in bringing this conference report to completion and before the Senate 
for a final vote. Today's action will enact long-term change in our 
crop insurance program that will provide specialty crop producers with 
access to affordable crop insurance policies which are designed to meet 
their specific needs.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to address the Senate today 
in support of a conference report (H.R. 2559) that improves and expands 
the crop insurance and risk management tools available to farmers in 
the United States. I am equally pleased to support economic and 
disaster assistance attached to H.R. 2259 not because I believe the 
assistance will always be targeted to those that need it most, but 
rather because Congress cannot afford to ignore the opportunity to act 
now in order to provide timely relief to our nation's family farmers 
and ranchers.
  Collapsed crop and livestock prices, weak export demand, and 
agribusiness concentration continue to threaten the viability of our 
independent family farmers and ranchers. Crop insurance provides many 
agricultural producers with a risk management tool, and with the 
reforms made in the legislation before us today, crop insurance will 
prove even more effective.
  Nonetheless, I must caution that no matter how well crop insurance is 
improved, it is not a substitute for a sound farm policy or a safety 
net. Instead, crop insurance is an important part of that farm safety 
net. Moreover, the economic and disaster farm aid attached to this 
legislation will help in the near-term, but for the third year in a row 
this Congress has failed to address the underlying shortcomings of the 
current farm bill.
  Crop insurance is critical to the farmers of South Dakota. Nearly 
twenty South Dakota grown crops are currently eligible for crop 
insurance, and among our major commodities, participation in the crop 
insurance program is high. Ninety-five percent of our corn acreage is 
enrolled in crop insurance while ninety two percent of our soybean 
acres are in this program. Wheat producers in South Dakota place 
seventy-six percent of their acreage in crop insurance. After the 
reforms made to the program in 1994--when I chaired the House 
Agriculture Subcommittee dealing with this issue--over 10 million acres 
of farmland in my state were enrolled in crop insurance.
  I was pleased to co-sponsor a bipartisan reform bill that is a 
modification of S. 1580, the Kerrey-Roberts Crop Insurance for the 21st 
Century Act. The conference report before the Senate today closely 
mirrors the Kerrey/Roberts legislation and addresses some of the most 
serious concerns of the current crop insurance program; affordability, 
dependability, and flexibility.
  Nearly every agricultural producer wants the opportunity to purchase 
higher levels of crop insurance coverage, but most have found that buy-
up coverage becomes cost prohibitive. This bill makes coverage more 
affordability by providing higher subsidies for higher levels of 
coverage. South Dakota farmers support this provision of our bill 
because affordability seems to be the most pressing issue facing crop 
insurance today.
  In recent years, the issue of coverage dependability has come into 
serious question. Farmers in South Dakota and elsewhere have suffered 
under multiple years of weather related disasters. The bill before us 
today ensures greater coverage dependability by providing relief for 
producers suffering from insurance coverage decreases and premium 
increases due to multi-year crop losses resulting from natural 
disasters.
  The conference report authorizes USDA to conduct a series of pilot 
programs to provide risk management protection to livestock producers, 
I am hopeful livestock producers can stand to benefit from this action 
because to date they have been specifically excluded from this 
protection.
  Yet, I am disappointed the crop insurance conference committee 
members dropped a provision that sought to maintain conservation 
compliance as a part of crop insurance coverage.
  As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I helped secure $6 
billion last year (over a four year period) in order to improve the 
overall crop insurance program. This year, funds were added to this 
level to bring a total of $8.2 billion over five years to crop 
insurance improvements. As a member of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, I am pleased the legislation I cosponsored and supported 
closely mirrors the conference report before us today; therefore, I am 
pleased to vote for H.R. 2259.
  Nonetheless, I want to discuss some items in the economic and 
disaster assistance package included in the conference report. I am 
concerned that the conference committee ignored the inequity inherent 
with the current farm bill, and instead, chose to make economic aid 
payments to farmers based on AMTA payments.
  Even though South Dakota producers stand to receive--in a timely 
fashion--about $158 million in additional AMTA payments within the 
economic aid package, these payments are unfair to many of the family 
farmers in my state for a number of reasons.
  First, AMTA payments are made regardless of whether crop prices are 
high or low. I would prefer an approach (in overall farm policy and in 
the context of disaster aid) that provides targeted, counter-cyclical 
benefits to family-sized farmers because it would be more market-
oriented and provide a more reliable safety net.
  Second, since AMTA payments are based on outdated crop yields and 
base acres from 1985, they are unfair to many South Dakota farmers. In 
the mid-1980s, farmers in my state planted more grain sorghum and oats 
in combination with the staple crops like wheat, corn, and soybeans. 
But, all of these crops make up their ``base acres'' upon which an AMTA 
payment is made. As such, farmers in South Dakota may receive AMTA 
payments on low-value crops like oats and grain sorghum that they don't 
even plant today.
  Moreover, crop yields in the mid-1980s were much lower than crop 
yields today, yet, AMTA payments are based on these outdated crop 
yields. For example, the 1985 corn yield assigned to AMTA payments is 
set at 64 bushels per acre. Yet today, most farmers raise around 100 
bushels of corn or better. Once again, the AMTA payments fail to 
recognize modern day farming conditions.
  Finally, there still exist situations where landlords and not farm 
operators receive the AMTA payments.
  Last week I sent a letter to Conference Committee Chairmen Lugar and 
Combest insisting that Congress must not alter statutory payment 
limitations so large farming entities can't swallow up the majority of 
government assistance. Last year, an amendment to the fiscal year 2000 
Agriculture appropriations bill increased payment limits on loan 
deficiency payments and marketing loans from $75,000 to $150,000 for 
1999. As a result of this specific change last year, only the largest 
of the large farms stood to benefit. My letter urged the conference 
committee members to not extend this special treatment of the payment 
limits beyond 1999. I am very pleased the conference committee agreed 
to reinstate the more responsible, lower, payment limits for this year. 
Family farmers are the backbone of rural America. If we have a limited 
amount of taxpayer funds in which to provide a safety net for farmers, 
it is simply common sense that we target the benefits to those who need 
the assistance.

[[Page S4436]]

  I also want to mention that there are several items within the 
economic and disaster aid package that I support, and as such, I will 
vote in favor of this legislation.
  First, sheep producers in South Dakota have suffered under near all-
time low wool prices. To add insult to injury, many of these same 
producers must try to compete in lamb meat production with unfair and 
surging imports from other countries. I am especially pleased the 
conference committee agreed to provide $11 million in fiscal year 2001 
to provide direct payments to sheep producers based on poor wool 
prices.
  Second, as a strong advocate of farmer-owned value-added 
cooperatives, I am extremely satisfied to support the inclusion of $15 
million worth of competitive grants in fiscal year 2001 to assist 
producers in establishing these types of business ventures.
  Because flooding remains an obstacle to crop production in many parts 
of South Dakota, I am pleased to support the $24 million in the 
conference report for the Flooded Lands Compensation Program.
  I am also pleased this legislation offers honey producers in South 
Dakota and across the nation a recourse loan program to help provide a 
safety net and price support in order to market their product.
  Finally, I am pleased the conference committee included provisions 
from my legislation--S. 2056, The Emergency Commodity Distribution Act 
of 2000--which restores funding to USDA in order to procure commodities 
for the School Lunch Program over a nine year period.
  Last year, Congress enacted the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives 
Improvement Act. A provision of this legislation amended the School 
Lunch Act to require USDA to count the value of ``bonus'' commodities 
when it determines the total amount of commodity assistance provided to 
schools. This change will result in a $500 million budget cut for the 
School Lunch Program over a nine-year period without congressional 
action this year. While not large in overall budget terms, this cut 
will have an immediate impact that is especially severe in school 
districts more dependent on the program.
  My legislation would ensure that schools receive the full value of 
entitlement commodity assistance, and allow the School Lunch Program to 
continue to meet its dual purpose of supporting American agriculture 
while providing nutritious food to children across the country. While 
the provision included in today's legislation provides $34 million in 
fiscal year 2000 and $76 million in fiscal year 2001, it does not 
restore the entire $500 million over the nine-year period. However, I 
am greatly pleased the conferees agreed to include part of my 
legislation in the conference report as this represents a step in the 
right direction.
  I also encouraged the conference committee to consider inclusion of 
my bills to forbid packer ownership of livestock and to label meat for 
its country-of-origin.
  My legislation enjoys broad support all across the nation because it 
will restore confidence and freedom in livestock markets. I am 
disappointed the committee failed to include either of these items as 
it will once again become clear that Congress largely ignored the 
independent livestock producer trying to compete in an unfair 
marketplace.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank Senators 
Kerrey, Daschle, and Roberts who have worked to craft a national crop 
insurance reform bill. I rise in support of the Conference Report 
because it represents a fundamental shift in farm policy in its 
recognition of the importance of agriculture in the Northeast.
  Historically, New Jersey farmers have been at a disadvantage when it 
comes to crop insurance for two principle reasons. First, many of the 
specialty crops they grow are not eligible for insurance. And second, 
because our region has a history of non-participation, many farmers 
fail to investigate what options they may be eligible for. They simply 
assume that they are not eligible or that the programs are not 
economically worthwhile.
  Without crop insurance, farmers in my region will not be able to 
continue farming, they will be forced out of a way of life, they will 
be forced to sell their land. New Jersey may be the best example of 
what can happen when we do not protect our farmers. In 1959, New Jersey 
had 15,800 farms. Today we have 9,400. In 1959, New Jersey had 
1,460,000 acres of farmland. Today we have but 800,000.
  The current Federal Crop Insurance program has failed to curb the 
losses which farmers have experienced and has forced them to sell their 
land and their livelihood. It has facilitated the end of a way of life 
in New Jersey.
  When the Senate passed its version of the crop insurance reform bill, 
it adopted the so-called ``Northeast Amendment'' drafted by myself, 
Senator Schumer, Leahy, Reed, Rockefeller and others. The amendment has 
been almost entirely preserved in the Conference Report. The amendment 
is targeted at increasing participation in states in which there is 
traditionally, and continues to be, a low level of crop insurance 
participation and availability.
  The conference report provides $50 million over five years for 
research to create new crop insurance policies. The goal is to develop 
new programs tailored to the crops in our region so that our farmers 
will find it economically worthwhile.
  An additional $25 million over five years for education programs 
designed to inform farmers of the current crop insurance options 
available to them. This would include hiring more agents to sell 
insurance and more USDA officials to help farmers craft a strategy for 
their farm. This money will put in place the necessary human 
infrastructure.
  The final provision of the Northeast amendment is $50 million over 
five years for payments to farmers who adopt certain conservation 
practices. The effect of this amendment will be to increase 
participation, by making it more attractive, more affordable, and more 
accessible to farmers who grow specialty crops and have low rates of 
participation in crop insurance.
  But the Conference Report also vastly improves the situation for 
farmers who grow non-insurable crops by improving the Non-insured Crop 
Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). Because farmers who grow the 
majority of crops in my state do not qualify for crop insurance, the 
NAP program is the only assistance my farmers can rely on when their 
crops are decimated, as during last summer's drought. Under current 
law, losses in the region where a farmer grows must be extensive before 
a single farmer is eligible for NAP relief. The Conference Report 
removes this ``area trigger'' and ensures that farmers not eligible for 
crop insurance receive protection in times of hardship, regardless of 
whether they are the only farmer who suffered.
  The Conference Report also addresses the needs of states like New 
Jersey by including additional provisions to develop broad specialty 
crop policies. These policies are designed to protect farmers who grow 
``specialty crops'', fruits and vegetables which constitute many of the 
crops grown in the Northeast. By focusing on specialty crop product 
development, the bill truly addresses the needs of farmers in all 
regions throughout the country. Because of these provisions, I will 
support the bill and will urge my other Northeast colleagues to do the 
same.
  However, I am extremely concerned that the $7.1 billion in emergency 
farm aid included in this bill essentially provides no relief to our 
region. The majority of this funding will be distributed in AMTA 
payments to farmers in the Midwest and South who grow commodity crops 
such as corn, soybeans, and wheat. It will not help the specialty crop 
farmers in New Jersey or anywhere else in the Northeast. This is 
unfortunate, considering that the farmers in my state are still 
suffering from last summer's drought.
  The Senate will soon have another opportunity to provide this 
desperately needed relief when it considers the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill after Memorial Day. As written, this bill includes 
additional aid for dairy farmers, livestock and peanut farmers. But it 
still fails to address the situation faced by small family farmers 
throughout the Northeast. During consideration of that bill, I plan on 
offering an amendment with my colleagues from the Northeast that will 
provide some relief for the specialty crop farmers in our

[[Page S4437]]

region. I hope at the time we will enjoy the support of the other 
regions of the country who so generously are benefitting from the 
emergency aid included in this crop insurance bill.
  Again, I want to thank Senators Kerrey, Roberts, Daschle, Harkin and 
Leahy for their willingness to work with us during this process.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to commend many of my 
colleagues who were instrumental in the development of this 
legislation. The conference report before us today represents new 
opportunities for family farmers through a reformed crop insurance 
program and short term assistance in the form of an additional economic 
relief payment equivalent to the levels established last year.
  The conference report before us today provides Congress with an 
opportunity to assist farmers during this time of need. My friends and 
neighbors just came off a year in which they lost tremendous amounts of 
equity due to commodity prices hitting twenty year lows. If we would 
not have provided an economic relief payment last year we would have 
lost many more family farmers.
  What does a strong agricultural economy mean for my home state of 
Iowa? The agricultural industry contributes a total of around $70 
billion and 446,000 jobs in Iowa. Therefore, when things are in bad 
shape down on the farm, all Iowans feel the negative economic effects.
  While commodity prices have improved slightly from last year, margins 
are still tight. We promised our constituents a smooth transition from 
the failed, government-dominated farm policies of the last 63 year 
period prior to 1996. We must follow through on that promise, and this 
legislation helps us fulfill that goal.
  This bill provides tremendous opportunities for farmers. The Crop 
Insurance title helps farmers utilize additional risk management 
activities. Farmers can increase their individual coverage levels 
thanks to better premium subsidies. And for the first time, pilot 
programs will be available to determine how livestock producers can be 
included as an insurable commodity.
  I also want to thank the members of the Senate Budget Committee in 
supporting my efforts earlier this year in crafting a budget resolution 
which set aside over $15 billion to help farmers. The bill before us 
today would not have been possible otherwise. The Budget Committee's 
work and cooperation allowed the Agriculture Committee to supply 
farmers with the funds necessary for the smooth transition farmers 
deserve by providing what is viewed as an additional AMTA payment at 
1999 levels.
  The package also includes $500 million for oilseeds, $7 million to 
cover pseudorabies vaccination costs incurred by pork producers, and 
$15 million for what I have termed the Agricultural Marketing Equity 
Capital Fund.
  The Agriculture Marketing Equity Capital Fund will provide $10 
million to establish grants for developing new value-added agricultural 
markets for independent producers. This fund will assist agricultural 
producers by providing grants for ventures to capture a greater share 
of the consumer food dollar.
  It is my hope that the fund will help independent grain and livestock 
producers find real solutions to address the loss of competition in 
agricultural markets, to combat concentration in food production and 
processing, and create new value-added business opportunities for 
groups like:
  The Iowa Cattlemen, who are developing a regional ``grid'' of 
producers to supply cattle to a proposed harvest facility being 
developed with the cooperation of one of the nation's largest 
processors;
  Heartland Grain Fuels, a group of grain producers who have banded 
together in Huron, South Dakota to develop an ethanol facility;
  Iowa Premium Pork, a group of 1,400 pork producers across my home 
state which have joined together in a cooperative venture to market 
their hogs;
  Sunrise Energy, an ethanol plant in Blairstown, Iowa;
  The 21st Century Group, independent dairy producers from Kansas;
  Pork America, a national cooperative of independent pork producers; 
and
  The New Jersey Farm Bureau, which recently commissioned a study to 
determine the feasibility of ethanol production and held a meeting at 
which 300 New Jersey farmers attended due to their interest in value-
added opportunities.
  An informal poll by my office found hundreds of millions of dollars 
in possible requests for this type of program. The reason for this is 
that family farmers cannot compete with an industry that has billions 
of dollars in equity and capital resources and which seems to be 
willing to use this advantage to kill any producer driven competition.
  Industry's aggressive stance toward competition from farmers made it 
impossible for me to provide more money for independent producers. In 
fact, the American Meat Institute, which is the political muscle behind 
70 percent of the packers and processors in the US, fought against this 
provision tooth and nail.
  When I found out that AMI was opposing my efforts to help farmers I 
knew that I must be doing something right. I just want the leadership 
of AMI to know that I was very aware of his efforts and I hope that 
AMI's successful opposition to my request for $35 million to help 
America's family farmers was worth it to them.
  I plan to publish AMI's membership in the record and I hope that 
every independent producer in the nation takes a good look at who is 
trying to limit value-added opportunities for family farmers. I'm not 
saying that every processor or packer knew exactly what AMI's 
Washington lobbyists were doing, but I sure hope to inform every 
member, through one medium or another, what happened and why 
independent producers won't have the funds to reach out to processors 
in joint ventures and receive working capital to help everyone survive 
and thrive.
  One last point, if you thought I was pushing hard for my agri-
industry concentration legislation before, hold on to your seat.
  Regardless of my disappointment in industry's effort to kill my 
provision, on the whole, this bill includes a bold new approach that 
will help create a brighter future for family farmers and their rural 
communities.
  Mr. President, in summation I want to thank my colleagues on the Ag 
Committee who worked hard to develop this package. This bill is good 
for Iowa and good for agriculture and the family farmer nationwide. I 
look forward to sending it to the President and for the President to 
sign it quickly so that we may provide family farmers with the tools 
they need to be successful in today's marketplace.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference 
report on the crop insurance reform bill. I believe this bill makes 
fundamental changes to the existing Federal Crop Insurance Program that 
are necessary to make crop insurance more workable and affordable for 
producers across the country and I urge its passage.
  Congress has been attempting to eliminate the ad hoc disaster program 
for years because it is not the most efficient way of helping our 
farmers who suffer yield losses. Due to the Ag economic crisis, there 
has been much discussion lately on the issue of the ``safety net'' for 
our nation's producers. On that point I would like to be perfectly 
clear. Crop insurance is a risk management tool to help producers guard 
against yield loss. It was not created and was never intended to be the 
end-all be-all solution for the income needs of our nation's producers.
  Last year, Senator Cochran and I introduced a comprehensive bill that 
addressed what we saw as the various reform needs of the crop insurance 
program.
  I am pleased that many of these provisions are included in the 
conference report that we are considering here today. This bill 
establishes a process for re-evaluating crop insurance rates for all 
crops and for lowering those rates if warranted. After pressure from 
Congress and the National Cotton Council last year, RMA reduced rates 
by as much as 50 percent for cotton in Arkansas and the Mid-South. The 
provision included in today's bill will require further review of all 
Southern commodities.
  By making the crop insurance program more affordable, additional 
producers will be encouraged to participate in the program and protect 
themselves against the unforeseeable factors that will be working 
against them once they put a crop into the ground.

[[Page S4438]]

  The bill also provides for an enhanced subsidy structure so that 
producers are encouraged to buy-up from their current level of 
coverage. The structure included in this bill will make the step from 
catastrophic coverage to buy-up easier for producers and will make 
obtaining the highest level of coverage easier for those who are 
already participating in the crop insurance program.
  In an attempt to improve the record keeping process within USDA, this 
legislation requires that FSA and RMA coordinate their record keeping 
activities. Current USDA record keeping, split between FSA and RMA, is 
redundant and insufficient. By including both crop insurance program 
participants and non-program participants in the process, we hope to 
enhance the agricultural data held by the agency and make acreage and 
yield reporting less of a hassle for already overburdened producers.
  In addition, this bill establishes a role for consultation with state 
FSA committees in the introduction of new coverage to a state. The need 
for this provision was made abundantly clear to Arkansas' rice 
producers this spring. A private insurance policy was offered to 
farmers at one rate, only to have the company reduce the rate once the 
amount of potential exposure was realized.
  In my discussions with various executives from the company on this 
issue it became apparent that their knowledge of the rice industry was 
fairly minimal. Had they consulted with local FSA committees who had a 
working knowledge of the rice industry before introduction of the 
policy, the train wreck that occurred might have been stopped in its 
tracks.
  I am pleased that another reform measure that I worked on has been 
included to help rice producers suffering losses caused by drought. 
Recent droughts have left many Arkansas farmers with low reservoirs and 
depleting aquifers. If rains do not replenish them, an adequate 
irrigation supply may not exist by summer.
  In addition, drought conditions in Louisiana have caused salt to 
intrude into the water supply used for irrigation on many farms. 
Current law states that rice is excluded from drought policies because 
it is irrigated. This is not equitable since rice producers do suffer 
losses due to drought.
  I have worked with Senators Breaux and Landrieu to provide these 
policies for our rice producers who are experiencing reduced irrigation 
opportunities due to the severe drought conditions that have plagued 
the South for the last two years. I am pleased that this provision has 
been included in the bill.
  Many of the problems associated with the crop insurance program have 
been addressed in previous reform measures. However, fraud and abuses 
are still present to some degree.
  This bill strengthens the monitoring of agents and adjusters to 
combat fraud and enhances the penalties available to USDA for 
companies, agents and producers who engage in fraudulent activities.
  There is simply no room for bad actors that recklessly cost the 
taxpayers money.
  Mr. President, I was prepared during our Committee markup earlier 
this year to offer an amendment related to a cooperative's role in the 
delivery of crop insurance.
  I held off at that time due to concerns from the Committee related to 
possible ``rebating'' ramifications and preemption of state law, but in 
working with RMA and Senators Kerrey and Grassley, we were able to 
craft an amendment that clarifies the role of cooperatives in the crop 
insurance program.
  I am pleased that the conferees included this amendment in the final 
version of the bill.
  This amendment does nothing to preempt state law or even change 
current federal law. It simply provides that current approved business 
practices be maintained. With the inclusion of my amendment Congress is 
recognizing the valuable role cooperatives play in the crop insurance 
program, specifically, encouraging producer participation in the crop 
insurance program, improving the delivery system for crop insurance, 
and helping to develop new and improved insurance products.

  My amendment requires the Risk Management Agency to finalize 
regulations that would incorporate the currently approved business 
practices of cooperatives participating in the crop insurance program 
and to do so within 180 days of enactment of this Act.
  If farmer owned entities are not allowed to sell crop insurance, then 
anyone can sell crop insurance in America except an American farmer. 
Such a legal result would give the appearance that crop insurance is 
designed for a closed club to exploit farmers.
  That appearance would inhibit broader use of crop insurance. I do not 
believe that such a result is the intent of those who have put so much 
effort into improving the crop insurance program.
  Mr. President, I would personally like to thank all staff members of 
the Committee and industry representatives that have helped with this 
effort. I would particularly like to thank Louie Perry of the National 
Cotton Council for his tireless efforts to make crop insurance more 
effective for cotton and other southern commodities.
  Mr. President, Arkansas farmers have told me time and time again that 
crop insurance just isn't affordable for the amount of coverage they 
receive. As the program currently exists, it does not make sound 
business sense to purchase crop insurance in our state. Since this 
reform process began, I've been working to correct this inequity. I 
hope that the changes we make today will lead to a crop insurance 
program that is equitable, affordable and effective.
  Crop insurance reform is not the only thing included in this 
legislation, however. $7.1 billion has been included to address the 
ongoing crisis in the agricultural community due to depressed market 
prices. I am pleased that Congress is acting more promptly this year to 
address the needs of our nation's producers. Numerous farmers in my 
home state of Arkansas have indicated that the additional assistance we 
provided over the last two years is the only reason their operations 
are still afloat today. While some commodities have seen a slight 
rebound, prices across the board are still too low to meet the 
increasing costs of production on our nation's farms.
  Congress has to provide these ``add on'' payments to producers 
because the current farm bill does not provide an adequate safety net 
when commodity markets head south. I voted against the 1996 Farm Bill 
because I feared that we would find ourselves in the exact position we 
do today, with one bailout after another.
  I introduced a bill earlier this year that would make reforms to the 
existing marketing loan program. An enhanced marketing loan program 
would provide additional assistance to our nation's producers without 
going through this annual ``horse trading'' over billions of dollars 
trying to determine who we are going to help. Farmers would be able to 
know at the beginning of the growing season what to expect from the 
government with regards to economic assistance instead of having to 
cross their fingers and hope Congress comes through.
  We are coming near the end of the life of the ``Freedom to Farm'' 
bill and as we begin discussions on what the next farm bill should look 
like I hope my colleagues will see the importance of providing an 
adequate safety net to our nation's farms.
  We must adequately support those who are supplying our nation, and 
many others, with safe, affordable food.
  Do not misread my remarks, I am pleased that Congress has acted 
promptly to address the needs of the agricultural community this year. 
I simply feel that there is a better way to approach our nation's 
agricultural policy. I hope my colleagues will agree and work to 
provide a better farm bill in the future.


                            inspection scam

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly raise an issue that is of 
the utmost importance to produce growers and shippers throughout every 
region in the United States and of great concern to me and several 
other of my colleagues in both the House and Senate.
  On October 27, 1999, eight Department of Agriculture (USDA) fruit and 
vegetable inspectors stationed at the Hunts Point Terminal Market in 
the Bronx, NY, were arrested and charged with accepting bribes for 
downgrading loads of produce so that receivers could negotiate lower 
prices with shippers. This week, I understand those inspectors were 
sentenced for their illegal

[[Page S4439]]

and fraudulent scam at the Hunts Point Terminal Market in the Bronx, 
New York.
  While these guilty inspectors are being held accountable through our 
legal system for their actions, the economic damages to the produce 
industry remain unaddressed. Moreover, to my knowledge, those 
individuals with direct oversight responsibility within the United 
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have not acknowledged to the 
Congress how their oversight activities failed, why the Department 
discounted complaints by the industry over the past several years, the 
number of inspections that are connected with the guilty USDA produce 
inspectors or even an estimate of the damages incurred by produce 
growers and shippers. This is unacceptable and USDA must act 
expeditiously to restore confidence and integrity in the federal 
inspection system for the produce industry.
  If injured parties are not justly compensated through the legal 
process, we must ensure that every appropriate action is taken by the 
Congress to ensure the losses that occurred as a result of this scam 
are returned to injured parties. Based on similar cases where fines 
paid by guilty parties have gone directly to the federal Treasury, it 
is very doubtful that growers or shippers injured will see any of the 
funding owed to them as a result of this unfortunate scam. I am 
certainly committed to working with the industry on this critical issue 
and urge both the Senate and House Agriculture Committees to take 
immediate action as soon as possible to move forward with a full 
investigation of this matter.
  Mr. LUGAR. I appreciate the remarks by my colleague from Idaho, 
Senator Craig. I agree that the Senate Agriculture Committee should 
review how these growers can recover their economic losses resulting 
from illegal actions by federal employees. The Department of 
Agriculture has oversight responsibility for the actions that may have 
resulted in millions of dollars of losses to these growers. This matter 
should be fully explored and resolved. As part of committee review, I 
will continue to receive reports from the office of the Inspector 
General. It is important that this industry regain confidence in the 
inspection system that they use.
  Mr. President, two provisions of the conference agreement warrant 
some clarification as to how they should be carried out. Section 243(g) 
allows a third State to expand coverage of the Child and Adult Care 
Food Program to additional for-profit child care centers serving lower-
income children. It should be clear to the Secretary in implementing 
this amendment that the additional State must meet the criteria for 
approval at the time of enactment and is one that exempts all of its 
lower-income families from child care cost-sharing requirements, while 
allowing fees to be charged on a sliding scale to higher-income 
families. Section 243(b)(2) requires that a minimum number of site 
visits to day care centers, homes, and sponsors be conducted. The 
amendment recognizes that the Secretary can strengthen this measure by 
requiring more than the minimum numbers called for in the amendment.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
conference report on H.R. 2559, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 
2000. This conference report has two major components: a crop insurance 
reform bill and a major farm relief package. I want to comment briefly 
on each of these.
  I support the crop insurance reform bill because it will increase 
premium subsidies for farmers who buy more comprehensive coverage and 
support research of new crop insurance policies for currently non-
insurable specialty crops that are important in Rhode Island and other 
states in the Northeast. It is an important step forward in a long-term 
bipartisan effort to encourage farmers across the country to obtain 
more crop insurance coverage and reduce income losses due to natural 
disasters. I was disappointed that the Senate bill's risk management 
pilot project was dropped in conference with the House. The pilot 
project would have allowed farmers to choose between traditional crop 
insurance and a direct payment for adopting new risk management 
practices such as farm diversification, futures contracts and options, 
creation of conservation buffers, soil erosion control, and irrigation 
management. I believe we should continue to explore ways to offer 
increased income to farmers for whom crop insurance has not worked 
well, while encouraging producers to adopt new risk management 
strategies that are good for the environment.
  I am pleased that this crop insurance bill removes the ``area 
trigger'' for the Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, also 
known as NAP. I believe broader NAP eligibility is one of the most 
effective ways to assist farmers in the eastern United States who face 
severe production losses due to drought, floods, or other disasters.
  Currently, NAP crops are eligible for assistance when: (1) expected 
``Area Yield'' for the crop is reduced by more than 35 percent because 
of natural disaster; and (2) individual crop losses are in excess of 50 
percent of the individual's approved yield, or the producer is 
prevented from planting more than 35 percent of the acreage intended 
for the eligible crop.
  These criteria have proven to be unworkable in many eastern states, 
both in terms of program accessibility and timeliness of payments. For 
individual growers of specialty crops, typically grown on small 
acreage, a loss of as little as 20 percent can be devastating, 
especially given the high per-acre value of these crops. Moreover, the 
process of verifying area yield reductions is cumbersome and 
exceedingly time-consuming, resulting in waiting periods of several 
months or, in some cases, more than a year for payment.
  Giving the Secretary of Agriculture broader discretion over delivery 
of NAP program funds will streamline the approval process and make 
direct assistance available to thousands of farmers whose substantial 
losses do not meet NAP criteria under the current area trigger.
  I am also pleased that the bill includes $50 million for the 
Secretary of Agriculture to provide cost-share assistance to farmers in 
states with low historical participation in traditional crop insurance 
programs. These funds will be targeted to farmers who pursue innovative 
conservation and risk management techniques, including: streambank 
repairs and reconstruction; integrated pest management tools; 
construction or improvement of watershed management structures; 
transition to organic farming, particularly among dairy farmers; and 
futures, hedging or options contracts to help reduce production, price 
or revenue risks.
  Substantial funds are also included for crop insurance education and 
information programs for states with low levels of federal crop 
insurance participation and availability. Combining expanded outreach 
programs like these with increased research into new policies for 
specialty crops is the best way to get more farmers into the program 
and hopefully reduce the need for farm disaster legislation.

  With regard to the farm relief component of the conference report 
before us today, I am disappointed that the entire $5.5 billion of the 
package's FY2000 funds, fully 77% of the $7.1 billion provided in this 
farm assistance package, consists of additional AMTA or ``Freedom to 
Farm'' payments. Only a very small proportion of farmers in my state 
and in other Northeastern states will benefit from these payments. 
Meanwhile, additional AMTA payments will be made to many other farmers 
regardless of whether they have experienced substantial losses during 
the current crop year.
  I and many of my colleagues from the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 
opposed the farm disaster bill passed by the Senate last year because 
it did not provide adequate relief to farmers in our region who were 
hit by the terrible drought conditions of 1999. The National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that four states in the 
Northeast, including Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware, 
experienced the driest growing season in their histories. From April 
through July, Rhode Island was the driest it has been in 105 years of 
record-keeping by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
  Forecasters at the National Weather Service are predicting continued 
drought conditions this year, because we are starting out with a 
deficit of rainfall and, even with the snowstorms of January, winter 
precipitation was 3.5 inches below normal for our region.

[[Page S4440]]

  Fortunately, the removal of the NAP area trigger I described earlier 
will help if disaster strikes again this year. In addition, the farm 
relief package includes $200 million for purchases of specialty crops 
for low prices in 1998 and 1999, including apples, cranberries, black-
eyed peas, cherries, citrus, onions, melons, peaches, and potatoes. 
Manager language is included to direct the Secretary of Agriculture, to 
the extent practicable, to purchase directly from farmers or 
agricultural co-ops.
  Another $5 million is provided by the farm relief package for apple 
producers that are suffering economic loss as a result of low prices. 
$35 million is provided for Loan Deficiency Payments for non-AMTA farms 
for the 2000 crop year, and $50 million is provided for the Farmland 
Protection Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 
both of which are important to my state and the Northeastern region of 
the country. Finally, the farm relief package requires the Department 
of Agriculture to purchase specialty crop farm products for the school 
lunch program, again with manager language included to direct the 
Secretary, to the extent practicable, to purchase directly from farmers 
or agricultural co-ops.
  With the passage of this legislation we will give farmers the tools 
they need to manage their risk more effectively, and possibly reduce 
the need for Congress to pass massive farm disaster packages year after 
year. At the same time, I believe we are beginning to recognize the 
contributions and needs of farmers in every region of the country, 
farmers who not only feed the world but preserve a way of life that 
makes our Nation stronger and protects our precious open spaces from 
the encroachment of development and urban sprawl.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report to accompany 
the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000.


     submitting changes to h. con. res. 290 pursuant to section 216

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 216 of H. Con. Res. 290 (the 
FY2001 Budget Resolution) permits the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee to make adjustments to the allocation of budget authority and 
outlays to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, provided certain 
conditions are met.
  Pursuant to section 216, I hereby submit the following revisions to 
H. Con. Res. 290:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Current allocation to Senate Agriculture Committee
 
Fiscal year:
  2000 Budget Authority..............................    $10,843,000,000
  2000 Outlays.......................................      7,940,000,000
  2001 Budget Authority..............................     14,254,000,000
  2001 Outlays.......................................     10,542,000,000
  2001-2005 Budget Authority.........................     61,372,000,000
  2001-2005 Outlays..................................     43,745,000,000
 
                     Adjustments
 
Fiscal year:
  2000 Budget Authority..............................      5,500,000,000
  2000 Outlays.......................................      5,500,000,000
  2001 Budget Authority..............................      1,639,000,000
  2001 Outlays.......................................      1,493,000,000
  2001-2005 Budget Authority.........................      1,608,000,000
  2001-2005 Outlays..................................      1,619,000,000
 
  Revised allocation to Senate Agriculture Committee
 
  2000 Budget Authority..............................     16,343,000,000
  2000 Outlays.......................................     13,440,000,000
  2001 Budget Authority..............................     15,893,000,000
  2001 Outlays.......................................     12,035,000,000
  2001-2005 Budget Authority.........................     62,980,000,000
  2001-2005 Outlays..................................     45,364,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we address two issues vital to our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers: the need to reform the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program, and the need for financial relief to help producers 
deal with the third year in a row of low prices.
  I support this Crop Insurance conference report, and I will vote for 
it. But I must also express my deep concerns about the farm relief 
provisions of the bill.
  Half of this bill represents Congress at its best.
  Last year Congress was given a mandate to improve the federal crop 
insurance program--both by the strength of public support for reform, 
and by the Budget Committee's allocation of $6 billion last year and $8 
billion this year expressly to implement that reform.
  Half of this bill responds to that call, and offers increased 
benefits to farmers. Those benefits are well-conceived, and they are 
equitable.
  The program invests public resources in a system that effectively 
leverages funds in the private sector, and empowers producers to use 
their own best judgment in managing their production risk.
  I want to thank my colleagues and their staffs, who have dedicated 
long hours over the past year, for their excellent work in reforming 
this vital program.
  However, I believe that the other half of this bill represents a low 
moment for Congress.
  The other half of this bill represents, for the third year in a row, 
Congress' stubborn refusal to address another significant risk of 
farming: price risk.
  Across the country, and for numerous commodities, poor prices have 
dogged producers for three years now.
  The $7.1 billion in this bill that will go to producers as ad hoc 
emergency relief is critically needed in the countryside. We should be 
providing resources to struggling farmers and ranchers.
  But I am deeply disappointed with the way the funds are distributed.
  Clearly, it would have been impossible to perfectly match resources 
to need--particularly under the time constraints we face.
  But we could have done better than this.
  This year could have been different than the past two years. 
Producers pleaded with Congress to make it different, and it should 
have been different.
  First, by including the relief allocation in the Budget resolution, 
the Budget Committee allowed Congress to avoid the rancorous fight over 
emergency spending authorization that has plagued us in the past two 
years.
  Second, in contrast to the previous two years, this year the 
Agriculture Committee was made the arbiter of how the funding would be 
allocated.
  This should have resulted in hearings and the kind of substantive, 
constructive debate that yields good policy.
  Third, Congress was given a deadline of June 29 by which to determine 
how to spend this money, which provided more than adequate time for 
such a debate to occur.
  Despite all of these advantages, here we are, a month early, with a 
bill produced in the very same way as the two emergency relief bills 
that preceded it--behind closed doors, without the free and open 
exchange of ideas, and without the opportunity for amendments by 
members on behalf of their constituents.
  So, we are left with farm relief that I and many of my colleagues 
believe is deeply flawed. Once again, our assistance fails to target 
family farmers.

  Once again, it wastes public dollars on the biggest operators, who 
have little or no need for emergency relief.
  Once again, it wastes public dollars on some people who do not farm 
at all.
  Most importantly--once again--it fails to meet critical needs in farm 
country.
  With over $7 billion at our disposal, Agriculture Committee 
jurisdiction, and time for debate, not one hearing has been held to 
assess the scope of need.
  A flawed process has produced a flawed bill. But because farmers and 
ranchers are in need of relief, I intend to vote for the conference 
report.
  For the third year in a row, I urge my colleagues to acknowledge the 
failures of current farm policy, and come together to change it.
  We need policies that better address the interests of family farmers 
and ranchers.
  In addition to crop insurance, fair trade, and competitive 
opportunities for all producers, farmers and ranchers must have an 
income safety-net that can offset severe price fluctuations, and that 
can help manage uncertainties in the marketplace.
  Such policies are critical to long-term survival in an industry in 
which the majority of producers operate on margins of less than 5 
percent.
  I believe there is a lot we can agree on.
  And by working together, in the spirit of the crop insurance portion 
of this bill, I am certain that there is a lot we can accomplish.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. Farmers in 
Wisconsin and all across the country need improved risk management 
products to

[[Page S4441]]

help them guard against adverse weather and market conditions. I also 
want to express my thanks to Chairman Lugar, Senator Harkin, and other 
members of the Agriculture Committee for including in this conference 
report expansion of a dairy options pilot program that will help dairy 
farmers achieve similar levels of protection afforded other 
agricultural producers.
  I also want to mention the fact that this conference report includes 
$7.1 billion in additional assistance to farmers and ranchers this year 
and in 2001. This level of spending was made possible due to a budget 
reserve included in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution which 
provided an additional $5.5 billion in mandatory spending to the 
Agriculture Committee in fiscal year 2000 and an additional $1.6 
billion in fiscal year 2001. The budget resolution specified that these 
funds were to be made available to assistance producers of program and 
special crops. Senator Domenici, chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, made reference to the action taken by both the Budget and 
Agriculture Committees in providing for this budgeted approach to 
meeting the needs of America's farmers.
  I want to take this opportunity to mention additional assistance for 
farmers provided in the pending Agriculture appropriations bill which 
includes, among other items, emergency spending for America's dairy 
farmers. Senators will note that within the additional $7.1 billion 
included in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, no funds are 
provided for dairy farmers who are now suffering from the greatest 
price collapse in history. Dairy farmers in Wisconsin, in Vermont, in 
the South, in the West, in all parts of the nation are suffering 
terribly from this dire emergency and it is proper that the Congress 
take action, as we have, to meet this situation.
  I mention this in order to remind my colleagues that we will shortly 
be considering the Agriculture appropriations bill on the Senate Floor 
and I ask for the support of all Senators in our efforts to help 
America's dairy farmers. I would also note that to those who may be 
confusing the funding provided in our bill with the amount provided in 
the budget resolution, that dairy producers were not included in the 
description of agricultural producers to receive assistance though the 
agricultural budget reserve directed to the authorizing committee. The 
emergency funding for dairy farmers is separate from the actions taken 
in the bill now before the Senate, is indeed an emergency, and the 
action taken by the Appropriations Committee in this regard is proper 
and must go forward.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, our colleagues have suggested that if 
Senators are amenable to yielding back time, at least in this instance, 
we might proceed to a vote, with the understanding that provision might 
be made for additional time for comments by Senators on this 
legislation. There would appear, at least to the ranking member and 
myself, to be no visible opposition.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I have no problem with yielding time. I have to go to my 
daughter's recital. If I can speak after the vote for 5 minutes, I 
would appreciate that.
  Mr. LUGAR. We have been trying to accommodate our side. They were 
aware we might have another hour of debate, but in the event that the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Minnesota are 
prepared to yield back all time, I would be prepared to do that.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator will yield, I would like to comment 
for the Record, also.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield back my time.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield back the time yielded to me.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
conference report.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), amd the Senator from 
Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 4, as follows:--

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 115 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

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

                                NAYS--4

     Kyl
     Mack
     McCain
     Nickles

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Dodd
     Gregg
     Inouye
     Murkowski
     Voinovich
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
table that.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I want to take just 1 minute to thank the 
staffs who have made this event possible. From my own staff: The chief 
of staff Keith Luse, Dave Johnson, Terry Nintemann, Andy Morton, 
Michael Knipe, Carol Dubard, Bob White, Danny Spellacy, Jeff Burnam, 
Marcia Asquith, and Bob Sturm;
  From Senator Harkin's staff, who worked with us so well: Mark 
Halverson and Stephanie Mercier;
  From Senator Roberts' staff: Mike Seyfert;
  From Senator Cochran's staff: Hunt Shipman;
  From Senator Helms' staff: George Holding and Brian Meyers;
  From Senator Coverdell's staff: Richard Gupton and Alex Albert;
  From Senator Kerrey's staff: Bev Paul;
  From Senator Leahy's staff: Ed Barron and Melody Burkins;
  From Senator Conrad's staff: Scott Carlson;
  From the Legislative Counsel's staff: Gary Endicott and Greg Kostka;
  And from the House Agriculture staffs, who worked for 3 weeks 
continuously with our Senate staff: Bill O'Conner, chief of that staff; 
Tom Sell; Vernie Hubert; and Chip Conley.
  I thank again the distinguished ranking member.
  I earlier mentioned especially Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey as 
authors of an excellent crop insurance legislation bill, and Senator 
Craig who has offered titles IV and V. I thank the majority leader, 
Senator Lott, and minority leader, Senator Daschle, for expediting our 
having this opportunity.
  Finally, I thank all Senators for a decisive vote on what I believe 
is significant legislation for America's farmers.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I join with my distinguished chairman, 
thanking all the staff who worked so hard on this and hammered out all 
the agreements over a long period of time on both sides of the aisle. 
All the Members of our committee and their staffs did a great job. I 
join our distinguished chairman in thanking them.
  Let me also thank our chairman, our leader, Senator Lugar, for his 
persistence and doggedness in getting this bill through. I think it has 
been at least 1\1/2\ years, if I am not mistaken, since we started on 
this road. It has had a lot of twists and turns and ups and downs.

[[Page S4442]]

 Senator Lugar stayed in there. He knew how important this bill was to 
our farmers. It is a great bill. It is one that is really going to help 
our farmers manage their risks.
  I again compliment him and thank him for his leadership but also for 
being so kind and generous, to always work with me and be open and 
aboveboard. I have never had an instance where I thought in any way 
that my chairman was ever keeping anything hidden, going behind the 
door or anything such as that. It has been a great working 
relationship. I thank my friend and my chairman for having that kind of 
good working relationship with this side of the aisle.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will take a few seconds. Earlier in my 
statement I said very nice things, as they deserved, about the 
chairman, ranking member, and their staffs and every other staff member 
of the Agriculture Committee except for one. That was the person who 
wrote the statement I was reading earlier on the floor. So I want to 
just take a moment to thank Bev Paul for all the work she did on this 
piece of legislation. I appreciate very much Senator Harkin, you and 
Leader Daschle, trusting me enough to put me on the 
conference committee. I appreciate Bev's contribution to it.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the distinguished manager will just yield 
for an observation? It will not take long.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say hearty thanks to the U.S. 
Senate for passing the budget resolution that contemplated this issue 
and this problem and this solution. Normally, in years past on 
agriculture emergencies, we have waited until the end of the year and 
gotten into an enormous argument as to how much emergency relief is 
enough emergency relief. This year we decided, in the budget 
resolution, with the help of some experts and the committee, to decide 
that we would modify the resolution that applies to this year and 
provide $5.5 billion in this year's budget to be spent by the 
authorizing committee from a reserve fund set up by the Budget 
Committee and $1.6 billion for next year, all of which could be used 
for emergency purposes by the authorizing committee if they chose.
  They have chosen to follow that to the letter: $5.5 billion this year 
and $1.6 billion next year. We have provided in advance a pretty good 
package, as my colleagues have said, on emergency relief.
  I am not the expert. I am not here vouching for every item in the 
bill, but I am suggesting it is good to recognize that we had the 
foresight this time in advance to devise a prescription for the 
solution of what I think is most of the emergency relief that is going 
to be sought for farmers. There may be others in other bills. I thank 
everyone for living under that resolution and under that format. I 
thank the experts who told us this is a pretty good package, and we 
provided for it in advance. It turned out to be a pretty good dollar 
number that provides a rather substantial amount of relief.
  In addition, we have had budgeted for quite sometime money for crop 
insurance. It has been languishing until now. It is high time a 
solution to that has been tailored, and now they are together. There is 
$7.1 billion of emergency assistance, and it is prescribed by the 
budgets we have voted for heretofore.
  I commend those who have lived within those margins. I do hope the 
farmers of America understand that we have prescribed a very large 
package here, in addition to the regular appropriations bill that comes 
through, and we may have additional arguments on how much additional 
emergency money might be provided, if any.
  I do believe this is a good example of doing it right for a change. 
We did it right from the very start, and now we are seeing the fruits 
of some good thinking in advance to avoid conflict at the end of the 
year.
  Mr. President, while the spending in this conference report does not 
violate the budget, and again I congratulate the authors for following 
those spending guidelines, I must be honest in saying that some 
provisions in Title II of this conference report concern me. When the 
Budget Committee established the $7.1 billion funding to assist 
producers of program crops and specialty crops, I can assure you that 
at least this Senator did not envision some of the types of indirect 
assistance to producers this bill provides. Nonetheless the bulk of 
assistance will go directly to producers and provide some relief to 
those now suffering depressed farm incomes.
  Finally, it must be said, that once this $5.5 billion in Agriculture 
Marketing Transition Act, AMTA, payments are made this year, total 
Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC, outlays for FY 2000 may exceed $30 
billion--a historic record level of spending. Just for the calendar 
year 2000, direct payments to producers will exceed $21.6 billion--
another record. It is also understood that when we return from the 
Memorial Day recess, the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill may be 
before the Senate, and it to may contain additional emergency spending 
for the current fiscal year.
  At a time when the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament are 
focused on agriculture trade issues, and the level of subsidies being 
provided on both sides of the Atlantic, I think it is important to take 
a step back and make sure we all understand what assistance is being 
provided in this bill to agriculture.
  I will support this conference agreement today. But I hope that 
another bill the Senate may consider after the recess--the PNTR China 
bill--will provide expanded markets for our agriculture sector and 
thereby lessen the need for future agriculture subsidies. Most farmers 
and ranchers I know want to and will produce for the market given a 
chance. They do not want and should not want to ``farm'' government 
subsidies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar, 
Senator Harkin, and all the conferees for their hard work in producing 
a fair final crop insurance package that will provide $100 million in 
targeted programs for Northeastern farmers who have struggled in recent 
years, facing low prices and severe damage by drought, flooding, and 
freezing.
  Speaking on behalf of the farmers of New York State, I especially 
thank my esteemed colleague, Senator Pat Leahy, and his hardworking 
staff--Ed Barron, J.P. Dowd, and Melody Burkins--for their creativity 
and persistence in defending the interests of our region which have all 
too often been neglected in agricultural debates.
  Back in March, I joined Senators Pat Leahy, Bob Torricelli, and Jack 
Reed in a spirited and successful effort to amend this bill to include, 
for the first time in the history of crop insurance, funds targeted 
specifically to help our region.
  Northeastern farmers have historically low participation in crop 
insurance for several reasons. Many grow speciality crops that are not 
eligible for Federal crop insurance, or find that, while they are 
eligible, the Federal crop insurance programs do not fit their needs. 
Many are simply not aware of available crop insurance options or have 
no agents located nearby to sell them policies.
  The results have often been catastrophic. When a disaster such as 
last summer's drought strikes, our farmers have no safety net to fall 
back on, unlike so many of their Midwestern and Southern counterparts.
  As such, these provisions--a $50 million program to promote risk 
management practices tailored to Northeastern farmers, $25 million for 
crop insurance education and recruitment targeted at areas 
traditionally underserved by crop insurance, and $25 million for 
research into better crop insurance programs for the Northeast--will go 
a long way to helping the farmers of New England and the Mid-Atlantic 
region.
  Our farmers will especially benefit from the removal of the area 
trigger for crop insurance policies. This will benefit farmers located 
in areas isolated by valleys or mountains by allowing them to collect 
crop insurance for their localized disasters.
  Further, specialty crop farmers, as so many of the fruit and 
vegetables growers in New York State, will benefit from the $200 
million USDA purchase of speciality crops as directed in the emergency 
agriculture package attached to this bill.

[[Page S4443]]

  I also echo Senator Leahy's remarks on our understanding of the 
Agriculture appropriations bill, which we have been assured will 
contain several additional critical provisions, particularly the 
assistance for our Nation's dairy farmers who have suffered terribly 
from low prices, and for apple farmers who have been hard hit by low 
yields and low quality after 2 years of unavoidable weather extremes, 
from hurricanes to drought.
  I have visited regularly with dairy and apple farmers in my own State 
and can say they desperately need our help.
  I thank, once again, the conferees for crafting a bill that for the 
first time truly takes into account the unique needs of Northeastern 
farmers. I voted for the package, and I am glad so many of my fellow 
Senators voted for it as well.

                          ____________________